Dear Santa, Do You Have My Brand-18p

8/3/2019 Dear Santa, Do You Have My Brand-18p

1/18

Keywords:

Branding, childrens

consumption,

content analysis,

Christmas

Dr Aron OCass

School of Marketing

& Management,

Griffith University-

Gold Coast,

PMB 50 Gold Coast

Mail Center 9726

Queensland, Australia

Tel: +61 7 5594 8139

Fax: +61 7 5594 8085

E-mail: A.Ocass@

mailbox.gu.edu.au

Dear Santa, do you have my brand?A study of the brand requests,awareness and request styles atChristmas timeReceived (in revised form): 6th August, 2001

Aron OCass

is a senior lecturer at Griffith University in the school of marketing and management.

He has a bachelor of commerce majoring in marketing, a master of business majoring

in marketing and a PhD focusing on consumer behaviour. He has published on topics

such as political marketing, voter choice, consumer brand associations, service choice

behaviour. His publications appear in the European Journal of Marketing, Psychology and

Marketing, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Economic Psychology, Journal of

Services Marketing and Journal of Advertising.

Peter Clarke

has a Bachelor of Commerce majoring in Marketing and Human Resource

Management with 1st Class Honours in Marketing. Peter Clarke has delivered papers

on consumer behaviour at Anzmac and World Marketing Congress conferences.

Research interests include consumer behaviour, gift giving and buyer behaviour at

Christmas, and historical or cultural icons as consumption objects.

AbstractThis study examines brand awareness (preferences) and request styles (communicationapproaches) at Christmas of Australian children and adults. The study is founded in the

growing Santa Claus literature that has examined various issues related to gift giving andrequest behaviour at Christmas time. The study is based on the content analysis of 422letters written by children to Santa Claus. The results indicate that children are brand-orientated in their request behaviour, adopt fairly meaningful request strategies and usevisual imagery ie graphics in their communication strategies in their attempts to securetheir requested gifts and specific brands.

INTRODUCTIONChristmas where the gum trees growThere is no frost and there is no snowChristmas in Australias hotCold and frosty is what its notWhen the bloom of the Jacaranda tree is

hereChristmas time is nearTo ride around the bush where its dryTo cart all the presents piled so highA red nosed reindeer would never doSanta should jump on a kangaroo(Sabegal, undated)

These words are from a favourite

Australian Christmas song a

reminder that snow, reindeer, elves and

maybe even Santa Claus seem out of

place in Australia. Yet this Northern

hemisphere myth of Santa, symbolism

and all the Christmas activities are just

as evident at summer time in Australia

as they are in in the norths coldest,

darkest winters. Even more evident is

the transition of this festive season of

sharing and celebrating the birth of

Jesus into the season of giving, and

more often than not, giving and

requesting lots. The new gods of

Christmas now worshipped, are toy

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 1, 3753 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817 37


2/18

companies and their marketing armies

(elves).

Although Christmas is the

cornerstone of Christianity, it is also the

time of Santa and gift giving (Caplow

and Williamson, 1980). With the

complicity of parents, Santa Claus is theembodiment of a request culture that

endorses and encourages hedonistic

behaviour which contributes to the

socialisation of children into the self-

indulgent consumption associated with

the materialism of Western cultures

(Belk, 1987). Such requests are made

known to Santa either during a visit to

the Santa village located in a shopping

centre or offered as a written wish list to

Santa in a letter.

SANTA, CHILDREN, PARENTS AND

SOCIALISED REQUEST BEHAVIOUR

The participation in request behaviour

associated with (the tradition and myth

of) Christmas is an important

socialisation process where adults teach

children to become consumers. Bahn

(1986) describes socialisation as a

process of attending to and knowing

objects by, means of the senses, while

Mochis (1985) argues that this process

relies on the primary involvement of

parents and the family in general. Thisprocess is important because it helps to

develop preferences for purchasing and

consuming certain products over others

and may extend to brand preferences,

and both parental and marketplace

information contributes to a childs

brand awareness, familiarity or

knowledge. Children are increasingly

participating in family decision

processes (McNeal, 1992) and becoming

important marketplace participants

through a number of contemporary

social factors such as increasing

household affluence, growing

independence allowed to children and

greater consumer socialisation

(Lackman and Lanasa, 1993; McNeal,

1992). If there is previous experience or

exposure, Phelps and Hoy (1996)

suggest that either childrens or adults

attitudes toward familiar brands have a

strong relationship with a positive

purchase request, purchase decision or

both. This dominance of some brands

over others at Christmas time has

important social and marketing

implications.In the area of childrens decision

making, Bahn (1986) maintains that

older children make judgments on

multiple attributes while younger

children discriminate on one or maybe

two attributes. Research into childrens

consumer activities as early as the 1960s

has indicated that children influence

purchase decisions in the general

categories of confectionery, snacks,

cereal and soft drinks (Ward and

Wackman, 1968). Increases in the range

of product available to children has

occurred, however, because licensing

arrangements are moving brands

targeted at children into product

categories of apparel or juveniles

merchandise (Miller, 1990) and there

has been a growth in products and

brands now targeted at children. Thus, a

broadening of what might be termed

childrens product categories is being

seen. Children are becoming more

orientated toward fashion with popular

character motifs (Haynes et al., 1993),rock paraphernalia (Otnes et al., 1994b)

and sports icons. They also have a

strong influence in the purchase

decisions for shoes and video games

(McNeal, 1992). In Australia, the

Christmas period accounts for about 60

per cent of the A$2.2bn annual sales in a

leisure market which consists of

product categories such as traditional

toys, clothing, confectionery,

audiovisual, books, stationery, sports,

furniture and accessories (Meegan,

1993). Although the traditional toys and

clothing still dominate, audiovisual,

sports and furniture are indicative of the

increased range of products that appeal

to children. Moreover, children are

turning to contemporary products such

as audiovisual equipment, electronics

and computer-based games that account

38 Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 2, 1, 3753 #Henry Stewart Publications 1472-0817

Aron OCass and Peter Clarke
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/18

for approximately 20 per cent of the

Australian toy market (Vowles, 1996)

and, in general, Australian children

aged 14 to 17 own high-tech products in

comparable percentages to Australian

adults (Schiffman et al., 2001). Children

now have an opportunity to expresstheir preferences in an increasingly

expanding range of products and while

request behaviour is not the sole

domain of children, it is accentuated at

Christmas time and adults are placed

under enormous pressure to deliver the

goods (the right brand).

CHILDREN AND BRANDS

Hite and Hite (1995) argue that children

use product attributes to judge and

create preferences for brands of

products. They also express their

preferences in personal purchases

(McNeal, 1992) or request others to

make purchase for them (Ward and

Wackman, 1968). John and Sujan (1990)

have indicated that children categorise

products through visual cues of shape,

package, colour and size. Generally,

younger children cannot read and they

often use brand names or symbols as

attributes (Ward et al., 1977) or packages

as brand cues (Hite and Hite, 1995).

According to Percy and Rossiter (1992)such visual images are often enough to

stimulate a response by children to a

brand and use non-product attributes to

identify differences in brands. Children

appear to know the value and use of

brands to nominate their preferences

across a wide range of products. It has

been argued that children over the age

of two appear to have the capacity to

recognise, classify and evaluate brand

or product alternatives (Macklin, 1994)

that satisfy their own desires and

openly express these preferences

through letters written to Santa.

Toy brands have extended into

product areas not previously considered

as a childrens domain (Miller, 1990;

Haynes et al., 1993; Otnes et al., 1994b).

Children, however, often become highly

familiar with nationally advertised

brands at an early age (Hite and Hite,

1995; Reda, 1995). Therefore, requesting

a brand is not necessarily a restriction to

the product category of toys but a

continuation of that brand across other

product categories that a child seeks to

own or consume. According to Miller(1990), childrens recognition and

knowledge of brands is such that they

know one brand name can cover

requests as diverse as cereal, soft drinks

and confectionery to household linen,

toiletries and magazines. Children may

understand the concept of brand

extension (Hite and Hite, 1995) and they

should be able to nominate multiple

requests for a brand name over a

number of categories to display a

multiple brand-orientation in their

request behaviour. Children may be

brand aware and parental

encouragement in requesting and

acquiring product and brand

knowledge may be prominent at

Christmas and communication in this

period should cover such aspects.

REQUESTS WRITTEN BY CHILDREN AS

COMMUNICATION

Similar semantic phrases that cover

logical and affective appeals as well as

position formation appear in both oraland written approaches to

communication phraseology. For

example, written lists can omit words or

phrases to allow greater effect, with the

sender sorting statements into some

perceived order or grouping (Erftmier

and Dyson, 1986). Young children often

write about animals or people, but they

prefer to write in the non-narrative

format of lists, short notes, signs and

labels (Shook et al., 1989). Such

communication approaches allow key

words, phrases and concepts to be

sorted into a perceived order or

grouping for stronger effect, and can be

re-read and checked by them (Wetton,

1996). Weiss and Sachs (1991) indicated

that boys generally followed the

strategy type of rules, fair play and

reason, while girls used a format of


Dear Santa, do you have my brand?
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/18

statements or questions. This gender

effect indicates that boys use the art of

reason, while girls simply expect the

request to be honoured. Although there

are differences between oral and written

communications, children appear able

to adapt their communication strategyto different situations such as a visit or a

letter to Santa at Christmas.

HYPOTHESIS FORMATION

Given the lack of research on brand

identification and request behaviours of

Australian children at Christmas, there

is a need to combine the request items,

phraseology and illustrative content to

help understand how children express

their desires. Younger children do not

have the access to purchase products

directly and television advertising

encourages request behaviour in this

group through familiar messages such

as ask mom to get one (Kunkel and

Roberts, 1991). Hite and Hite (1995)

argue, however, that children appear to

be able to recognise and rely on brand

name and package cues to nominate

their preferences. Both boys and girls

brand knowledge seems to be alike

because they generally have similar

exposure to a number of different and

varied sources of information, learningand entertainment (McNeal, 1992).

Caron and Ward (1975) suggest

television is the major source of

information for childrens request

choices and children also accompany

adults to shopping centres (McNeal,

1992) and because of such exposure

children know and use brands to

express their wishes precisely. The

similarities in exposure to products and

brands as well as the encouragement of

unrestricted request activities at

Christmas for boys and girls suggest:

H1: There will not be a significant

difference between the number of

brands requested by boys and girls

when children write letters to Santa.

Otnes et al. (1994a) refer to politeness as

a socially accepted form of ingratiation

and an integral part of any request

strategy. Erftmier and Dyson (1986)

infer politeness is an essential

component in written communication

and also a form of friendship or

solidarity in the affective appeals viawritten and verbal approaches, If

politeness is a socialised trait, then:


difference between the politeness of

girls gift request strategy and boys

gift request strategy.

Weiss and Sachs (1991) suggest boys

oral strategy is based upon rules, fair

play and reason which means they seek

the why challenge of direct statements

and do not use an indirect request

communication style. On the other

hand, girls expect any requests to be

honoured through simple, yet indirect

requests. Such views suggest that girls

should be less direct in the way they

write requests and therefore:

H3: The letters girls write for

themselves will contain

significantly more indirect request

strategies than letters boys write for

themselves.

Since lists and pictures constitutes a

form of written communication and

children generally have similar

exposure to information or learning,

expectations are that:


difference between the numbers of

illustrations contained in girls and

boys letters to Santa.

RESEARCH METHOD

Some adults may want to know what

their children desire as Christmas gifts

and persuade children to write a letter

to Santa, that openly describes,

identifies or requests the gifts they

desire . The letters seemingly act as a

surrogate request to parents and


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/18

generally are considered to be a written

expression of intent, behaviour and

intrinsic values that openly express

feelings within the broad topic of

Christmas wishes (Richardson and

Simpson, 1982). The awareness and

knowledge of brands and gifts togetherwith semantic phrase and illustrations

are identifiable and measurable within

the content analysis research method.

Content analysis is an acceptable

research method used to evaluate the

content of recorded information (Kolbe

and Burnett, 1991; Zickmund, 1994).

Content analysis is an unobtrusive

method that negates biased responses

and is used to gauge behavioural or

affective consumer responses (Kolbe

and Burnett, 1991; Malhotra et al., 1996).

It has also been used in a variety of

research contexts, such as television

commercials (Olney et al., 1991) and

printed advertisements (Belk and

Pollay, 1985). Importantly, letters to

Santa Claus have previously been used

as a source of data for content analysis

(Caron and Ward, 1975; Richardson and

Simpson, 1982; Downs, 1983; Otnes

et al., 1994a,b).

THE STUDY

A convenience sample of letters writtento Santa was obtained from a national

retailer in the run-up to Christmas. The

retailer enjoys a high level of patronage

across its outlets and encourages adults

and children to post a letter to Santa in

the Christmas village precinct of its

stores. These letters reflect the

importance of the request tradition and

are a suitable source of data. Individual

stores within the retail chain forwarded

convenience samples of letters received,

and they constitute an adequate sample

for the study. Following similar

procedures and recommendations

adopted by Otnes et al. (1994) and

Richardson and Simpson (1982), a

number of letters were excluded

some because they were generated by

keyboard and their true authorship

could not be satisfactorily established

and others because they were only

scribble drawings or illegible scrawl.

Letters requesting single items as a

shared gift (for example, a trampoline

for a sister and brother) caused

difficulty in identifying a singular

recipient. The current study alsoexcluded the non-committed request

style that sought plenty of toys,

surprises or something nice. Also,

specific requests by children for gifts of

pets, or gifts to their pets; requests by

children for gifts for parents; requests

by parents for gifts for themselves;

requests for conspicuous consumption

items like a million dollars, travel,

boats or cars, which are not realistic

gifts for a child; and requests for boy

friends or calendar pin-ups were

excluded.

Otnes et al. (1994b) excluded letters

written by adults because they were

considered to hold an adults view. The

present study also identifies that letters

containing such statements as I am

three years old and mummy is writing

this letter for me are written entirely by

adults, and as such, are an adult view

irrespective of whether the letter is or is

not dictated or influenced by the child.

Finally, exclusion of the letters that

combine efforts of both adult andchildren in writing the letter to Santa,

which could be categorised as

partnership letters, were undertaken

because there is difficulty in assessing

the instigator of the letter.

The final sample of letters was

categorised via five specific

characteristics. The first was the gender

of the child, second the authorship of

the letter and the third was the

aggregated brand request styles. The

other two concern the use of semantic

phrases and illustrations. The number of

categories and the ease of

implementation influence any approach

to establishing intercoder reliability and

agreement (Krippendorf, 1980; Perrault

and Leigh, 1989). A simple approach to

intercoder reliability requires fewer

categories, and therefore less


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/18

opportunity for error. The authorship

construct developed for this study is

narrow with two elementary categories

and the disagreement between judges

was minimal. Any disagreement about

authorship of a particular letter negated

the use of that letter. All other categorieswere adequately summarised through

previous construct guides and the

coding process is explained in the

following paragraphs.

Child authors were identified through

such statements such as I am five years

old and writing to ask for . . .. A further

indication of child authorship was the

handwriting script that is currently

taught to children and is noticeably

different from previous generations

writing styles. Children also tend to

write in different colours and use

pencils or crayons rather than blue or

black pens. They also form larger

figures and write in an erratic style.

Therefore, a childs letter is readily

identifiable as being solely written by a

child. For letters authored by adults, it is

noticeable that the continuity of these

letters is mature in expression, the letter

formation uniform and the writing

script is different. Such letters are easily

identifiable as being solely written by

adults.The second construct of brand request

style qualifies the manner in which

brands are requested. The concept of

branding identifies, defines and

reinforces those unique characteristics

and differences within product

categories and therefore a specific name

identified the request as a brand. A baby

doll, for example, is a generic requestwithin a category of baby dolls, but a

NewBorn baby doll is a specific doll

within that doll category and therefore a

brand. Branded requests also included

store brands such as K Mart; sports

team names such as Broncos (an

Australian Rugby League team), CDs

such as Spice Girls and low profile

brands that may be catalogue promoted

items. Confirmation of brand names

was through an examination of store

shelves and catalogue searches. One

author has 17 years experience in the

toy and gift industry with an additional

12 years in Christmas retail operations

and subsequently coded each request by

allocation of a unique brand

identification number or recorded as a

generic gift request.

This study uses the same categories to

describe the construct of brand request

styles as Otnes et al. (1994b) where they

identified five brand request styles.

Table 1 provides the descriptions and

examples of the coding for the brandrequest style construct.

The branded requests were coded

Table 1 Examples of request style coding

Request style Examples

Brand-obsessed Requested one gift only, eg a Design-a-Mug brand(Mentions only one brand and no other gifts) Requested three gifts only, eg each branded Space

JamSingularly branded(One brand mentioned along with other non-

branded gifts)

Requested two gifts, eg one for the brandBananas, the other unbranded

Requested four gifts, eg one for Barbie, the rest

unbrandedBrand majority(One brand is mentioned more than other

brands)

Requested four gifts, eg two for Barbie and oneeach for Bananas and Sky Dancer

Requested 12 gifts, eg three branded Nike, onebranded Sony and the rest unbranded

Pluralistic(Two or more brands mentioned equally) Requested seven gifts, eg one branded request

each for Barbie, Fashion Avenue and PollyPocket, the others unbranded

No brand mentioned Generic requests only such as a teddy bear, a doll ora truck


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/18

into the five categories as developed by

Otnes et al. (1994b) and then combined

to form the aggregated brand request

construct that addresses request

behaviours in this study. The creation of

this summary set of data allows the

retention of the authorship construct,but aggregates the brand request

construct to three unique, generic

categories that indicate the brand

request styles at Christmas. The brand-

fixated (brand-obsessed) and singularly

branded categories nominate only one

brand. These became a general category

of one brand. The brand dominant

(brand majority) and brand plural styles

request more than one brand and attract

the grouping name of many brands. The

no brand mentioned category retains

that name.

Table 2 offers descriptions of selected

communication strategy constructs,

meanings and statement types taken

from Otnes (1994a) and concentrates on

communication and socialisation issues

of politeness, direct and indirect (or

compound) request strategies.

When children write they use

illustrations in the form of cutouts,

stickers or drawings to express their

ideas and thoughts, hence the final area

of interest is the use of illustrations. Inline with content analysis procedures

(Krippendorf, 1980), these illustrative

forms determined three categories of

product, Christmas or closure signature

illustrations. Product illustrations

included branded and unbranded

drawings, cutouts, stickers or

commercial stationery such as

Thousand and One Dalmatians

notepaper, and Christmas illustrations

included individual images or collages

of Christmas or family themes. The

third illustration theme is the closing

signature, which was simply noughtsand crosses or the words hugs and

kisses.

The data are quantitative and

qualitative in line with a content

analysis where judgment variables

transpose to nominal data and

appropriate analysis was via chi-square.

Other data such as numbers of presents

and brands requested is quantitative in

nature and analysis via t-test was

conducted. Further, chi-square and

t-tests are analytical procedures in line

with those used in other content

analysis of letters to Santa

(eg Richardson and Simpson, 1982;

Robinson and Morris, 1986; Fisher-

Thompson, 1993; Otnes et al., 1994a,b)

and were also adopted in this study. In

total 422 childrens letters in this study

were suitable for analysis of which 173

were written by boys and 249 by girls.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS


difference between the number ofbrands requested by boys and girls

when children write letters to

Santa.

Hypothesis 1 (H1) was related

specifically to brand awareness

differences between boys and girls. In

Table 2 Communication strategy construct and statement types

Persuasive strategy Description Statement types

1 Politeness Socially accepted forms ofingratiation

How are youPlease (unaccompanied by request)Thank you

2 Direct requests Appeals that blatantly statedthe desire for an item

I wantBring me/get me/send me

3 Compound requests Indirect requests accompaniedby qualifiers

I would likePlease bring me/get me/send meCan I have/Can you get meWill you get me/bring me/send me

Source: Otnes et al., 1994a


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


8/18

Figure 1 Joel is certain about the gender

appropriateness of one brand and this

letter reinforces the view that the child

who requested the gift, or brand,

assigned the gender appropriateness of

the toy or gift request. This letter is also

an example of a singularly brandedrequest style strategy. Figure 2 provides

an example of letters that examine

gender and generic unbranded present

and specific branded requests.

The results indicate that in the 422

child-authored letters, children

requested 44.8 per cent (787) of the

presents for Christmas as branded

products. In comparison, Otnes et al.

(1994b) reported that 56 per cent (1,278)

of 2,475 gift requests were for specific

brand names. The average number of

gifts requested by boys was 3.9 whilegirls requested an average of 4.3 gifts

per letter, with no significant difference

between the number of gifts requested

by boys and girls when they write

letters to Santa requesting presents

(t 1.17 d.f. 411.15 p 0.243).

Figure 1: Gender appropriateness of requests


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/18

Similarly, a t-test between boys and girls

at the brand level also indicated no

statistical difference (t 0.07

d.f. 390.46 p 0.942), with both boys

and girls requesting 1.9 branded gifts

per letter. Therefore H1 is supported in

that there was no significant difference

between the number of brands

requested by boys and girls when

children write letters to Santa. Table 3

indicates the patterns of request by

children and their brand orientations.

Perusal of the letters in the study also

identified that letters to Santa written by

children often indicate preferred

choices. For example, Figure 2 indicates

that not all requests will be successful

and a strategy of identifying priority

requests is important.


difference between the politeness of

girls gift request strategy and boys

gift request strategy.

Hypothesis 2 (H2) suggested that there

is no significant difference between the

politeness of boys and girls gift request

strategy when children write the letters.

Traits of politeness in both verbal and

written strategies cover the affective

appeals of friendship and simple pleas,

Figure 2: Example of preferred choice


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


10/18

as well as the buddy style of written

strategy. The politeness concept

includes three elementary phrases of

how are you; please; and thank you

in both verbal and written

communications strategies. In Figure 3

Milindee asks Santa how are you? and

uses the word please.

Apart from requests for gifts, a single

letter may contain direct, indirect and

polite elements as semantic phrases as

well as Christmas, product and

signature graphics and Table 4 presents

the distribution of request strategies and

illustrations by authorship of letters.

The use of politeness as a major

communications strategy occurred in

116 or 27.5 per cent of letters written bychildren and indicates children did not

embrace a politeness strategy. There

was an expectation that both boys and

girls will embrace politeness similarly.

Within the children authorship

category, 36 boys and 80 girls used a

politeness strategy and the results

indicate a statistical difference in favour

of girls (chi-square 6.71, d.f. p , 0.01).

The hypothesis that there is no

significant difference between the

politeness of girls and boys is not

supported. By comparison, Otnes et al.

(1994) reported 36 boys and 57 girls

used politeness elements in their letters

and the difference approached

statistical significance.

H3: The letters girls write for themselves

will contain significantly more

indirect request strategies than

letters boys write for themselves.

Hypothesis 3 (H3) suggests the letters

girls write for themselves contain

significantly more indirect request

strategies than letters boys write for

themselves. Use of indirect statements is

evident in 75.6 per cent of the letters, of

which there were 115 (66.5 per cent)

boys and 204 (81.9 per cent) girls. The

difference between boys and girls use

of indirect phrases is significant (chi-

square 13.05, p , 0.01) and does not

support Otnes et al. (1994) who reported

no significant difference between the

number of girls and boys using indirect

requests.The findings show children act more

in line with the nominal verbal

communication strategies (Weiss and

Sachs, 1991) that attribute the use of

challenge or reason to boys and the

simple expectation of having requests

honoured to girls. Overall, girls use a

request format of statements offered in

the simple expectation of having

requests honoured. The communication

strategy construct places questionstyle

statements like Will you bring me, can

I have or please bring me as indirect

requests. The letter from Melissa (Figure

4) not only illustrates the use of the

indirect phrase, I would like, it also

demonstrates the polite use ofplease

and the understanding that a choice

from presents is expected.

On the other hand, boys follow the

Table 3 Patterns of requests by gender of authors

Request style Boy Girl Total (%)

Brand obsessed 32 33 65 15.4Only one brand and no other gifts mentioned

Singularly branded 26 53 79 18.7One brand mentioned along with other non-

branded giftsBrand majority 20 32 52 12.3

One brand mentioned more than other brandsPluralistic 47 60 107 25.4

Two or more brands mentioned equallyNo brand mentioned 48 71 119 28.2Total 173 249 422Percentage 41.0 59.0 100.0


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


11/18

strategy of rules, fair play and

predominantly use the art of reason and

direct challenge. Their communication

consists of indirect strategies but also

direct phrases like I want or bring me.

Figure 5 shows Toms use of the strong

phrase I want and does not use any

element of politeness.

Additionally, there is an observation

about the use of direct phrases in letters

that if girls use more indirect strategies

than boys do, then boys should be

expected to make more use of direct

strategies than girls. Only 22 boys and

19 girls letters made use of direct

statement phrases such as I want or

Figure 3: Politeness concept illustrated

Table 4 Distribution of requests strategies by gender

Author Politeness Indirect requests

Boys 36 115Girls 80 204Significance of difference chi-squared 6.71, p , 0.01 chi-squared 13.05, p , 0.001


http://-/?-http://-/?-


12/18

Figure 4: Indirect communication girl

Figure 5: Direct communication boy




13/18

bring me, and there is no significant

difference between girls and boys

usage of direct phrases. One possibility

for minimal use of direct statements is

that there is no immediate response or

clarification of meaning as there is in

speech and children understand thedifferences. Support is found for H3,

however, because letters that girls write

for themselves contain significantly

more indirect requests than do boys

letters.


difference between the numbers of

illustrations contained in girls and

boys letters to Santa.

When children write, they not onlyuse lists but also use illustrations in the

form of cutouts, stickers or drawings as

an examination method to express their

ideas and thoughts. Of the 181 letters to

Santa that contain illustrations 42.9 per

cent of the letters were written by

children and there is no significant

difference between boys and girls

overall use of illustrations, as indicated

in Table 5. The analysis indicates no

significant difference between boys and

girls use of Christmas illustrations,

however, boys use product illustrationsmore (chi-square 5.64, p, 0.05).

Signature graphics also represents an

affective appeal of friendship and an

element of girls socialisation, and the

results indicate girls use this illustrative

format more than boys do (chi-square

18.05, p , 0.001). Despite the differences

within the illustration construct, H4 is

supported because there is not a

significant difference between the

overall numbers of illustrations

contained in girls and boys letters to

Santa.

DISCUSSION

Christmas is many things to many

people and the one aspect that mustinterest academic and general

practitioners of marketing is the impact

of brand names on request behaviour of

children. Brand requests are a

component of the overall gift request

behaviour and the purpose of this

research is to examine childrens brand

identification and request styles at

Christmas together with their written

forms of communication. Past studies

have focused on very subjective,

product category-based constructs thatmake longitudinal comparisons

untenable and the category definitions

are problematic because of the use of

different criteria to describe categories.

As an example, Richardson and

Simpson (1982) delineate specific

categories of machines (models of work

and construction equipment such as

caterpillars), race cars and vehicles

(representations of vehicles for carrying

people or goods, eg cars, trucks). There

is also a category for depots (places to

store vehicles, eg garages, airports,space stations etc.). On the other hand

Fisher-Thompson (1993), categorises

these machines, race cars, vehicles and

depots under the singular category of

toy vehicles and includes other items

such as trains and planes. Fisher-

Thompson (1993), however, places farm

equipment and barns in the category of

farm and zoo animals, while Richardson

and Simpson (1982) indicate toy animals

consist of representational animals and

Table 5 Distribution of illustrations

Illustration element Boy Girl Significance of difference

Christmas illustrations 43 65 N.S.D.Signature graphics 14 58 chi-square 18.05, df. 1, p, 0.001Product illustrations 17 10 chi-square 5.64, df. 1, p , 0.05


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


14/18

makes no mention of farm machinery

and farm storage toys.

Ultimately, a specific product or

category could emerge, fade or fail as it

moves through the product life cycle.

Fisher-Thompson (1993) included

categories of furnishings, clothing andaccessories, computer and videos that

are not included in, or available to

earlier studies (Richardson and

Simpson, 1982; Robinson and Morris,

1986). The nature of brands is such that,

while they are subject to similar cyclical

changes, they are a unique entity and

identifier of specific products within

categories. As an example, the Star Wars

brand encompasses not just figures,

space ships and space stations but is

now a recognised brand in diverse

categories such as confectionery,

stationery, household linen and

computer games, whereas the Barbie

brand extends to magazines and a pop

group. There is a multitude of

subcategories within the broader

category of toys, which are also a

subcategory of Christmas requests.

Therefore, brands are important and

any research that seeks information on

brand awareness and the prevalence of

brand usage within the domain of

childrens products is valuable.The rationale behind this stance is

that a specific product or brand name

request may not span time or location.

What constituted a popular toy, or

brand, in 1985 in America is not

necessarily available in 2000 in Australia

but the notion of using numbers of

brand requests and the request strategy

style remain immutable. The availability

of particular brands in the marketplace

at a given time will not affect the brand

request theme of single brand, multiple

brands and non-branded requests

which are elements that are readily

observable and measurable within in

the Christmas request category and

thereby, enable comparisons in the

future.

This study has focused on important

issues relating to marketing of toys and

the findings contribute to the

understanding of brand request

behaviour of adults and children at

Christmas. It is quite illuminating to see

the clarity with which children can

identify specific brands and the method

of manipulating the brands in theirwritten letters. Australian children are

not unlike the American children that

Otnes et al. (1994) indicated, have a

strong awareness of the diversity of

brand name goods available to them

and the knowledge to use brand names

and brand extensions in their request

behaviour. Because children have a

predisposition toward toys and their

brands they possess the capability to

practise either differentiation between

brands or understand that brands can

appear in different forms or categories.

Children can clearly identify their

preferred brand of toy and appear to

understand the importance of explicitly

requesting such brand names via clearly

articulated request strategies.

LIMITATIONS

As is often the case with consumer

research there are limitations, and while

this study posed questions concerning

the brand awareness and request styles

of children and provided some answersto them, it does have some limitations

that must be clearly expressed. This

study is consistent with previous

content analysis of letters written to

Santa where the scope of analysis is

limited to variables concerning the

gender, requests and authorship content

of the letters. Children of different ages

would clearly have different brand

experience levels which affect their

brand nomination or usage, however, as

in previous studies of this type, the age

of the child is rarely cited in letters and

absence of an age variable limited the

scope of this study. Children may

request different presents from different

family members, as well as from Santa,

and make use of a number of semantic

phrases and request strategies.

Therefore, the request behaviour


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/18

exhibited in this study is representative

only of that population of children who

write letters to Santa in Australia and

are not generalisable outside the

Australian Christmas period.

IMPLICATIONSThis study shows there is a difference

between boys and girls request

behaviour and infers a low brand

awareness and usage by adults in their

request behaviour. The trend in

marketing to children has seen their role

move from one of demanders or

influencers to important decision

makers. Since brand owners seek

growth of their brands in other product

categories via brand extensions, that

brand leaves the exclusive domain of

the childrens market and moves into an

adult-dominated market. If adults do

not recognise, approve or trust the

brand, then how can the brand transfer

successfully to other categories without

additional costs in the establishment of

a position and image in this adult realm.

Therefore, brand owners and

advertisers of childrens brands must

encourage adults to form a positive

attitude toward the brand by use of a

different promotional mix.

FUTURE RESEARCH

While this study has identified key

issues relating to the brand awareness

and request styles of children in letters

to Santa, it also raises many related

questions in need of future research

which could be directed to understand

what brands mean to children and to

adults. Ideally, research could move

from a childrens request focus to

encompass assessment of parents

attitude toward Christmas and the

relationship with giving popular brand

names as gifts to their children. In a

similar vein, the relevance of giving

both gifts and brands may also affect the

appeal of brand as gifts and the usage of

information sources by adults merits

attention.

The authors investigated the use of

written semantic phrases and some

related socialisation issues evident in

letters to Santa and suggest that other

issues could address how parents

communicate with their children about

requests and the relationship between

this communication and a parentsevaluation of brands or use of

information sources. Similarly, parents

give gifts for different reasons and

examination of the connection between

these motives or roles and a parents

attitude toward Christmas is

appropriate.

Research could also focus on learning

and memory issues in Christmas gift

request behaviour by adults and

children, eg on the extent to which

childrens requests are born from a

long-term desire for the brand or are

contingent on promotional activities as

Christmas draws closer.

Comparisons of the Christmas studies

indicate boys made more requests in

one study, girls in the other. Otnes et al.

(1994b) suggest childrens exposure to

the environment around them and their

understanding of the relative financial

wellbeing of their parents may reflect in

numbers of presents requested, and in

the use of brands. Therefore, a time

series study could prove valuable inidentifying any variations of behaviour

as the same population grows and

qualify possible external factors that

may influence Christmas request

behaviour. Similarly, a cross-national or

multicultural study would seek to

qualify cultural differences, while a

study that addresses segmentation by

cultural background would provide an

understanding of request behaviours in

minority groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that Australian

children do not just request brands as

gifts but requesting no brands is a

feature of childrens request behaviour

that probably reflects the tradition of

requesting teddies, trucks or dollies

along with those semantic phrases and


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


16/18

expressions that are bound in the

Christmas wish list. Further, these

young and budding consumers appear

to be savvy to the importance of

identifying clearly their desired brands

because they are highly brand aware

and understand that many brands exist,and different toy variants exist within a

common brand name. Importantly, they

seem to learn how to be successful

through request strategies as

Robinson and Morris (1986) indicate,

children overtly request half of the gifts

that are given at Christmas. The focus

on brand names within the context of

Christmas indicates that toy

manufacturers and retailers who

heavily promote not only their toys at

Christmas, but also the Christmas myth

and symbolism of giving their toys as

gifts are gaining a competitive

advantage. Perhaps many marketers

and toy companies are getting their own

Christmas wishes answered, via these

budding, young, articulate, brand

savvy, mini consumers.

REFERENCES

Bahn, K. (1986) How and When Do Brand

Perceptions and Preferences First Form? A

Cognitive Developmental Investigation,Journal of Consumer Research, 13, December,

382393.

Belk, R. (1987) A Childs Christmas in

America: Santa Claus as Deity,

Consumption as Religion, Journal of

American Culture, 10(1), Spring, 87100.

Belk, R. and Pollay, R. (1985) Images of

Ourselves: The Good Life in Twentieth

Century Advertising, Journal of Consumer

Research, 11, 887897.

Belk, R., Mayer, R. and Driscoll A. (1984)

Childrens Recognition of Consumption

Symbolism in Childrens Products, Journal

of Consumer Research, 10, March, 386397.

Caplow, T. and Williamson, M. H. (1980)

Decoding Middletowns Easter Bunny. A

Study in Iconography, Semiotica, 32 3/4,

2123.

Caplow, T., Bahr, H., Chadwick, B., Hill, R.

and Williamson, M. (1982) Middletown

Families: Fifty Years of Change,

Minnesota Press.

Caron, A. and Ward, S. (1975) Gift Decisions

by Kids and Parents, Journal of Advertising

Research, 15(24), August, 520.

Clarke, T. (1984) Situational Factors

Affecting Preschoolers Responses toAdvertising, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 12(4), Fall, 2540.

Downs, C. (1983) Letters to Santa Claus:

Elementary School-Age Childrens Sex-

Typed Toy Preferences in a Natural

Setting, Sex Roles, 9(2), 159163.

Erftmier, T. and Dyson, A. H. (1986) Oh,

ppbbt~: Differences Between the Oral

and Written Persuasive Strategies of

School-Aged Children, Discourse-

Processes, 9(1), JanMar, 91114.

Fisher-Thompson, D. (1993) Adult Toy

Purchases for Children: Factors Affecting

Sex-Typed Toy Selection, Journal of

Applied Development Psychology, 14,

385406.

Haynes, J., Burts, D., Dukes, A. and Cloud,

R. (1993) Consumer Socialization of

Preschoolers as Related to Clothing

Consumption, Psychology and Marketing,

10(2), March/April, 151161.

Hite, C. and Hite, R. (1995) Reliance on

Brand By Young Children, Journal of the

Market Research Society, 37(2), 185193.

John, D. and Sujan, M. (1990) AgeDifferences in Product Categorization,

Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4),

452460.

Kolbe, R. and Burnett, M. (1991) Content

Analysis Research: An Examination of

Applications with Directives for

Improving Research Reliability and

Objectivity, Journal of Consumer Research,

18, September, 243250.

Krippendorf, K. (1980) Content Analysis:

An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage,

Beverly Hills, CA.

Kunkel, D. and Roberts, D. (1991) Young

Minds and Marketplace Values: Issues in

Childrens Television Advertising, Journal

of Social Issues, 47(1), Spring, 5772.

Lackman, C. and Lanasa, J. (1993) Family

Decision-Making Theory: An Overview

and Assessment, Psychology & Marketing,

10(2), March/April, 8193.


http://-/?-http://-/?-


17/18

Macklin, C. (1994) The Impact of

Audiovisual Information on Childrens

Product-Related Recall, Journal of

Consumer Research, 21, June, 154164.

Malhotra, N., Hall, J., Shaw, M. and Crisp,

M. (1996) Marketing Research: An

Applied Orientation, Prentice Hall,Sydney.

McNeal, J. (1992) Kids as Consumers: A

Handbook for Marketing to Children,

Lexington, NY.

Meegan, G. (1993) News Update: World for

Kids Targets Service, The Toy and Hobby

Retailer, 6(4), July, 5.

Miller, P. (1990) Kid Crazy, Catalog-Age,

7(1), December, 1, 30.

Mochis, G. (1985) The Role of Family

Communication in Consumer

Socialization of Children and Adolescent,

Journal of Consumer Research, 11, March,

868913.

Olney, T., Holbrook, M. and Batra, R. (1991)

Consumer Responses to Advertising: The

Effects of Ad. Content, Emotions, and

Attitude toward the Ad. on Viewing

Time, Journal of Consumer Research, 17,

March, 440453.

Otnes, C., Kim, K. and Kim, Y. (1994a) Yes,

Virginia, There is a Gender Difference:

Analyzing Childrens Requests to Santa

Claus, Journal of Popular Culture, 28:1,

Summer, 1730.Otnes, C., Kim, Y. and Kim, K. (1994b) All I

Want for Christmas: An Analysis of

Childrens Brand Requests to Santa Claus,

Journal of Popular Culture, 27(4), Spring,

183195.

Percy, L. and Rossiter, J. (1992) A Model of

Brand Awareness and Brand Attitude

Advertising Strategies, Psychology and

Marketing, 9(4), July/August, 263274.

Perrault, W. and Leigh, L. (1989) Reliability

of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative

Judgements, Journal of Market Research, 26,

May, 135148.

Phelps, J. and Hoy, M. (1996) The Aad-Ab-

PI Relationship in Children: The Impact of

Brand Familiarity and Measurement

Timing, Psychology and Marketing, 13(1),

January, 77105.

Reda, S. (1995) Barbie and Board Games,

Stores, 77(2), February, 3436.

Richardson, J. and Simpson, C. (1982)Children, Gender, and Social Structure:

An Analysis of the Contents of Letters to

Santa Claus, Child Development, 53,

429436.

Robinson, C. and Morris, J. (1986) The

Gender Stereotyped Nature of Christmas

Toys received by 36, 48, and 60 month old

Children: A Comparison Between Non-

requested and Requested Toys, Sex Roles,

15(1/2), 1-32.

Sabegal, L. (date unknown) Christmas

where the gum trees grow.

Schiffman, L., Bednall, D., Coweley, E.,

OCass, A., Watson, J. and Kanuk, L.

(2001) Consumer Behaviour, 2nd edition,

Prentice-Hall, Australia.

Shook, S., Marrion, L. and Ollila, L. (1989)

Primary Childrens Concepts About

Writing, Journal of Educational Research,

82(3), JanFeb, 133138.

Vowles, E. (1996) Editorial Comment, The

Toy and Hobby Retailer, 7(8), September, 5.

Ward, S. and Wackman, D. (1968)

Childrens Purchase Influence Attempts

and Parental Yielding, in Kassarjian,H. H. and Scott, R. S. R. (eds) Perspectives

in Consumer Behaviour, Foresham and

Company, Ill.

Ward, S., Wackman, D. and Wartella, E.

(1977) How Kids Learn to Buy: The

Development of Consumer Information

Processing Skills, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Weiss, D. and Sachs, J. (1991) Persuasive

Strategies used by Preschool Children,

Discourse Process, 14(1), JanMar, 5572.

Wetton, N. (1996) Safe in the Sun, Health

Education, 96(4), 1316.

Zickmund, W. (1994) Exploring Marketing

Research, Dryden Press, Fort Worth.




18/18

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mcjozz
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Dear Santa, Do You Have My Brand-18p

Documents