• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Effects of Brand name congruity and product categories on attitude toward brand names-Master thesis
 

Effects of Brand name congruity and product categories on attitude toward brand names-Master thesis

on

  • 2,278 views

The paper explores the effect that brand name congruity and product categories have on attitude toward brand names.

The paper explores the effect that brand name congruity and product categories have on attitude toward brand names.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,278
Views on SlideShare
2,277
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
21
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slashdocs.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Effects of Brand name congruity and product categories on attitude toward brand names-Master thesis Effects of Brand name congruity and product categories on attitude toward brand names-Master thesis Document Transcript

    • THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ONCONSUMERS’ 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 examinedthe thesis entitledTHE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY ANDPRODUCT CATEGORY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDESTOWARD BRAND NAMESPresented 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
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI want to give my undying gratitude to Dr. Cynthia Frisby for accepting the position ofmy committee chair and for the overall guidance, patience and professional opinions onmy thesis. I also want to thank her for the assistance in recruiting subjects for my studyand data collection on this project.I want to give thanks to Dr. Maria Len-Rios, my academic advisor, for all the reading andre-reading of my thesis draft. I know she now has my paper memorized as well as I do. Ireally appreciate the comments and editing suggestions, as it has helped me gain a moreinsightful and professional sounding document.To Dr. Jeffrey Rouder a special thanks for the valuable advice and guidance on theoverall methodology and data analysis of my project. Without his strong, professionalexpertise, I am sure my thesis would not be the extremely informative and detailedproject that it is today. I will continue to use his advice and the skills he has taught methroughout my life.I want to give my thanks to Dr. Kevin Wise for providing me with pertinent comments onmy hypothesis and research question formulation. His guidance has helped me to build astrong foundation for my subject matter and keep me focused on the research and input ofdata used to obtain the outcome that supported my hypothesis. ii
    • TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................................IITABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... IIILIST OF EXHIBITS..................................................................................................................................VLIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... VIABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................ VIIINTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1CHAPTER 1 ...............................................................................................................................................41.1. 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.......................................................................................................61.2. 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 .......12CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................................152.1. 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 ..................................................................................................16CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................................18 iii
    • 3.1. CATEGORY EFFECTS .......................................................................................................................18 3.2. HYPOTHESIS 1.................................................................................................................................18 3.3. HYPOTHESIS 2.................................................................................................................................19 3.4. OTHER FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................21CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................................29 4.1. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................29CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................34 5.1. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................34APPENDIX ...............................................................................................................................................36 1. MEANS SCORES OF BRAND NAMES ....................................................................................................36 2. SAMPLE Q UESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................................................38BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................55 iv
    • LIST OF EXHIBITSExhibit Page1. A Linear Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent………................192. Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent…………………………...203. Distribution of Names’ Congruity among Perfume and Detergent…………..……….224. Comparing Perfume with Detergent………………………………………….……….245. Comparing Benefits of Perfume and Detergent……………………………………….266. Steep Slope of Perfume Names in the Absence of “Detergentness”………… ………27 v
    • LIST OF TABLESTable Page1. Names with moderate congruity but low liking for perfume………………….............242. Names with High Liking for Perfume but Low Liking for Detergent………………...25 vi
    • THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES Hoang Tuan Dung Dr. Cynthia Frisby, Thesis Supervisor ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research paper is to explore the effect that brand name congruity andproduct categories have on attitudes toward brand names. More specifically, attitudes willbe evaluated according to brand names that are congruent, moderately incongruent, andextremely incongruent from both functional and symbolic product categories. A list of 50fictitious brand names of perfume (symbolic product) and detergent (functional product)with alternative levels of congruity was created for the purpose of this study. 38participants completed a questionnaire to rate how much the names reminded them of aproduct category and how much they like them as members of that category. Resultsshowed that for detergent, name congruity and liking are positively correlated. The morecongruent the names the more they are liked. For perfume, the relationship is morecomplicated. Congruity is not a guarantee for liking, even moderate. Names, to be likedfor perfume, have not only to be congruent with perfume but also unique (incongruentwith detergent). Implications of the findings on future naming strategy as well as futureresearch directions are discussed. vii
    • INTRODUCTION Creating favorable consumers’ attitudes toward brands has been viewed as acentral 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 immediateimpact 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 mostvaluable and strategic assets (Klink and Smith, 2001; Kohli et al., 2005; Meyers-Levy etal., 1994). For example, the 10 top brands in 2006 were estimated to range from $21.7billion 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 moststable (Lefkowith and Modenhauer, 1985). Choosing an effective brand name, therefore,has strategic importance, and, if well done, can offer many advantages. These includemaking brands stand out from the pack and easing their trademark registration (Kohli etal., 2005), facilitating corporate strategies including new product launches, companycreation or renaming (Robertson, 1989), or restructuring (Lefkowith and Modenhauer,1985). A “good” brand name also facilitates marketing communications by providingconsumers with product information including brand identity, product benefits, and byeliciting positive attitudes such as trust, confidence, or status (Turley and Moore, 1995). Research in brand naming has typically focused on how brand namecharacteristics, such as length, distinctiveness, congruity, and linguistic features, affectattitudinal factors, such as liking, recognition, and recall (Kohli et al., 2005). One of themost studied topics has been on consumers’ attitudes toward brands with congruent and 1
    • incongruent names. A brand name is said to be congruent when it reminds the consumerof a product category (Peterson and Ross, 1972) or is “obviously and meaningfully”associated with the product and its categories (Meyers-Levy et al., 1994). Whenevaluated together, conflicting evidence has been found across various studies as towhich brand name – congruent or incongruent - is evaluated more favorably byconsumers (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 congruitytheory, Dahlen suggests that both congruent and incongruent information can positivelyaffect consumers’ evaluations. While congruent information can have a positive effect onrecall, understanding and, hence, attitudes, congruity, especially when associated withpredictability, lacks the surprise element produced by incongruity, which stimulatesinformation processing. Under such circumstances, one would expect that bothcongruent and incongruent brand names are evaluated positively by consumers. Although research has identified a product’s category as a defining characteristicof brand name congruity, there have been very few studies that look at how the impact ofbrand name congruity on brand attitudes varies across product categories. The generalassumption is that brand name congruity is perceived and evaluated in the same way forall product categories. However, product category literature has indicated that consumersevaluate different product categories differently. Research on product categorization has established that products can beclassified according to two types of customer needs they address: symbolic/expressive 2
    • and functional/utilitarian (Ang and Lim, 2006; Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Dahlen, 2002;Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Mittal; 1989; Bottomley, 2006). One example ofsymbolic product is perfume, typically viewed as a product that helps express personalityand status, and boost self-esteem. Detergent can be thought of as utilitarian product givenits functional benefits (cleaning). Functionality and symbolism are said to be two“distinct concepts in consumers’ minds” (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). As such, theseconcepts may involve two different information processing patterns and, thus, influencebrand evaluations. Functional products are rather associated with thinking (Dahlen, 2002)and “explicit information search” (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) while expressiveproducts are believed to express feeling (Dahlen, 2002) and require less productinformation (Mittal, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to integrate two approaches to brand attitudes – thebrand name congruity approach and the product category approach – that have existedside by side with little apparent relation to one another. Given its exploratory nature, thestudy aims at generating useful hypotheses upon which further studies can be conducted.As such a generalization to detergent and symbolic products requires further studies bereplicated to more products representative of these two categories. 3
    • CHAPTER 1 This chapter reviews the literature addressing the relationship between congruityand attitudes toward brand names as well as the effects of product category on theseattitudes. Similar concepts and their overlap will be discussed. The Theory of SchemaCongruity 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 insignificant works using different academic terms representing the same intellectualconstruct in both scholarly and professional writing. The most popular concepts in theliterature that have been used to define relationships between brand name characteristicsand brand attitude are “congruity” (Peterson and Ross, 1972; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994),“typicality” (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987), or “meaningfulness” (Keller et al.,1998). Theseconcepts define “congruity” from different aspects, but they also have some overlap. Thepurpose of this section is to review these concepts and address the differences andoverlap among them. 1.1.1 Congruity Peterson and Ross (1972) use “congruence” to determine brand nameremindfulness of product categories. According to their study, consumers possess a“preconceived notion” of the remindfulness of certain words or words sounds. Theysuggested that some words are more remindful of the product categories than otherwords. For example, they found that, for the breakfast cereal category, the word 4
    • “whumies” is reported to be more remindful than the word “ackexma”, while in thedetergent category, “dehax” is more remindful than “whumies”. Therefore, Peterson andRoss (1972) recommend choosing new brand names which are somewhat congruent withnames of existing brands including competing ones. Drawing on the schema congruity theory, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) definethe general concept of “congruity” as the “match between the attributes of an object, suchas 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 byspecifying that congruity exists when brand names “fit product associations in an obviousand 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 mindimagery that reminds consumers of the product category” (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987, p.158). These researchers argue that the connection between meaningfulness and imagerycan sometimes be close. They cited Stork Diaper Service as an example of memorableand typical brand names that evoke certain imagery. This connection, however, canoperate at a subconscious level. Peterson and Ross (1972), for example, found that somerandomly generated syllables are more “remindful” of a particular product class than areother randomly generated syllables. 1.1.3. Meaningfulness “Meaningfulness” has been used most frequently in previous research and has hadrelatively different but overlapping definitions. In their study of the differences in recall 5
    • and liking across four categories of brand names: descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, andcoined, Kohli and Suri (2000) group these categories into two categories: meaningfulbrand names (descriptive and suggestive), and non-meaningful (arbitrary and coined).The reason, they argued, was that there were essentially no differences in consumerresponses 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). Asuggestive brand name evokes the product’s benefit(s), such as “Diehard” batteries. Anarbitrary brand name is a common English word that has no apparent relation to theproduct 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 twodimensions of meaningfulness. However, they consider choosing a descriptive vs.suggestive brand name as two distinct strategies to make brand names meaningful. Thefirst branding strategy –choosing a descriptive brand name- should enhance brand nameawareness and identification with the product category. They provided the example of thename “Lean Cuisine” said to strengthen the low-calorie frozen food category, and“Newsweek” for the weekly magazine category. The second strategy - choosing asuggestive 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 6
    • The three concepts reviewed above are frequently used interchangeably inprevious research (e.g. Kohli and Suri, 2000; Peterson and Ross, 1972; Meyers-Levy etal., 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 fromeach other. Still, from the review presented above, it can be noted that the characteristicthese concepts have in common is the name’s remindfulness of the product category. Forthis reason and for the purpose of this paper and in line with the theory of schemacongruity which will be presented in the next section, the concept “congruity” will beused 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 namecongruity is the Theory of Schema Congruity. Schemas are representations of priorexperience that influence action and thought (Mandler, 1982). As a sense-making device,schemas are hypothesized to serve as the benchmark against which encounters (such asconsumers’ exposure to a brand name) are evaluated (Moreau, Markman and Lehmann,2001). Mandler (1982) theorized that two factors influence how new encounters areevaluated: how easily the encounter is comprehended and how much arousal is inducedby the encounter. This theory holds that the more congruity between an encounter and anestablished schema the higher the level of comprehension. However, the evaluations thatschema congruity generates tend to be slightly positive, rather than extremely positive, 7
    • 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 areinterrupted (Mandler, 1982; 1993). Schema-incongruent encounters appear to bechallenging 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 andproduce evaluations with higher intensity than does schema congruity (Mandler, 1982).This author claims that schema incongruity may affect evaluations either positively ornegatively depending on whether the incongruity is resolved or not. Resolved incongruityoccurs when information is processed more extensively to identify, successfully, ameaningful fit between the brand name and the product. Resolved incongruity is said toproduce consumer gratifications, which contributes to positive evaluation. Unresolvedincongruity, 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 andextreme incongruity. These operationalizations were derived from the work of Rosch(1978) and Sujan and Dekleva (1987) on categorization theory. Categorizing is part of thesense-making process where people group objects that are similar in important aspects inorder to make information processing more efficient and achieve higher cognitivestability (Cohen and Basu, 2006). These objects are then further grouped according todifferent levels or hierarchy of attribute specificity (Sujan and Dekleva, 1987). 8
    • 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 devicecategory, 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 ofspecificity – “brand level category” (Sujan and Dekleva) or “subordinate level” (Rosch). According to Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989), both Rosch (1978) and Sujan andDekleva (1987) agreed that the middle level - product type category or basic level -provides the greatest discrimination between categories and, thus, is most often used bypeople to naturally category objects. For example, for the category of portable musicdevices, MP3 and Walkman CD Player are likely to be perceived as distinctsubcategories because of the large number of distinct attributes and small number ofshared ones. In contrast, various brands of MP3 might be perceived as having fewdistinctive 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 aproduct are represented within the activated schema. Moderate and extreme incongruitiesare differentiated by the “ease with which an incongruity can be addressed within theactivated hierarchical [schema] structure” (p. 41). Moderate incongruity occurs when, forexample, a portable music device’s attributes are not represented within the portablemusic device schema, such as small size or high storage capacity, but such incongruitycould be resolved by looking at the MP3 schema. Extreme incongruity occurs whenincongruity is unresolved at any schema level, for example, a portable music device with 9
    • attributes, such as color printing, which are not represented at either the MP3 nor theWalkmans level category schema. In an experiment involving tasting and evaluating newbeverage, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) found that moderate incongruity producedmore positive evaluations than schema congruity and extreme incongruity. This finding isconsistent 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 ofbrand name congruity, conflicting evidence was found as to which brand names –congruent or incongruent - are evaluated more favorably by consumers. A large numberof marketing research found that congruent names are favored by consumers overincongruent names. This school of thought posits that words do have intrinsic meaningsthat can be used to create favorable brand associations and thus lead to high initial brandpreference, 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 iand 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 namescould be created by embedding semantics (words or morphemes) and sound symbolismtogether in the names. And such a naming practice could influence product liking andpositioning. Furthermore, according to Pavia and Costa (1993), through usage, numbersacquire certain meanings and are often perceived as being linked to mathematics,technology, and science. Their analysis revealed that brand names containing numbers 10
    • can look or sound like scientific expertise and symbolize power, performance, andsophistication. They concluded that alpha-numeric brand names, including referent andnonsense 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) allreached the same conclusion that congruent/meaningful/typical names, which are namesthat have a connection to a product category, are perceived more favorably thanincongruent/non-meaningful/atypical names. In contrast with this view, other researchers point out that the relationshipbetween brand name congruity and brand attitude is not a simple one. Prior research,based on the schema congruity theory proposed by Mandler (1982), suggests thatpeople’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 associationsin a meaningful way. In two studies, Meyers-Levy et al. (1994) found that brand names are evaluatedmore favorably when they are relatively incongruent with the product than when they areeither congruent or extremely incongruent with the product. These conflicting results are indeed consistent with Mandler’s (1982) theorizingon schema congruity. As noted earlier, congruity may have positive effects on memoryand attitude because of consumers’ preference for the norm and because of the matchwith consumer expectations. Incongruity may also have positive memory attitudinaleffects because consumers process the information more carefully. 11
    • 1.2.3. Relationships between Product Category and Attitudes toward Brand Names By definition, brand name congruity is inherently linked to the products andproduct categories for which the brand name is tied. Research has typically categorizedproducts according to the types of customer needs they address: symbolic/expressive andfunctional/utilitarian. The conceptualization of product category as symbolic and functional has itspsychological roots in behavioral theory. There are two distinct schools of thoughtregarding human needs and motivations (Bhat & Reddy, 1998). First, the rational school or the “economic man” model suggests that consumersare 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 processingoperations. These start with gathering information about competing brands, thenevaluating and comparing product attributes, and finally making the optimal choice basedon their findings. However, proponents of the emotional school have challenged these believers inDescartes, 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 areboth rational and emotional. Research in this area has primarily concentrated on thedefinition and measurement of the symbolic and functional dimensions of consumerattitudes as well as consumer responses. 12
    • In his seminal work, Udel (1964) defined functional products as those where aconsumer derives satisfaction from a physical performance, and expressive products arethose where consumer satisfaction comes from his or her social and psychologicalinterpretations of the products. Ang and Lim (2006) provide further explanations, suggesting that as theconsumption of symbolic products is mainly motivated by self-expressive and affectivepurposes. These products are likely to be perceived as more sophisticated than utilitarianproducts. In contrast, utilitarian products are viewed to be sincere and competent more sothan symbolic products. The classification of products as either symbolic or functional has been supportedby empirical research. Bhat and Reddy (1998) found evidence confirming thatfunctionality and symbolism are distinct concepts in consumers’ minds, and not reallytwo ends of a brand concept continuum. At the same time, their study suggests that it ispossible 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, theirresponses have been found to differ according to product types. In his study on onlineadvertising, Dahlen (2002) argued that functional products are characterized by thinkingwhile expressive products lend themselves more to feeling. Holbrook and Hirschman(1982) contended that the psychosocial interpretation of expressive products is largelyidiosyncratic and less susceptible to explicit information search. Similarly, Mittal (1989)found that expressive products do not lend themselves easily to content or feature 13
    • discriminations. It is therefore expected that the degree of brand name congruity is lessimportant for symbolic products than for functional products. 1.3. Hypotheses: Based on the review of literature addressing brand congruity-preferencerelationship, and product category discrimination, it is hypothesized that:H1: For functional products, a congruent brand name is evaluated more favorably than anincongruent (either moderately or extremely) brand name.H2: For symbolic products, a moderately incongruent name is evaluated more favorablythan either a congruent brand name or an extremely incongruent brand name. 14
    • CHAPTER 2 Chapter 2 presents the methodology used for this study. It also explains theresearch design and describes the independent and dependent variables as well asparticipant recruitment procedure. 2.1. Methodology 2.1.1. Independent VariablesBrand name congruity Brand name congruity is conceptually defined as the degree to which a brandname “fits product associations in an obvious and meaningful manner” (Meyers-Levy etal., 1994). It is operationally defined according to three levels, as congruent, moderatelyincongruent, or extremely incongruent. Brand name congruity is measured on a sevenpoint, continuous response scale, ranging from “Doesn’t remind me at all” to “Remindsme very much” (Zinkhan & Martin, 1987). For the purpose of this study, a name with ascore equal or greater than 5 is considered congruent, between 3 and 4 as moderatelyincongruent, less than 3 as extremely incongruent.Product category This is conceptually defined as the category in which a product is placed basedupon the types of customer needs it addresses. For the purposes of this study, productcategory is operationally defined as functional or symbolic category. A functionalproduct category features the functional benefits associated with the product and the taskswhich it is designed to accomplish, whereas a symbolic product category captures moreabstract notions and is used to exhibit something personal about the consumer (Ligas, 15
    • 2000). Perfume, because of its expressive and intangible characteristics, is thereforeplaced within the symbolic category while laundry detergent, given its utilitarianattribute, is representative of the functional category. These choices are also consistentwith prior research (Ang & Lim, 2006; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Dahlen, 2002; Mittal,1989). 2.1.2. Dependent VariablesAttitude 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 verymuch. 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 theprocedures of Kohli, Harich, Leuthesser (2005). The fictitious names ensure that they donot differ in terms of favorability and do not remind subjects of existing brand names. 38subjects completed a questionnaire to rate how much the names reminded them of aproduct category and how much they like them as members of that category. 20 subjectswere University of Missouri-Columbia students recruited from an undergraduatejournalism class. The rest came from different age and socio-professional groups. Asample 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 muchthe names reminded them of a product category and how much they like them as 16
    • members of that category. The students who participated in the survey were compensatedwith extra credit for their involvement. 17
    • CHAPTER 3 This chapter reports findings of the study. It shows the statistical results related topossible 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 categoryeffect (p >0.43 for congruity and p>0.19 for liking). In other words, none of the twocategories is more congruent or preferred over the other. Thus, such differences areunlikely to account for effect observed on other measures. Next, an ANOVA was used on names’ congruity for perfume and detergentseparately. The results indicated that the differences in congruity among names arestatistically significant for each category, F(49, 1850)=11.78, p<0.0001 for perfume andF(49,1850) =15.35, p<0.0001 for detergent. This means that the 50 names under studywere perceived as having different levels of congruity within each product category.The means of congruity and liking scores for perfume and detergent are reported inAppendix 1. 3.2. Hypothesis 1 The first hypothesis predicts that for functional products, a congruent brand nameis evaluated more favorably than an incongruent (either moderately or extremely) brandname. For detergent, it is easy, as shown in Exhibit 1, to observe a strong linearrelationship between congruity and liking (Pearson product-moment correlation 18
    • coefficient=0.95). This means that it is possible to predict with high accuracy thatcongruent names will be preferred over extremely and moderately incongruent names forthe detergent category. Therefore, H1 predicting that for functional products, a congruentbrand name is evaluated more favorably than an incongruent (either moderately orextremely) brand name is supported.Exhibit 1, A Linear Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent 6 5 4 Liking 3 Detergent 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Congruity 3.3. Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis predicts that for symbolic products, a moderatelyincongruent name is evaluated more favorably than either a congruent brand name or anextremely incongruent brand name. Because none of the names under study wasperceived as congruent with perfume (M<4), it is not possible to compare amongcongruent, moderately incongruent and extremely incongruent names. It is therefore not 19
    • possible to adequately test H2 stating that for symbolic products, a moderatelyincongruent name is evaluated more favorably than either a congruent brand name or anextremely incongruent brand name. For this reason, the following analysis is limited to comparing moderatelyincongruent and extremely incongruent names. For perfume, names appear to follow twodifferent patterns. The first group (represented by diamond-shaped points shown inExhibit 2) shows a similar pattern to that of detergent names with relatively highcorrelation between congruity and liking. The second group (represented by cicles)includes names with moderate congruity but with liking among the lowest, suggestingthat higher congruity does not mean higher liking. In other words, the congruity andliking of names in this group seem to be uncorrelated.Exhibit 2, Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Perfume 20
    • A closer examination reveals that the names represented in cicle, in addition tobeing moderately incongruent with perfume, turned out to be congruent with detergentand are preferred as detergent names. This suggests something interesting about perfumeand detergent as two distinct product categories. Names, if they are seen and liked asdetergent names, are not evaluated favorably for perfume even if they moderately remindof perfume. If the names in circle carrying high detergent “legacy” are removed from perfumenames, the latter exhibit a similar pattern to detergent names’. In this case, the overallcorrelation 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 islocated in the upper right hand of Quadrant A, suggesting that a large number of namesare extremely incongruent and moderately incongruent (M<=4) for both perfume anddetergent. In other words, these names were not seen as very appropriate for eitherperfume or detergent products. A closer examination indicates that names that areextremely incongruent (M<=2) such as “AHT”, “Beltone”, “Emcools”… share acommon point: they are random combinations of words and thus don’t have any intrinsicmeanings. Consequently, subjects probably found it difficult to relate these names toeither detergent or perfume or any product category. 21
    • The second group of names is clustered along the vertical line running in themiddle of the chart. These names have moderate congruity with perfume (M>3) andvarious levels of congruity with detergent. Low congruity with detergent suggests names’inclination toward perfume, moderate congruity indicates an overlapping of congruitybetween perfume and detergent, high congruity suggests a leaning toward detergent.Thus, the names located in the upper left hand of Quadrant C (“Color Brite”, “NatureWash”, “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 asdetergent names.Exhibit 3, Distribution of Names’ Congruity among Perfume and Detergent Comparing Congruity of Perfume with Congruity of Detergent 6 5 4 Congruity of Detergent 3 Exhibit 3 Comparing Detergent with Perfume 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Congruity of Perfume Similarly, three names located in the lower left hand of Quadrant D (“MidnightRomance”, “Parisian Sky” and “Pleasurable Sin”) are seen more as names for perfume 22
    • than for detergent. “The Rose Garden” is the only name seen as moderately congruentwith both categories (M=3.47 for perfume, M=3.05 for detergent). Why is it not possibleto have names extremely congruent with both perfume and detergent? It might be thatbeyond certain level of congruity (M=3), subjects viewed these two categories asdistinctive. In other words, names can be very “perfume” or very “detergent” but notboth. This is understandable given that names that are extremely incongruent ormoderately congruent are, by definition, not very close to any product category and assuch can be used interchangeably across product categories. It is also observed that no names are found in the upper left hand of Quadrant Band the lower right hand of Quadrant D, suggesting that none of the 50 names understudy has pure “perfumeness” or “detergentness”1. This observation, coupled with theanalysis in the previous paragraph, means that the names under study can either have no“perfumeness” /“detergentness” or contain some mixture of both. More detaileddiscussions 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 whichcontrasts their distributions. As already mentioned, detergent names exhibit a stronglinear relationship between congruity and liking. In contrast, perfume names show astrikingly different pattern. A group of perfume names – in circle on the charts - withlevels of congruity ranging from 2.4 to 3.6 have one thing in common: their congruityand liking seem to be uncorrelated (Pearson product-moment correlationcoefficient=0.05).1 The terms “perfumeness” and “detergentness” are created for the purpose of this study. 23
    • Why perfume names behave differently among themselves and in comparisonwith 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. Theirdifferent 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 24
    • *Rp: “Reminds me of perfume”; Lp: “I like as name for perfume”; Rd: “Reminds me ofdetergent”; Ld: “I like as name for detergent”. Respondents’ preference for these names as detergent names might be the reasonwhy within the perfume category, the names in circle follow a different pattern from therest in terms of congruity-liking correlation. This raises a question: Why are names thatare highly detergent congruent such as “Clean Slate”, “Nature Wash”, “Wash All”associated with perfume? It is possible that in the minds of subjects, although detergentand perfume arguably differ on symbolic dimensions, they offer common functionalbenefits such as cleaning (dirty spots and bad odor for detergent and perfumerespectively). Pursuing the same line of inquiry, another interesting group of names –represented by squares – contains the best candidates for perfume but, perhaps because ofthat, 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 forperfume, some names (in circle in Exhibit 3) can be congruent with both perfume anddetergent as mentioned above. This does not seem to be the case for detergent. Namesthat 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 25
    • 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 perfumeand therefore viewed names that suggest benefits other than cleaning as inappropriate.Exhibit 5 shows cleaning as a hypothesized common benefit of perfume and detergent, aswell as symbolic dimensions seen as unique to perfume.Exhibit 5, Comparing Benefits of Perfume and Detergent Detergent Cleaning Express personality Boost self- Express status estime Perfume It can be derived from this analysis that names’ liking is evaluated differentlyaccording product category. For detergent, the prediction is straightforward. Liking andcongruity are positively correlated. And congruity depends on how clear names are abouttheir functional benefits. The clearer the more congruent. For perfume, the relationship is more complicated. Congruity is not a guaranteefor liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked for perfume, have not only to be congruent 26
    • with perfume but also incongruent with detergent. In other words, for perfume, liking ispositively correlated with perfume congruity and negatively correlated with detergentcongruity. Thus, the more names suggest about perfume symbolic benefits, the more theyare congruent with that category. The less they suggest about perfume/detergentfunctional benefits, the more likely, but not necessarily, they are to be congruent withperfume. As pointed out previously, if the names carrying high detergent “legacy” areremoved from perfume names, the latter exhibit a steep slope as shown in Exhibit 6. Thismeans that once “detergentness” is washed off of perfume names, increasing one level ofcongruity results in more liking for perfume names than for detergent names. In otherwords, perfume names, as long as they don’t remind conspicuously of detergent, take offfaster in liking than detergent names. Compared to detergent, congruity with perfume ismore difficult to achieve as analyzed previously. However, for any given level ofcongruity, the liking is likely to be higher for perfume. It is therefore possible forperfume 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” 27
    • 28
    • CHAPTER 4 This chapter will discuss the study’s results as well as its theoretical and practicalimplications. Limitations of the study and future research directions will also bediscussed. 4.1. Discussion 4.1.1. Naming Strategy for Detergent The findings related to Hypothesis 1 suggest that for detergent, subjects acted asrational consumers and indicated their preference for names that would maximizesubjects’ total utility. Their decision making is largely based on information search andproduct attribute and performance evaluation. They simply focused on detergent’sfunctional benefits -cleaning- and did not seem very interested in resolving anyincongruity, even moderate. Any names that suggested “loud and clear” these benefitswere 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 productnames suggest clear functional benefit. Doing otherwise would be a waste of time forconsumers and marketers will have to spend more time and money explaining andreminding 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 isevaluated differently according product category. For detergent, the prediction is 29
    • straightforward. Liking and congruity are positively correlated. And congruity dependson how clear names are about their functional benefits. The clearer the more congruent. For perfume, the relationship is more complicated. Congruity is not a guaranteefor liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked for perfume, have not only to be congruentwith perfume but also unique to perfume (incongruent with detergent). In other words,for perfume, liking is positively correlated with perfume congruity and negativelycorrelated with detergent congruity. Thus, the more names suggest about perfumesymbolic benefits, the more they are congruent with that category. Also, the less theysuggest 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 totheir lack of intrinsic meanings), and in the case of perfume, names should not mentionfunctional benefits that remind of detergent. Based in this analysis, it is advisable for marketing practitioners to choose productnames that focus on functional benefits for functional products and symbolic benefits forsymbolic products. It is generally easier to figure out the main functional benefits of aproduct. However, it is often harder to know what symbolic benefits are important toconsumers. The reason is that, as pointed out by Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) andMittal (1989), consumers’ decision making process is different according to productcategory. Symbolic products are often interpreted idiosyncratically, information searchand attribute evaluation are less explicit because content or feature discriminations arelower. 4.1.3. Perfume and Detergent Perceived as Two Distinct Categories 30
    • The reason why perfume and detergent differ in terms of their congruity-likingrelationship is that they are perceived as two distinct categories despite some functionaloverlapping. In the minds of subjects, detergent and perfume arguably share commonfunctional benefits such as cleaning (dirty spots and bad odor for detergent and perfumerespectively). Beyond the similarity of functional benefits, perfume and detergent differon key dimensions. Presumably, perfume is typically viewed as a product that helps expresspersonality and status, and boost self-esteem –all symbolic benefits that detergent doesnot have. In this study, subjects appeared to heavily focus on symbolic benefits when itcomes to perfume. Thus, the most congruent-with-perfume names are very remotelyrelated to cleaning and closely related to symbolic benefits such as expressing personality(“Pleasurable Sin”, “Unique”), or evoking romanticity (“Midnight Romance”, “ParisianSky”, “White Sand”, “The Kiss”) or point of origins associated with perfume (“ParisianSky”). Maybe for this reason, while it is often sufficient for brand names to includewords suggestive of functional benefit such as “care”, “color brite” , “green”, “wash”,“clean” or “soft”… to appear congruent with detergent (M>4), to be congruent withperfume, 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 withoutdrawbacks. Their perceived closeness to a product category turns out to be a heavylegacy that makes it difficult for brand repositioning or extension to other productcategories. In contrast, incongruent or moderately congruent names might be liked lessbut, because they have no or little legacy, they might offer the advantage of being more 31
    • flexible and distinctive. Thus, choosing moderately and even extremely congruent namesmight be a good decision in case of brand repositioning or extension. As pointed outpreviously, incongruent names work better for symbolic than for functional products.Another drawback of congruent names is that they are often already taken, leaving noother choice than less congruent ones. In this case, advertising might be used to increaseawareness and familiarity of the brands. Consequently, the answer to the question “whichones are better” is “it depends”. Product naming strategies depend on marketingobjectives. 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 ofquestions was not randomized, there might be some carry-over effects, hopefully limitedgiven the long list of unfamiliar names. This could be improved by having subjects cometo the lab where questions’ order can be randomized. Moreover, having participantsdivided into two groups, each receiving a questionnaire either for perfume or detergentmight help reduce these effects. Next, due to the convenient sampling, the majority of therespondents are female, raising the concern that gender might influence research findingsas 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 amore representative sampling will enable future studies’ results to be generalized to otherpopulation groups. The limited number of congruent names for perfume was expected but their totalabsence prevented the second hypothesis from being tested. In contrast, extremely 32
    • incongruent names were over-represented. It might be necessary in the future to includemore names that have high potential of being congruent with perfume to increase theirselection chance. Alternatively, future studies might need to address the issue ofdifferential measurement of functional and symbolic products. For example, product fromthese two categories might need to be measured on different scales. Finally, the findings of the study are limited to detergent and perfume. Given itsexploratory nature, the study aims at generating useful hypotheses upon which furtherstudies can be conducted. As such, a generalization to functional and symbolic productsrequires further studies be replicated to more products representative of these twocategories. 33
    • CHAPTER 5 This chapter concludes the study by restating research objectives, andsummarizing the results and the main discussion points presented in Chapter 4. 5.1. Conclusion Brand names are seen among companies’ biggest assets. Choosing “good” brandnames for products has therefore major marketing implications. Previous researchsuggest that, if marketing objective is to achieve immediate awareness, recognition,memorability, and ultimately preference for products, then congruent brand names are agood choice. Previous research also report that consumers’ attitudes towards brands andbrand names differ according to product categories. Therefore, this exploratory studyproposed to investigate the effects of brand name congruity on consumers’ attitudestoward brand names across functional - represented by detergent - and symbolic –represented by perfume - product categories. After reviewing the literature related tobrand name congruity and product category, and presenting the theoretical framework,the study described the methodology, reported and thoroughly discussed results as well asresearch limitations and suggestions for future research. One of the most interesting findings is that Mandler’s theorizing about theinverted-U shaped relationship between brand name congruity and preference was notsupported. Results show that for detergent (functional products), name preference ispositively correlated with congruity. For perfume (symbolic products), this correlationalso seems to work provided that brand names don’t suffer from the adverse effects 34
    • 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 congruentnames since, unlike detergent, name evaluations are largely idiosyncratic. However,lower congruity does not prevent perfume names from being equally liked. Given thesefindings, the main task is therefore to increase name congruity which will increase nameliking. For perfume, the challenge might be to come up with names that are bothcongruent with this category and unique, and at the same time have an appeal that isuniversal enough to transcend idiosyncratic tastes, which, by the way, are two redundantterms. This might be a good topic for future research. 35
    • APPENDIX 1. Means Scores of Brand NamesBRAND RemindP RemindD LikeP LikeD24 hours 2.61 2.66 2.95 2.50AHT 1.68 1.92 1.18 1.61Beltone 1.91 1.92 1.61 1.61Best Care 2.91 4.37 1.21 4.05Blue Horizon 3.16 2.74 2.87 3.00Brij 2.22 2.03 2.37 2.21Clean Slate 3.09 4.29 1.97 4.00Color Brite 3.55 5.53 1.50 4.82Cool Night 2.97 2.03 3.58 2.42Courant d’Air 2.89 1.97 3.58 2.29Deep Feeling 2.58 1.95 2.61 1.82Emcools 1.72 1.42 1.92 2.05Empigen 1.74 1.84 1.82 1.55Eresto 2.21 2.03 2.24 1.84Evolair 1.89 2.03 1.89 1.66Excessive 2.57 1.89 2.18 1.55F1 2.08 1.89 2.11 1.92Fast Effect 2.59 3.29 1.74 2.89Full Moon 2.68 2.18 3.18 2.00Green Land 2.57 3.47 1.68 3.29Joyeux 2.80 2.13 3.32 2.08Lola T70 2.09 1.53 2.00 1.24Max Care 2.87 4.29 1.55 3.61Midnight Romance 3.57 1.79 4.42 1.76 36
    • N20 2.01 1.63 2.08 1.39Nature Wash 3.49 5.03 1.76 4.79Nice Surprise 2.80 2.89 2.66 2.45Orange Night 2.53 2.18 2.71 2.47Overdose 2.33 2.03 2.03 1.82Parisian sky 3.04 1.76 3.87 2.29Pleasurable Sin 3.00 1.71 4.47 1.84Ponster 1.83 2.00 1.55 1.34Premid 1.83 1.95 1.71 1.76Rain Guard 3.08 3.82 1.53 3.45Renova 2.24 2.26 2.32 1.89River Clean 3.59 5.42 1.87 4.82Secret Spot 3.01 2.55 2.71 2.05Soft Max 2.62 3.50 1.42 3.42Stoxx 1.89 1.82 1.58 2.00The Fifth Element 2.22 2.00 2.74 2.24The Kiss 2.93 1.37 3.61 1.89The N 2.07 1.84 1.66 1.26The Rose Garden 3.47 3.05 3.58 2.82Tween 2.24 1.79 2.08 1.74UNIQUE 2.62 1.97 3.74 1.92UltraSpeed 2.42 3.34 1.63 2.68Volks 1.78 1.79 1.39 1.45Wash All 3.42 5.58 1.37 4.50White Sand 2.97 2.45 3.63 2.68Zwittergent 2.14 2.89 1.61 2.16 37
    • 2. Sample QuestionnairePart AThe purpose of this questionnaire is to understand how brand names can affectconsumers’ attitude toward brands. We would appreciate your spending 10 minutesfilling in this questionnaire.Please read the following brand names and use the corresponding scales to indicate howmuch the brand names remind you of products such as perfume and detergent. Do notspend more than a few seconds on each brand name. Circle the number that is mostappropriate to your immediate response.For example, if the brand name “Eternity” reminds you very much of perfume, you maywant to circle number 7.Perfume: Brand name “Eternity” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 ‡Perfume: “Unique” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Unique” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Courant dAir” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Courant dAir” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Pleasurable Sin” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Pleasurable Sin” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “The Fifth Element” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “The Fifth Element” 38
    • Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Nice Surprise” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Nice Surprise” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “24 hours” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “24 hours” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Blue Horizon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Blue Horizon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Full Moon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Full Moon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Excessive” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Excessive” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Orange Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Orange Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Joyeux” 39
    • Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Joyeux” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Cool Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Cool Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Overdose” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Overdose” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Secret Spot” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Secret Spot” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Deep Feeling” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Deep Feeling” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “The Kiss” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “The Kiss” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “The N” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “The N” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 40
    • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Volks” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Volks” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “The Rose Garden” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “The Rose Garden” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Eresto” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Eresto” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Midnight Romance” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Midnight Romance” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “White Sand” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “White Sand” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Emcools” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Emcools” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Parisian sky” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41
    • Detergent: “Parisian sky” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “F1” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “F1” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Zwittergent” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Zwittergent” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Empigen” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Empigen” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Tween” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Tween” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Brij” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Brij” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Lola T70” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Lola T70” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42
    • Perfume: “Premid” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Premid” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Nature Wash” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Nature Wash” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Beltone” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Beltone” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Color Brite” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Color Brite” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “River Clean” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “River Clean” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Renova” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Renova” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Soft Max” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43
    • Detergent: “Soft Max” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Ponster” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Ponster” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Rain Guard” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Rain Guard” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Stoxx” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Stoxx” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Evolair” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Evolair” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “N20” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “N20” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “AHT” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “AHT” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44
    • Perfume: “UltraSpeed” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “UltraSpeed” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Green Land” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Green Land” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Max Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Max Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Wash All” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Wash All” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Fast Effect” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Fast Effect” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Clean Slate” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Detergent: “Clean Slate” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Perfume: “Best Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45
    • Detergent: “Best Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Part BPlease read the following brand names and use the corresponding scales to indicate howmuch you like following brand names. Do not spend more than a few seconds on eachbrand 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 dAir” as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7“Courant dAir” as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Pleasurable Sin as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Pleasurable Sin as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The Fifth Element as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The Fifth Element as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Nice Surprise as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Nice Surprise as a name for Detergent 46
    • I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 724 hours as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 724 hours as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Blue Horizon as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Blue Horizon as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Full Moon as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Full Moon as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Excessive as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Excessive as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Orange Night as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Orange Night as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Joyeux as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Joyeux as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Cool Night as a name for Perfume 47
    • I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Cool Night as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Overdose as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Overdose as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Secret Spot as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Secret Spot as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Deep Feeling as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Deep Feeling as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The Kiss as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The Kiss as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The N as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The N as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Volks as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Volks as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 48
    • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The Rose Garden as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7The Rose Garden as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Eresto as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Eresto as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Midnight Romance as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Midnight Romance as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7White Sand as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7White Sand as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Emcools as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Emcools as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Parisian sky as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Parisian sky as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49
    • F1 as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7F1 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Zwittergent as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Zwittergent as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Empigen as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Empigen as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Tween as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Tween as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Brij as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Brij as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Lola T70 as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Lola T70 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Premid as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50
    • Premid as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Nature Wash as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Nature Wash as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Beltone as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Beltone as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Color Brite as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Color Brite as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7River Clean as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7River Clean as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Renova as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Renova as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Soft Max as a name for Perfume 51
    • I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Soft Max as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Ponster as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Ponster as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Rain Guard as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Rain Guard as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Stoxx as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Stoxx as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Evolair as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Evolair as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7N20 as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7N20 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52
    • AHT as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7AHT as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7UltraSpeed as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7UltraSpeed as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Green Land as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Green Land as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Max Care as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Max Care as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Wash All as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Wash All as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Fast Effect as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Fast Effect as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53
    • Clean Slate as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Clean Slate as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Best Care as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Best Care as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54
    • BIBLIOGRAPHYAaker, 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. 55
    • 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 56
    • 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, 42-50Voss, 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. 57