2.[4 10]importance of brand personality to customer loyalty
Presentation_FINAL
1. GOOGLE
TO GLASS:
Brand & new category design
consistency in brand extensions
Jessy Schott
Commitee
April 17, 2015 Arizona State University
Wil Heywood, Ph.D
Committee Member
Visual Communication
John Takamura
Committee Member
Industrial Design
Mookesh Patel
Chair
Visual Communication
Al Sanft
Committee Member
Visual Communication
Al Sanft
Committee Member
Visual Communication
8. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Brand extension strategy leverages the equity of an
established brand name to increase consumer
acceptance of a new extension product that carries the
same brand’s attributes and character (Keller, 1993).
US brand extension failure rate is reported to be 84%
in many consumer good categories
(Ernst & Young, 2009).
Overarching purpose
to examine the impact of BDC and CDC on
consumers’ attitudes and purchase intensions
toward brand extensions, and to provide insight on
the design elements and how they should be
implemented with the understanding of processing
fluency method.
9. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Brand extension:
Leveraging a well-known brand name in one
category to launch a new product in a different
category is known as “brand extension”.
Parent brand:
The definition of “parent” as the product that
originally used the brand name is similar to the
definition of “core” brand.
Brand design consistency (BDC):
The design consistency between the concept of a
parent brand and the extension product as perceived
by the consumer.
Category design consistency (CDC):
The degree to which the design of an extension
product is prototypical of its category exemplar.
Prototypicality:
The form of recognition-based processing – processing
related to the perception of the parent brand.
Processing fluency theory (PFT):
The theory that asserts that “aesthetic pleasure is a
function of the perceiver’s processing dynamics”.
Definitions
10. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Significance
Hypothetical brands/products
A study conducted by Page and Herr (2002) found that
product aesthetics have greater impact than brand
strength on consumer liking based off memorization of
parent brand descriptions.
Processing fluency tells us a consumer’s purchase
intentions
Goh et al. (2013) also found that when prototyping,
both BDC and CDC significantly had impact effects on
new product attitude in brand extensions.
Test existing products in existing marketplaces
Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004) call for research that
is able to test products that already existing in the
marketplace and see the connection to consumers
using different parent brand standards.
Why research is needed:
• distinguish consumer values on design
elements in extended products
• prototype of the actual extension product is
needed
• better understanding of consumer decision
making
• brand extension attitudes
• purchase intentions
11. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Conceptual Framework
parent brand strength
BDC strength
CDC strength
consumer attitude
toward brand extension
12. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Research Questions
Should an extension into a new consumer category be
consistent with the parent brand image?
According to Goh et al. (2013), consumer purchase
intention significantly increases when the BDC and
CDC are easily recognizable to the consumer.
Consumers being able to connect the extended
product to the parent brand by brand description and
description of hypothetical category extensions by
aesthetics and design (Sood and Keller, 2012).
Research has found that brand loyalty is a direct
correlation of trustworthiness and has the greatest
impact on consumer choice (Erdem and Swait, 2004).
What design features are critical in consumer
evaluations of design between brand extension and
the parent brand?
How does the BDC and CDC affect brand loyalty?
1
2
3
13. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Scope and Limitations
Scope
The parent brands that will be used are Google and
Apple. These brands are international technology
companies with huge consumer bases and brand
loyalists.
Limitations
This study is only is concerned with two brands in a
single consumer category.
Time and sample size.
Participants
Undergraduate students who are consumers of the
mentioned brands studying in the Herberger Institute
for Design and The Art and W.P. Carey School of
Business at Arziona State University in the Spring
semester of 2015.
They will be between the ages of 18-23. Both male and
females will be surveyed.
Voluntary basis and include approximately 100
undergraduate student participants in the disciplines of
design and business.
14. GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION
Google Glass
Forbes
In 2014,Google was ranked third on Forbes “World’s
Most Valuable Brands”, bringing in over 380 billion
dollars in revue annually (Forbes, 2014).
Competition
Previous competition: Yahoo, Bing
Current competition: Apple, Amazon, Facebook
April 2012
Google announced they were going to be venturing into
a new consumer category with “Project Glass”.
June 2012
Google Glass Explorer edition was released to
consumers who could purchase the product for $1,500
and provide feedback on the product on a weekly basis.
January 2015
Google announced they were shutting down their
“explorer program” and will be going through a “transition”.
16. GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand Experience
Brand identity and image
Brand identity and brand image are related as they are
essential ingredients for a strong brand (Nandan, 2005).
Identity represents the company while image
represents the consumer (Srivastava, 2011).
The development of brand image, while attempting to
present brand identity to the consumers, enhances the
position of a company and opens up room for brand
extensions (Vytautas, Aiste, and Regina, 2007).
Components of brand image:
• brand vision
• brand culture
• positioning
• personality
• relationship
• presentation
Chernatony (2001), de Charlatony (1999)
17. GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand Experience
Brand personality
Five dimensions of the brand personality scale:
• sincerity
• excitment
• competence
• sophistications
• ruggedness
Brand personality can be defined as attributing
human characteristics to brands (Aaker, 1997;
Keller & Richey, 2006).
18. GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand Experience
Brand strength
Brand strength is a heuristic “short cut” that forms
consumer’s attitudes towards products (Goh et al., 2013).
Extension product success will depend on the
accessibility oft he parent brand (Keller & Aaker, 1992).
Brand strength effects on consumer responses in:
• advertising context (Dahlen & Lange, 2005)
• product quality judgement (Page & Herr, 2002)
• retailing context (Woodside & Walser, 2007)
• brand extension strategy/pricing (DelVecchio & Smith, 2005)
19. GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand Extension
Effect of perceived fit
Gives extensions credibility, which in turn creates a
more willingness to buy (Buil et al., 2009).
Perceived fit between the parent brand and the
extension is one of the major determinants of brand
extension success (Volckner & Sattler, 2006).
Important factors:
• weight in the evaluation of extension brands
and products (Aaker & Keller, 1990)
• feedback effect on the parent brand (Smith &
Park, 1992)
20. GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW
Brand Extension
Common brand extension approaches
Risks diluting the core brand image built within the
parent brand name (Aaker, 1990).
Brand extension must create its own niche within the
company’s brand-mix (Chen and Liu, 2004).
Current brand extension strategy:
• horizontal: new product in a new category
• vertical: same category with different price point &
quality level
21. GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW
Processing Fluency
Product attitude & Purchase intention Processing Fluency
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): person’s overall
attitude towards an object and their intention to
perform a behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
How a person’s attitude toward a product is influenced
by the ease with which he/she identifies and
recognizes the product (Reber et al., 2004).
Kids, Fun, Family
Value
Meals
Service
Social Involvement
Friendly/Warm
Happy Meal Toys
Birthday Parties
Playground
Ronald McDonald
Consistent
Convenient
Hassle-Free
Fast
Pricing
Portion Size
Promotions
Products
Breakfast
Burgers
Fries
Drinks
Quality
Fresh
Consistent
Good Tasting
Brands
Big Mac
McMuffin
Charities
Ronald McDonald House
23. GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY
Methodology
Research design
Participants
Mixed methods approach with quantitative & qualita-
tive data collected through:
100 undergraduates between the ages of 18-23 in the
Herberger Institute for Design and The Arts and W.P.
Carey School of Business during the spring 2015
semester.
• literature review
• case study (Apple & Google)
• pre-test
• survey
24. GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY
Case Study
Google
Color
Inspired by bold color statements with
muted environments, taking cues from
contemporary architecture, road signs,
pavement marking tape, and sports courts.
Imagery
Illustration and photography enhances the
user experience, choose images that
express personal relevance, information,
and delight.
Typography
Roboto has been refined extensively to work
across the wider set of supported
plaforms. It is slightly wider and rounder,
giving it greater clarity.
25. GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY
Apple
Color
Family of pure, clean and neutral colors that
look great individually and in combination,
and on both light and dark backgrounds.
Imagery
Icons and photography are unique,
uncluttered, engaging, and memorable.
Imagery should never be used
more than once.
Typography
Helvetica Neue is used across all interfaces
for readability, sharpness, and unity through
all interfaces and marketing.
26. 30%
Apple
70%
Google
75%
Apple
25%
Google
GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY
Pre-Test
Format
Findings
10 questions that gathered information on brand
image, experience with the brand, brand strength,
perceptual characteristics of the brands, and best-fit
consumer category for Apple and Google.
Which brand do you favor more?
Which brand do you think is stronger?
• participants favored Google over Apple in
experience
• Apple was rated as a stronger brand than Google
due to brand image
• Google best fit into the technology services and
news and information cateogry
27. GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY
Survey
Format
19 questions that gathered information on brand
image, experience with the brand, brand strength,
perceptual characteristics of the brands, and best-fit
consumer category for Apple and Google.
3 products were shown where participants were asked
questions directly relating to BDC and CDC of each
product:
• MacBook with “Siri” search engine on screen
• “GoogleBook” with Google search engine on screen
• Google Glass
Participants
100 undergraduates between the ages of 18-23 in the
Herberger Institute for Design and The Arts and W.P.
Carey School of Business during the spring 2015
semester.
29. GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS
Brand Experience & Familiarity
Best-Fit Consumer Category
Apple Google
News or Information
Mobile Applications
Mobile Connected
Devices
Technology Services
Consumer Electronics
58%
19%
22%
News or Information
Mobile Applications
Mobile Connected
Devices
Technology Services
Consumer Electronics
49%
44%
30. BDC and CDC in Extension
MacBook with “Siri”
CDC specific attributes:
product feel
over-priced
device mobile electronic
computer
technology
BDC specific attributes:
silver
white
minimalist
typeface
color palette
clean design
logo
metal
clean branding
negative space
simple design
sleek
GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS
31. BDC and CDC in Extension
GoogleBook with Google Search Engine
GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS
CDC specific attributes:
search
research
search engine
internet
helpful
navigation
search bar
information
knowledge
technology
google docs
gmail
“not actually a product
Google would make because
they are an information
technology company.”
BDC specific attributes:
round
colorful
image placement
saturated color palette
logo
artwork
animation
free
creative
fun
childish
bubbly
illustrations
bright
friendly
32. BDC and CDC in Extension
Google Glass
GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS
“It looks like an Apple product, but I know the technology
function is more information based like Google.”
“Clean, but Apple should be producing because they are a
tech product company and Google is search based.”
“No brand attributes of Google, but I know it is Google Glass
because I have seen it before.”
“The subtle design of the glasses resembles Apple. Also,
Apple is an electronics company.”
“I know it’s Google, although it has Apple branding elements.”
“I do not recognize anything related to Google.”
“I have seen Google Glass before, but if I had not, I would
think Apple made the product.”
“Very little brand attributes relate to Google. If I did not know
what it was [Google Glass] I would think it belonged to Apple,
being an electronic product and sophisticated design.”
34. Implications for Google Glass
From the data in this study, it can be concluded that
there is a disconnect between potential consumers of
Google Glass due to BDC and CDC elements not being
consistent with the parent brand, Google.
Participants were able to identify the product being
under the Google parent brand only due to previous
exposure to the product.
Redesign or rebrand the Glass to connect more
with their parent brand.
Reconsider if the product even makes sense for
them to be exploring and investing in .
Suggestions
35. Implications for Brand Extension Strategies
This study concludes that a brand extension is most
successful when both BDC and CDC are predictable
and consistent with the parent brand. It also concludes
that an extension could be successful with just one
element, BDC or CDC, aligning with the parent brand.
However, there is a greater chance that it will fail
because consumers have a much harder time
connecting the extension to the parent brand.
The BDC and/or CDC of an extension product
should be consistent with the parent brand
image and consumer category.
The more consistent these two elements are,
the more consumers will connect the extension
product to the parent brand, which leads to
higher trust and ultimately to more favorable
purchase intentions.
Summary of Conclusions
36. References
Aaker, D.A. (1990). Brand extensions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sloan
Management Review, 31(4), 47-56.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands do bad.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 1-17.
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., & Hem, L.E. (2009). Brand extension strategies:
Perceived fit, brand type, and culture influences. European Journal of
Marketing, 43(11), 1300-1324.
Chen, K.J & Liu, C.M. (2004). Positive brand extension trial and choice of
parent brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13(1), 25-36.
Dahlen, M. & Lange, F. (2005). Advertising weak and strong brands: Who
gains? Psychology and marketing, 22(6), 473-488.
DelVecchio, D., & Smith, D. C. (2005). Brand-extension price premiums: The
effects of perceived fit and extension product category risk. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 184-196.
Erdem, T. & Swait, J. (2004). Brand creditability, brand consideration, and
choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191-198.
Ernst & Young (2009). New product successful innovation: A fragile
boundary. New York: Ernst & Young Global Client Consulting.
Forbes lists. (2014, May). World’s most value brands. Forbes.com. Retrieved
February 25 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/companies/google/.
37. Goh, Y.S., Chattaraman, V., & Forsythe, S. (2013). Brand and category design
consistency in brand extension. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 22(4), 272-285.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.
Keller, K.L., & Aaker, D. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of
brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35-50.
Keller, K.L., & Richey, K. (2006). The importance of corporate brand
personality traits to a successful 21st century business. Brand
Management, 25(6), 740-759.
Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage:
A communication perspective. Brand Management, 12(4), 264-78.
Page, C. & Herr, P. (2002). An investigation of the process by which product
design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and
quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 133-147.
Smith, D.C. & Park, C.W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market
share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research,
10(1), 296-313.
Srivastava, R.K. (2011). Understanding brand identity confusion. Marketing
Intelligence & Planing, 29(4), 340-352.
Volckner, F. & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal
of Marketing, 70, 18-34.
Vytautas, J., Aiste, D. and Regina, V. (2007). Relationship of brand identify
and image. Engineering Economics, 5(1), 69-79.
Woodside, A.G., & Walser, M.G. (2007). Building strong brands in retailing.
Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 1-10.
