University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Economics and Business
Thesis
E
ffective
B
rand
N
aming
M
arissa
S
mits
10641092
M
sc
B
A
Thesis Supervisors:
Drs. J. Labadie
Drs. R.E.W. Pruppers
M
arch 2015
S
tatement of
O
riginality
This document is written by Marissa Smits who declares to take full responsibility for
the contents of this document.
‘I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no
sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating
it.’
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion
of the work, not for the contents.
T
able of
C
ontents
Chapter 1 Effective Brand Naming? 1 - 5
1.1 The Sound Symbolism Effect 1
1.2 Sound vs Meaning in Brand Names 3
1.3 Contributions 4
1.4 Thesis Outline 5
Chapter 2 Overview on Brand Perception 6 - 9
2.1 Brand Image & Personality 6
2.2 Brand Associations & Processing 7
Chapter 3 Overview on Brand Positioning 10 - 15
3.1 Creating a Brand Positioning Strategy 10
3.2 Brand Positioning Strategies 11
3.3 Choosing an effective Brand Name 13
3.4 Meaningful Brand Names 14
Chapter 4 Overview on Sound Symbolism 16 - 22
4.1 Sound in different contexts 16
4.2 Sound Symbolism and Marketing 17
4.3 Process of Sound Symbolism 19
4.4 Individual level differences 20
4.5 Sound Symbolism in different Languages 21
Chapter 5 Hypotheses & Conceptual Model 23 - 26
5.1 Main Variable Brand Evaluation 23
5.2 Main Variable Purchase Intentions 25
5.3 Brand Memory as Moderator 26
Chapter 6 Methodology 27 - 34
6.1 Participants 27
6.2 Stimuli Development 28
6.3 Research Procedure 33
Chapter 7 Results of the Study 35 – 42
7.1 Brand Evaluation Results 35
7.2 Purchase Intention Results 38
Chapter 8 Discussion & Conclusion 43 – 52
8.1 The effects of brand naming on brand evaluation 43
8.2 The effects of brand naming on purchase intentions 46
8.3 The influence of brand awareness as a moderator 48
8.4 Limitations & Future recommendations 48
8.5 Conclusion & Managerial implications 51
References 52 – 56
Appendix I Sample of Pre-Test I 57
Appendix II Sample of Pre-Test II 58
Appendix III Sample of Pre-Test III 59
Appendix IV Survey (in Dutch) 60
ABSTRACT
The influence of brand name sound and semantics on brand evaluation and purchase intentions was investigated. A conceptual model was designed in which brand awareness was included as a moderator between brand name characteristics and brand evaluation. By researching the effect that sound and semantics have on brand evaluation and purchase intentions, important implications rise for the effectiveness of brand naming and brand positioning. Previous research has shown that both the sound and semantics of brand names can influence customer responses such as brand evaluation and purchase intentions (Yorkston & Menon, 2004; Wänke, Hermann & Schaffner, 2007), but including both factors (sound and semantics) in research has thus far not been done. Results yielded no significant support for the influence of both brand name characteristics on brand evaluation, but no support was found for purchase intentions. The masculinity of the product was however found to be of significant influence since the interaction of sound and semantics was significantly different for masculine versus feminine products. The moderator effect of brand awareness could not be supported by the results. Limitations and directions for further research are discussed.
C
hapter 1.
E
ffective
B
rand
N
aming?
When the Ford Edsel was launched in 1956, Ford Motor Company had put a lot of effort in the design and advertisement of the new car (Haig, 2005). The company expected to produce 200,000 units in the first year, sales however yielded an unexpected 64,000 units. The production of the car even had to come to a halt in 1959 because sales only further decreased. So what went wrong? When the Ford Executive Committee had to choose a name for their new car, they had a pool of 10.000 names to choose from. Overwhelmed with choices, they simply went for ‘Edsel’ the name of the Ford founder’s only son. This might not have been a wise choice since consumers detested the name ‘Edsel’, partly for the reason that it sounded like ‘weasel’ and thus associated the name with an animal rather than a car (Haig, 2005).
This example shows that selecting a brand name is indeed one of the most important
decisions marketers have to make (Aaker, 1991; Klink, 2000). More specifically, the brand name not only directly affects brand awareness and brand image, it also indirectly affects brand memory (Keller, 1993) and consumer choice (Hoyer & Brown, 1990). Consequently, it might be possible for brands to achieve a competitive advantage by creating the right brand name. One way of doing this is by taking the target market into account, something that companies are increasingly placing
importance on (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010). Furthermore, the brand name plays a vital role in brand equity in a way that it vocalizes the brand identity (Aaker, 1992). Indeed, results from Kohli and LaBahn’s survey of 101 companies show that brand names are critical to the success of a new product (1997). However, in the current market where increasingly new brands and product lines are developed, the lack of clarity on brand naming strategy clearly calls for more research and guidelines.
1.1 The Sound Symbolism Effect
Now that the importance of adequate brand name development is clear, there are various aspects of brand names that marketers can focus on. Next to semantics (the meaning of words), research has focused on the sound of words. Both semantics and sound are important parts of psycholinguistics, a scientific field also known as the psychology of language. Interestingly enough, the sound of words seems to have an effect on brand evaluation even when the brand name has no meaning (Klink, 2000). This effect is called ‘the sound symbolism effect’ or ‘phonetic symbolism’, which means that when the mere sound of a word, apart from its actual definition, conveys meaning (Lowrey & Shrum, 2007).
In 1929 Sapir already found a connection between product names and their estimated size:
name ‘mil’. In fact, the sound symbolism effect was also observed in a more natural social context, when Smith (1998) analyzed the past U.S. presidential elections and found a link between degree of comfort of a name (based on vowels, consonants and rhythm) and the likelihood of having won the election. This surprising outcome not only shows that people (unconsciously) subtract meaning from a sound, but it also leads them to prefer certain names over others and this actually influences their decisions.
In the context of branding, it was found that both vowels and consonants of brand names
could communicate product-related information (Klink, 2000). This information could relate to both tangible features of the product (e.g. size) and intangible features (e.g. speed). What’s more, the absence or presence of other marketing communications did not have an impact on the sound symbolism effect. Furthermore, the effects of sound symbolism were demonstrated in a variety of product categories (Lowrey & Shrum, 2007; Yorkston & Menon, 2004) and even in names of services (Klink, 2000).
1.1.1 Strength of Sound Symbolism
Since the sound symbolism effect is so broadly applicable across products and services, it is worthwhile to further investigate the boundaries and strength of this effect. So far, research has focused on individual differences by investigating how individuals differ in their way of responding to the sound symbolism effect. More specifically, Klink (2009) found that females demonstrate an overall greater sensitivity to brand name vowels than males and it was also found that older children show stronger effects of sound symbolism than younger children (Baxter & Lowrey, 2011).
However, the strength of the sound symbolism effect in relation to other characteristics of a
name has not been given a lot of attention. The research of Lowrey and Shrum (2007) provides some indication for this question; they found that participants only preferred a particular vowel sound when the attributes implied by that sound had positive implications for the product. Negative vowel sounds were least preferred regardless of product category or attribute (Lowrey & Shrum, 2007). Klink (2000) did find that the sound of words has an effect on brand evaluation when using fictitious brand names. By using fictitious brand names one can rule out the effect of already existent
associations with known brand names, yet the meaning of a word, or semantics is not being investigated. The question whether the sound symbolism is still existent when a brand name itself gives clues about the attributes thus remains unanswered.
1.2 Sound vs Meaning in Brand Names
The sound symbolism effect clearly has important implications for brand naming strategies, but what remains unclear is what happens when the semantics of a brand name come into play. For example the word ‘big’ hints upon a large product, but the vowel sound of ‘i’ was found to be associated with the product attribute ‘small’ (Klink, 2000). Thus the combination of meaning and sound in affecting brand evaluation is something that is important to investigate since name characteristics influence brand evaluation and purchase behavior (Lowrey & Shrum, 2007; Yorkston & Menon, 2004). This calls for a study as well as a conceptual framework to investigate how the semantics of a brand name influence the sound symbolism effect.
1.2.1 Research Question and Main Constructs
When the brand name sound corresponds with the preferred product attributes, there is a fit between sound and preferred attributes. If there is no correspondence between sound and product attributes, this means that there is a misfit between sound and attributes. The same can be the case for brand name meaning, the meaning can either fit with the preferred product attributes or not. For both variables, sound and semantics, four combinations of fit and misfit will be made to research brand perception:
‘How can brand name semantics and sound be used to influence brand perception and how is this relevant for brand positioning?’
In response to new brand names, multiple different consequences can occur. First of all, individuals can differ in the way that they like certain brand names better than others. This means that it is important to investigate the influence that the sound and semantic of a brand name can have on brand evaluation. Second of all, whether a positive evaluation of a brand name in fact leads to an intention to buy the brand calls upon the question whether attitude always leads to action. Since this is definitely not always the case (Wicker, 1969) it is certainly important to not only investigate preference but also purchase intentions in response to new brand names.
1.2.2 Delimitations
Since the two constructs of focus have been clarified (brand evaluation and purchase intentions), it is important to explain how the current study will examine these concepts in relation to semantics and the sound symbolism effect. After pre-testing of brand name stimuli, a survey will be developed, where brand name sound and semantics are manipulated into four combinations of fit and misfit between name characteristics and preferred product attributes. In response to these names, brand
evaluation and intentions to buy are measured by using Likert-scales.
As for the boundaries of the research, a few will be named. First, this study will use known
brand names, since participants that were exposed to new brand names were found to be incapable of coming up with associations due to the lack of information (Keller, 2008). Second, since Klink (2009) found significant effects of gender it is important to make sure that both males and females are well represented in the sample. In addition, the masculinity-femininity of product attributes has to be accounted for to rule out gender effects on sound symbolism (Klink, 2009). This is why both a product category with stronger feminine attributes and a product category with a focus on masculine attributes will be researched. Third, the focus of this study will only be on the auditory impact of brand names and not on the visual effect. As the visual effect of brand marks are an interesting phenomenon, it is beyond the scope of this study and was already found to be strengthened by the sound symbolism effect (Klink, 2003). Fourth, to be more specific about the auditory exposure to brand name stimuli, participants will simply read the brand names and then answer questions about them, since reading a brand name poses less problems for participants than hearing them (Luna, Carnevale & Lerman, 2012).
1.3 Contributions
Multiple contributions will be made with this thesis; on the one hand it adds to academic theory and on the other hand it provides brand managers and companies with practical implications for brand naming strategy.
1.3.1.To theory
A conceptual framework will be provided in which the effects of brand name sound and semantics on both brand evaluation and purchase intentions are outlined. In addition, brand awareness is being taken into account as this factor might mediate the effect of brand name characteristics on both brand evaluation and purchase intentions (Yorkston & Menon, 2004; Wänke, Hermann & Schaffner, 2007). Research has thus far not taken both these two factors into account when researching brand perception and brand positioning. In addition, research on the sound symbolism effect of brand names has not used existing brand names. This current research thus provides more insight into the importance of the associations that either sound or meaning evoke. More specifically, the framework will broaden the understanding of how strong the sound symbolism effect really is in comparison to the semantics of a brand name. This will be done by not only looking at responses like brand evaluation and purchase intentions but also by researching how brand awareness influence these two factors. Furthermore, the current research will be an addition to the rather limited research on
the sound symbolism effect, emphasizing the importance of psycholinguistics in affecting brand perception and purchase behavior.
1.3.2 To practice
Selecting the right brand name is a critical first step for marketers as it will help to build brand equity (Keller, 2008). The associations that a brand name evokes are communicated freely every time the name comes up. This means that when the name is associated with the preferred attributes, the name communicates these attributes every time it is seen. Even when judging product quality it was found that consumers rely more heavily on brand-name signals than on either price or physical appearance of the product (Dawar & Parker, 1994). In line with brand positioning, it is important to know how the target market responds to a new brand name. Knowing how semantics interfere with sound effects of a brand name will provide managers with additional information on how to create the most effective brand names. This means that in the development of new products or product lines, managers will know if and how the sound symbolism can benefit the brand name evaluations. It also means that they will be able to avoid the possible downsides of the sound symbolism effect, which was demonstrated by the detrimental effects for the Ford Edsel.
1.4 Thesis Outline
Following this introduction, a research review will be provided to gain insight in the research that has been done on brand perception, brand name positioning and the sound symbolism effect
respectively. An outline of hypotheses will follow these chapters, which is based on brand
perception, brand positioning and the sound symbolism effect. After the hypotheses, the method section will be provided for a detailed description of the research process. Subsequent to this section follows a full description of the results of the data analysis, ending with the discussion and
C
hapter 2.
L
iterature
O
verview on
B
rand
P
erception
In a marketplace where the number of brands is growing exponentially, the only way to differentiate a brand from its competitors is by creating distinctive brand associations. Brands are more than just names or symbols; they represent perceptions and feelings also known as brand equity. In 1993, Keller defined consumer brand equity as ´the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand´. This means that consumers react more or less favorably to the marketing of a brand than they do to the same marketing when it is paired with either a
fictitiously named or unnamed version of the same product or service. From this definition it follows that the brand name is highly important since it communicates the brand associations, which in turn are a way to differentiate the brand from its competitors (Kotler, 2003). Indeed, Lemon, Rust and Zeithaml (2001) define brand equity as ´the consumers´ subjective and intangible assessment of the brand, above and beyond its objectively perceived value´. In 2003, Keller also outlined six useful criteria that are necessary for brand elements in building brand equity. These are memorability, meaningfulness, aesthetic appeal, transferability, adaptability/flexibility and legal and competitive protectability. To build brand equity it is necessary to build a positive brand image and create a brand name that satisfies the six criteria (Keller, 1993).
2.1. Brand Image & Personality
Brand image has been a well-considered concept since the 1950s, and has been defined as the feelings, ideas and attitudes that consumers can have about brands (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). Brand image was found to not only directly influence purchase behavior, but also indirectly via
psychological factors (Sirgy, 1985). Examples of these factors are the influence of customer’s own status and self-esteem. Furthermore, the degree of congruence between brand image and actual or ideal self image of the consumer was found to play a role in consumer behavior (Dolich, 1969; Sirgy, 1985).
Furthermore, the study of Gwinner and Eaton (1999) showed that image could be transferred
from a particular activity onto a brand. They found that when a brand was paired with a sponsorship event, the participants were more likely to report similarities between the brand and the event than participants who were not exposed to this sponsorship link. The process of image transfer was even further enhanced when there was a high congruity between perceived brand and event personality (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), suggesting that consumers are able to link brand image to personal characteristics.
Indeed, Aaker found that consumers associated numerous of human characteristics with a brand (1997). To close the gap between consumer behavior and brand personality, a theoretical framework of fifteen brand personality dimensions was defined that was found to be reliable, valid and generalizable (Aaker, 1997). Five dimensions could be distinguished: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Each dimension is reflected by two or three underlying traits, for example sincerity reflects the traits of being down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful (Aaker, 1997).
Further directions for developing brand personality come from the research of Kervyn, Fiske
and Malone (2012). These authors believe that consumers perceive, feel and behave towards brands in the same way that they do towards people. Consequently, consumers care about the relational and emotional part of the brand. These authors propose a framework in which brands are seen as intentional agents which means that their perceived intentions and ability cannot be overlooked in brand perception. More specifically this means that the warmth and capability that a brand communicates is highly influential in brand purchase and loyalty (Kervyn, Fiske & Malone, 2012).
2.2 Brand Associations & Processing
Thus brand associations can form an image or even a personality of a brand. Aaker (1991) described brand associations as perceptions, preferences and choices of a brand that are set in memory. Brand associations can be very specific, when they include perceptions of places and people, but they can also be general when a brand merely evokes certain product attributes (Keller, 2008). For example, a coffee brand can evoke associations of the coffee taste, but it can also evoke thoughts about the people with and places where a person drinks this coffee brand. These brand associations can create value for the product and can lead to new product development or brand extensions (Henderson, Iacobucci & Calder, 1998).
2.2.1 Network of Associations
According to cognitive psychologists, brand associations are being processed through a network of associations (Collins & Loftus, 1975). These networks consist of ‘nodes’, the places where
information about a brand is stored, and ‘links’, the pathways that run between these nodes. Brand nodes can either be a general brand name (‘Coca-Cola’), a product category (‘soft drink’), a product attributes (‘sugar’) or people and places that are associated with the product (‘friends’, ‘meals’) (Henderson, Iacobucci & Calder, 1998). Nodes can be activated by either encoding external
information or retrieving internal information from memory (Keller, 1993). A certain threshold level of information is necessary, after which the information enclosed in the node is recalled. The concept
will be activated as well through the links that run between them (Collins & Loftus, 1975). In turn, these nodes can activate other nodes that are connected to them, which depends on the distance between these nodes and the strength of their links (Keller, 1993). In the category of soft drinks, consumers might be inclined to directly think of Coca-Cola. Later, the associations with the product taste, past experiences or advertising might come to mind (Henderson, Iacobucci & Calder, 1998). 2.2.2 Elaboration Likelihood Model
The perception of a brand also depends on how the information that it communicates is processed by consumers. In the context of advertising, Petty and Cacioppo (1983) developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). The ELM distinguishes two types of attitude change depending on the motivation and ability to process the information. In this model, the motivation to process the information is determined by factors like the relevance of the stimuli, issue involvement and the personal need for cognition. Furthermore, the ability to process the stimuli can be influenced by multiple factors including comprehensibility, issue familiarity and distraction. When both the motivation and ability to process the information is high, this means that the central route of elaboration will be followed (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983). The central route of elaboration is
characterized by high elaboration of the available material and their sources. More specifically, this means that the content of the arguments is carefully considered in a highly cognitive process. Thus when something becomes personally relevant and it is easy to understand, a person will be able and motivated to attentively process the information. However when either motivation or ability to process is low, the peripheral route of attitudinal change will be followed. Here, information will not be highly elaborated upon but be dealt with in an easy, straightforward way. Simple cues such as the number of arguments (independent of their strength) or the expertise of the source become
persuasive for attitudinal change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983).
Indeed, processing motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) were found to be related to
brand attitude, brand learning and brand memory (MacInnis, Moorman & Jaworski, 1991). More specifically, in this research it was found that motivation to process could be enhanced by complexity, figurality and novelty of brand advertisements. However, tradeoff effects were also found for some of the antecedents of MOA. For example, using sexual factors in advertisements increased motivation to process but at the same time reduced the opportunity to process the brand, for being too distracting from the brand. Thus the researchers argue that it is important to use attention-getting executional cues that are also relevant for the brand (MacInnis, Moorman & Jaworski, 1991).
2.2.3 Cognitive Dissonance
The above outlined research shows that using psychologically consistent cues is important for processing brand information. The reason for this can be found in the concept of cognitive dissonance. According to dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), cognitive dissonance will be experienced when two cognitions are held that are in conflict with each other. This experience is characterized by an uncomfortable feeling, similar to hunger or thirst. Since this feeling is so unpleasant, people are motivated to reduce it, either by attitudinal or behavior changes. To further explain this concept, it means that a smoking individual who believes in a healthy life style can choose to either stop smoking (behavioral change), believe smoking is not that unhealthy (attitudinal change) or simply ignore any advertising information about smoking being bad for your health. Thus, different responses to cognitive dissonance can occur (Festinger, 1957).
In the context of consumer behavior, cognitive dissonance comes into play when the prior
product expectations are not in line with the actual product performance. When these two are not aligned, dissonance between cognition and experience might cause attitudinal change in product evaluation (Korgaonkar & Moschis, 1982). In fact, a review of cognitive dissonance studies in
consumer behavior context shows that the majority of dissonance research found changes in attitude as a result of cognitive dissonance (Cummings & Venkatesan, 1976). Contrast theory might play a role here as well, stating that the amount of contrast between prior expectations and actual performance enhances customer evaluation (Sherif, Muzafer & Hovland, 1961). This means that customer who held low expectations but experience high product performance are more satisfied than customers with initially high expectations.
Oshikawa argued that product advertisement might be able to both reduce cognitive
dissonance and encourage repurchase behavior (1969). This researcher stated that product advertisement emphasized desirable features, this dissonance of having made the wrong choice is being decreased, thereby reducing cognitive dissonance. At the same time, consumers are reassured that they made the right choice of purchasing the product. Oshikawa also argues that time plays an important role because cognitive dissonance is commonly reduced over time (1969). This means that the enhancing effects of product advertisements on cognitive dissonance and repurchasing behavior might reduce over time. In addition, consumers might also be exposed to competitive advertising during this, which even further decreases the benefits of advertising. Lastly, the initial extent of cognitive dissonance also matters when product advertisement is being used to decrease dissonance: more advertisement will be necessary when greater cognitive dissonance occurs and less time between initial purchase and repurchasing might be accounted for since during this time consumers might be more prone to listen to competitive advertising (Oshikawa, 1969).
C
hapter 3.
L
iterature
O
verview on
B
rand
P
ositioning
Brand positioning is “the act of designing the company’s offering and image to occupy a distinctive place in the mind of the target market. The end result of positioning is the successful creation of a consumer-focused value proposition, a cogent reason why the target market should buy the product” (Kotler, 2003, p. 308). By shaping the company´s product or service according to the characteristics of the target market, the wishes of the consumers in these target markets are more fully satisfied. For that specific consumer segment, enhanced value is created which leads to consumer loyalty and brand equity (Keller, 2008).
3.1 Creating a Brand Positioning Strategy
To occupy the right position in the marketplace, it is first of all important that possible similarities and or differences with other brands are established. This can be done by using a frame of reference in which resources and capabilities of the competitive brands are outlined (Keller, 2008). To create the right frame of reference, it is important to first establish which target market will be aimed at, so that the appropriate competing firms are analyzed. After all, the greatest competition comes from the firms that aim at the same target market, even though firms with similar products that aim at a different target market can also have resources and capabilities that are beneficial to analyze. This is why brands often have more than one frame of reference.
3.1.1 Points of Difference
When the nature of the competition is clear, the brand´s unique attributes must be established so that a distinctive place in the market can be considered (Keller, 2008). The points of difference are distinctive brand attitudes that are associated with the brand. These associations have to be strong, favorable and unique for them to be a true point of difference. More specifically, the association with the brand has to be personally relevant and equally believable and credible. Next to the desirability to the consumer, the company must also be able to deliver and preserve the brand associations. This calls for the right resources and capabilities that build a strong brand association which can hold up under a weakened image. Lastly, the particular brand association must solely be related to the brand in question and not to competitors for it to be truly differentiating. When the brand associations are both favorable, unique and strong this will lead to consumer-based brand equity (Keller, 2008).
3.1.2 Points of Parity
Next to unique brand associations, a brand must also have certain associations in common with its competitors. According to Keller, consumers always have certain expectations which are in part based on competing brands so these points of parity must never be overlooked (2008). First, the category points of parity which are essential associations that need to be established for a firm to even compete with other firms in the marketplace. When consumers are used to a product or service with certain attributes, they associate these attributes with the product and may not accept new brands that do not have these benefits. Second, competitive points of parity concern the attainment of other brands´ points of difference, so that competitors are weakened in their competitive
advantage by having less differential value. This means that both points of parity and difference are important to market positioning. Rather, it seems that brands should start their positioning strategy by analyzing all points of parity before they can focus on their points of difference. Furthermore, the two points are often negatively correlated, for example with price and quality. Marketers should thus come up with methods to deal with these trade-offs (Keller, 2008).
3.1.3 Brand Mantras
A brand mantra can be valuable to highlight the focus of the brand positioning (Keller, 2008). This is useful for the understanding of both the employees of the firm and its external partners. What´s more, employees often come in contact with consumers of the brand so it is important that they are able to actively communicate the right message of the brand. Even though the brand mantra is only a short phrase of no more than five words, it can provide guidance for a wide array of marketing decisions. This can range from consumer service to the design and location of retail stores. A brand mantra can only be formed when it is clear what kind of brand positioning the brand will follow.
3.2 Brand Positioning Strategies
A positioning strategy outlines the direction of all marketing activities so marketers should be careful about what type of positioning strategy to use. For example, the marketer can aim at the concrete attributes of the product, which is called feature positioning (Fuchs & Diamantapoulos, 2010).
However in benefit-based positioning, the focus lies at the benefits of using the product which can be both direct and indirect. Direct advantages can arise from functional benefits of using the brand and indirect advantages are considered to be more symbolic such as the psychosocial consequences of using a product. Surrogate positioning neither aims at attributes or benefits but it aims at creating associations with humanistic traits that consumers feel are personal relevant to them (Fuchs & Diamantapoulos, 2010).
3.2.1 Functional vs Symbolic Positioning
Fuchs and Diamantapoulos (2010) analyzed the effectiveness of these four positioning strategies by researching the favorability, differentiation and credibility of consumers´ brand associations. They found that feature positioning generally underperformed compared to both benefit-based
positioning and surrogate positioning. The researchers also found that the two outperforming types of positioning did not differ significant in their mutual effectiveness, which means that both benefit-based and surrogate positioning can be viewed as valuable brand positioning strategies (Fuchs & Diamantapoulos, 2010). Thus, it seems important that brands are positioned in either a functional or symbolic way.
3.2.2 Positioning to account for risks
In a situation where a brand is attractive for both the physical attributes of the product and its abstract or functional attributes it is important to know which positioning strategy poses less risk for the firm. Pham and Muthukrishnan (2002) researched what happens when new information is revealed that possibly challenges the brands´ position. These researchers compared the process of judgment revision between specific positioning and abstract positioning. Since attribute-specific positioning merely communicates concrete attribute information to consumers, threatening specific information was found to do more harm than abstract or general information. Abstract positioning however focuses on communicating a more general message and thus when new general information threatens this position, the effect will be worse than a specific information threat. Thus, the type of information that could possibly challenge a brands’ position should be considered. This is especially true since initial brand evaluations might not always be predictive of brand performance. Future changes should always be considered.
3.2.3 Cross-cultural Positioning
One of these changes that have to be considered is the possible influence of globalization on brand positioning, since brands are becoming more and more internationally focused. This is why Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (1999) analyzed ´global consumer culture positioning´ (GCCP) compared to both local and foreign consumer culture positioning (LCCP and FCCP). When using GCCP, marketers focus at the consumer segments that are roughly equal throughout the world, for example teenagers or businesspeople. On the contrary, in both LCCP and FCCP, a specific culture is being reflected (Alden, Steenkamp & Batra, 1999). This can be either local, such as cheese advertising from a Dutch brand that is directed at the Dutch market or it can be foreign when Milka advertising of Alpine cows is implemented in the Netherlands. Either way, these two types of positioning aim at associating the
brand with a specific culture. This way brand identity will be created that is based on a known or unknown culture. The researchers found that all three culture positioning types are meaningful, but LCCP is more frequently used in television advertising. When comparing different countries, it seems that GCCP is less frequently used in the United Stated than in Asia and Europe (Alden, Steenkamp & Batra, 1999). This means that it is important that marketers identify the characteristics of the target market before implementing one of the three culture positioning types. This also has implications for the language selection in brand name development.
3.3 Choosing an effective Brand Name
When selecting a brand name multiple considerations can be made. A brand might find it important that the name suggests something about the product’s benefits (‘Oral B Professional care’) or that it is easy to pronounce, recognize and remember (‘Coca Cola’). The brand name could be an emotional word (‘Caress’) or elicit a mental image (‘Apple’). According to Robertson (1992) brand name
characteristics lead to memorable brand names when they are simple, distinctive and support the desired brand image.
In 1998, it was already found that the brand name indirectly influenced perceived value via
the mediating role of internal reference pricing (Grewal, Krishnan, Baker & Borin). More specifically, consumers expected higher product prices with more positive brand names, which in turn increased the positivity of their perception of quality. Furthermore, consumers with more knowledge about the brand or product category rely stronger on the brand name to assess product quality than consumers who were less knowledgeable. The researchers conclude that brand name is used by consumers as a signal for product quality which means that retailers can improve their competitive situation by using brands that improve store image as well as perceived value which is even more useful among
knowledgeable consumers (Grewal et al., 1998).
Brucks, Zeithaml and Naylor (2000) suggest that brand name acts as a shortcut for deriving
quality perceptions from a price. These researchers compared how price, brand name and product attributes affect product evaluation. More specifically, they distinguished six dimensions of quality: ease of use, versatility (number of functions or flexibility), durability, serviceability, performance and prestige. They found that both price and brand name were used more frequently to evaluate prestige than other product attributes. An explanation for this finding is that prestige is such an abstract concept that specific product attributes are unable to provide information about (Brucks, Zeithaml & Naylor, 2000). For the other five dimensions of quality, no differences were found between price, brand name and product attributes, suggesting that the brand name is an important marketing variable that is able to influence multiple perceived quality dimensions.
3.4 Meaningful Brand Names
For brand names to support brand image, it is necessary that consumers draw inferences from these names. Wänke, Hermann and Schaffner (2007) thoroughly investigated the extent to which brand perceptions are influenced by semantically meaningful brands. More specifically, three hotel names were paired with particular hotel attributes. The researchers found that participants expected higher performance from hotels when their names were paired with consistent attributes. That is, hotels with a sporty image were rated higher when paired with sporty attributes than other hotels. Surprisingly, this effect still remained after the researchers controlled for numerous other factors. First of all, when participants were given factual information about the hotels (initially they read a website advertisement), the name effect still remained strong. Second of all, manipulating the attention to be stronger towards the attributes did not have an effect on the ratings. Thirdly, vivid descriptions of other hotel guests reduced the name effect, but it was still significant. Because of these persistent findings, the researchers also investigated the automaticity of the name effect. However, when drawing attention to the exchangeability of brand names, the rating was still affected by the hotel name. Even when participants were informed that the name had changed in the past or would change in the future did the name effect still occur (Wänke, Hermann & Schaffner, 2007). Thus consumers expect brands to perform better on attributes that are associated with their name. These high expectations might lead to disappointment when the brand cannot live up to these high hopes. This raises the question whether brands are better off with names that suggest specific benefits, or with brand names that infer fewer specific features.
Meaningfulness of a brand name could be a way to support the desired brand image, but
maybe not in every case. Keller, Heckler and Houston (1998) investigated the influence of names that specifically suggest a particular attribute (‘Oral B Vitality White & Clean’). On the one hand, the authors argue that suggestive names are beneficial because they facilitate initial brand associations but on the other hand this could mean that later advertising efforts might not fit in with these initial associations. In other words, the association with one specific benefit is so comprehensive that it possibly deflects the formation of new brand associations. This is why the Keller, Heckler and Houston compared brand names that explicitly communicated product benefits with brand names that did not make specific suggestions (1998). They found that suggestive brand names led to higher recall when a product benefit was explicitly stated in comparison to a non-suggestive brand name. This only happened when the benefit claim was consistent with the brand name meaning, when this was not the case a suggestive brand name led to a lower recall. Thus a highly suggestive brand name can make changes in brand positioning harder to establish whereas non-suggestive brand names are probably more flexible to these changes (Keller, Heckler & Houston, 1998).
The research of Kohli, Harich and Leuthesser (2004) also raises the question about the advantages of meaningful over non-meaningful names. They researched the influence of repeated exposure on the effect of meaningful brand names by comparing the evaluation of meaningful and non-meaningful names before and after repeated exposure. At all points during the study were the meaningful brand names higher evaluated than the non-meaningful brand names. However it was found that the evaluation of non-meaningful brand names showed higher increases after exposure than the meaningful names (Kohli, Harich & Leuthesser, 2004). This suggests that the effects of mere exposure (Zajonc, 1968) might wear off quicker for meaningful names, perhaps because as Keller, Heckler and Houston have shown, they raise less new associations (1998).
3.4.1 The Juliet vs Joyce Principle
In the debate of choosing either a meaningful or non-meaningful name, two principles were distinguished as early as in 1977. Collins describes the Juliet principle (1977) as being derived from Shakespeare’s character Juliet who said ‘that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet’ (1806). In other words, a word itself could not mean anything other than the associations that people have formed with it during their experience with the word (Collins, 1977). Following from this principle, the brand name strategy would be to only focus on the functional meaning of the name because no other associations would be made with it. On the other hand Collins (1977) termed the Joyce principle after poet James Joyce, who is known for his elaborate use of word sounds. From this principle it follows that the sound of a brand name would have to infer positive attributes (Collins, 1977). This is also known as ‘Sound Symbolism’ which is described in the next chapter.
C
hapter 4.
L
iterature
O
verview on
S
ound
S
ymbolism
The term ´sound symbolism´ has been defined as the ´direct linkage between sound and meaning´ (Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994) or in other words, the inference of meaning from sound (Klink, 2000). As early as in 1929 there was already a curiosity about the symbolism of sound. Sapir (1929) argued that the phonetic difference between ‘boy’ and ‘man’ hinted upon a difference in size and age that was beyond the mere meaning of the two words. This is why Sapir (1929) researched the tendency to feel a symbolic value of magnitude when hearing particular sounds. Indeed, the researcher found a connection between name sounds and estimated size of a product. A table named ‘mal’ was perceived to be larger than a table named ‘mil’. After this initial experiment, Sapir set out a more comprehensive experiment with one hundred word-pairs in which every type of phonetic contrast was considered. Although not all results could be reported, preferences for the sounds that symbolized ‘large’ ranged between 75 and 96 per cent. This finding points towards a high agreeableness among the preference of the participants, for both vowels and consonants (Sapir, 1929).
4.1 Sound in different contexts
In a context where names and their sounds are less controllable and fixed, Smith (1998) researched the impact of language. More specifically, he analyzed the names of the U.S. presidential election outcomes. Smith did this by developing a comfort factor that indicated whether a particular name was associated with a sense of comfort and reassurance (1998). Dimensions captured by the comfort factor were clarity and simplicity of rhythm, ease of articulation, vowel sound and consonant sound. Surprisingly, the comfort index was found to be highly predictive; the candidate with the highest comfort factor won in 83% of the analyzed elections.
In a more personal context, the influence of people’s own name on the preference of brand
names was researched as well. Brendl, Chattopadhyay, Pelham and Carvallo (2005) found that brand choice was positively affected when the brand name started with a letter that resembled one of the letters in the participants’ own personal names. The researchers call this phenomenon ‘name letter branding’, based on the ‘name letter effect’ that occurs when people prefer the letters of their own name over other letters of the alphabet. The main explanation for these name letter effects, according to the authors is ‘implicit egotism’ which is the tendency of people to have positive associations about themselves and thus be more attracted to things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo & Jones, 2005). However it is also argued that the mere exposure effect plays a
role here: the phenomenon that a higher frequency of exposure to a stimulus makes it more likable (Zajonc, 1968; Pelham, Mirenberg & Jones, 2002).
4.2 Sound Symbolism and Marketing
The influence of stimulus exposure was researched by Klink (2000) in a broader way. This researcher conducted two studies to investigate whether a brand name could convey product-related
information on its own and whether the presence of supporting marketing communications could influence this effect. First, a distinction was made between vowels and consonants, which in turn can be categorized into different types. Vowels can be distinguished by the location of the highest point of the tongue during pronunciation; this can vary from the front of the mouth to the back of the mouth. Generally seen, front vowels are ‘e’ and ‘i’ and back vowels are ‘o’ and ‘u’, but a more detailed overview is provided by table 1. Klink (2000) found that front vowels in comparison to back vowels, were stronger associated to a wide range of product attributes that varied from small, light, soft, pretty to feminine. Back vowels on the other hand were stronger associated to product attributes such as dark, warm, slow, heavy and masculine.
Table 1. Overview of vowels ranging from front to back position of pronunciation
Vowel [ē] [i] [ā] [e] [a] [ü] [ú] [ō] [ȯ] [ǝ] [ä]
Sounds like beat bit bait bet bat boot put boat bought but posh
Classification front front front front back back back back back back back
In consonants, a difference exists in articulation which is determined by the amount of air flow that an individual produces during pronunciation. To pronounce the consonants that belong to the category ‘fricatives’, one uses more air flow than when pronouncing ‘stops’. Fricatives are ‘f’, ‘s’, ‘v’ and ‘z’ and stops are ‘b’, ‘d’ and ‘g’. These consonants were also investigated to see if fricatives could differ from stops in the way that they conveyed product associations. Indeed, products that were labeled with brand names that contained fricatives were perceived as smaller, faster, lighter (vs. heavier) and more feminine than products with brand names containing stops (Klink, 2000). Thus both tangible and intangible features could be communicated by the brand name, though this effect was found to be stronger for vowels. The presence of other marketing communication was not found to be able to influence the sound symbolism effect. Klink (2000) namely also found that regardless of additional information about the features of the product, the brand names still conveyed product-related associations (Klink, 2000).
4.2.1 Visual Communication
Since a lot of brand names are communicated visually, Klink (2003) tried to investigate the
relationship between the sound of a brand name and the brand mark. In this study, front vowels and fricatives in comparison to back vowels and stops were found to be stronger associated with brand marks that contained the use of lighter colors, lighter shades of colors and smaller and more angular shapes (Klink, 2003). In other words, participants perceived beer to be stronger, darker, and heavier and liked it better overall when a back vowel was used in combination with a large, dark and round logo. Thus Klink shows with this research that when brand names are perceived to be congruent with brand marks they are better able to communicate brand meaning (2003).
4.2.2 Brand Memory
Next to being able to communicate brand meaning, it was also found that the sound symbolism effect related to brand memory (Lowrey, Shrum & Dubitsky, 2003). When brand names of existent commercial copy testing firms were unusually spelled, memory for these names was enhanced. However, when brand names were created by ‘blending’ (the use of morphemic combinations) brand memory was negatively affected. These two effects were even stronger for less familiar brands, suggesting an increased importance of the sound symbolism effect for less well-known brands. In addition, semantic appositeness (fit with brand name), paronomasia (puns and word plays) and initial plosives (hard initial consonants) related to brand memory but only for less familiar brand names (Lowrey, Shrum & Dubitsky, 2003). This suggests that for relatively unfamiliar brands, the use of subtle linguistic characteristics in brand names will not likely overcome a memory disadvantage in comparison to familiar brands.
4.2.3 Brand Preference
Interestingly, not only brand memory but also brand preference was found to be influenced by the sound symbolism effect. Yorkston and Menon (2004) researched the influence of brand name composition on consumer evaluation of products and their attributes. In their experiment using fictitious ice cream brands, the brand name with the back vowel sound ‘Frosh’ was preferred over the name ‘Frish’ because it was perceived as smoother, richer and creamier. Not only did ´Frosh´ lead to more positive attitudes, it also led to higher purchase intentions.
Lowrey and Shrum (2007) extended these findings to more and broader product categories, where they found a similar effect. For example, participants preferred front vowels over back vowels for fictitious brand names of convertibles because these vowels were associated with smaller, faster
and lighter products. However, sports cars fitted better with back vowel sounds due to the association with the attributes being larger, slower and heavier. Thus, participants preferred particular vowels in brand names when the attributes associated with the vowel sound of the word were congruent with the attributes of the product. Furthermore, when the product category was held constant but the attributes were manipulated, the extent to which the attributes were opposite (but paired with the same brand name) matched with the level of opposite brand preferences. This demonstrates the large impact that sound symbolism can have on brand preference.
However, the researchers also found boundary conditions for the effect. Based on Smith´s (1998) findings of a preference for positive sounding words, Lowrey and Shrum also investigated the differences between positive and negative sounds (2007). They found that certain sounds were generally considered negative beyond the front versus back vowel sound distinction. Negative vowel sounds were in any product category or attribute least preferred, probably because these vowels often exist in words that express disgust or dislike. A particular vowel sound was only preferred when the attributes implied by that sound had positive implications for the product (Lowrey & Shrum, 2007). Thus, not only can the sounds of words convey meaning, they can also bias perception and judgment.
4.2.4 Price Effects of Sound
Interestingly, the effect of sound symbolism was not only found in brand names but also in product prices (Coulter & Coulter, 2010). When prices were mentally rehearsed the sound of the phonemes was found to have an effect on discount perception. If sale prices contained front vowels and fricatives this led to price discount overestimation, whereas back vowels and stops led to underestimation of the price discount. This finding occurred even though the actual discount
between the two back vowel prices was higher than between the two front vowel prices. In addition, the extent of discount overestimation was reflected in higher product evaluation and purchase intentions. Thus, it seems that consumers do not encode price information merely in a numerical way, but are also being influenced by the sound of the price (Coulter & Coulter, 2010). However, when participants were instructed to recall non-price-related phonemes (e.g. ´easy grip handle´), this suppressed the sound effects of the sale prices. These findings provide more insight into the
unconscious process that underlies the sound symbolism effect for numbers.
4.3 Process of Sound Symbolism
The underlying process of sound symbolism was closer investigated by Yorkston and Menon (2004). In addition to brand preference, the researchers wanted to investigate the automaticity of the sound
manipulated in order to find out whether consumers strategically use the brand name as diagnostic information. Indeed, participants showed less signs of sound symbolism when they were told that the brand name was a test name in comparison to it being the real name of the product. However when information about the diagnosticity of the brand name was being giver after initial exposure to the name, participants could no longer control the process of sound symbolism (Yorkston & Menon, 2004).
A second experiment was carried out to further investigate the automaticity of the sound
symbolism process by manipulating cognitive capacity (Yorkston & Menon, 2004). Participants who had to perform working memory tasks while evaluating brand names, were still influenced by the effects of sound symbolism. So even when participants were cognitively impaired the meaning of sounds filtered through to their judgments. This suggests that the underlying process of sound symbolism is mostly automatic, effortless and outside of awareness. However, disclosing diagnostic brand name information before exposure did allow consumers to assert control (Yorkston & Menon, 2004).
4.4 Individual level differences
Next to the underlying process of the sound symbolism effect, the individual-level differences must also be considered. As was explained in chapter three, brand positioning aims at satisfying a specific target market, so for this reason it is important to look at how specific consumers respond to the sound symbolism effect.
4.4.1 Differences in Gender
As mentioned, Klink already found that front vowel sounds are stronger associated to femininity of product attributes than back vowel sounds (2000). This raised the question whether women are also more receptive to front vowel sounds and men in turn to back vowel sounds. Consequently Klink investigated the extent by which men and women differ in their way of inferring meaning from sound (Klink, 2008). First of all, women had higher preferences and purchase intentions for brands containing front vowel sounds in comparison to men. However, men did not respond more favorably to back vowel sounds than to front vowel sounds. This might be because front vowel sounds are overall stronger associated to pleasant and friendly attributes (Klink, 2000), thereby weakening the preference for back vowel sounds in men. On the other hand, women expressed an overall greater sensitivity to brand name vowels than men, so this could also explain the finding that men did not respond more favorably to back vowel sounds than to front vowel sounds. In addition the asymmetry of gender on the response to brand names was more evident in products with a higher salience of
masculinity-femininity (e.g. body fragrance, deodorant). For these products gender targeting might be facilitated by using brand names with sounds that are more attractive to either men or women. 4.4.1 Differences in Age
Next to gender, age differences in response to sound were also researched. Sapir (1929) included a sample of children (age 11 – 16 years) of which 80 percent showed signs of the sound symbolism effect. However, children were found to have lesser awareness of phonemes than adults do (Piasta & Wagner, 2010). This is why Baxter and Lowrey (2011) specifically researched the difference between adults and children in their response to phonetically manipulated brand names. The researchers found that children did not differ from adults in their preference for brand names based on their sound. Both children and adults inferred information about product attributes from particular sounds in the same way. These findings show that marketers have to account for the sound symbolism effect in all age groups.
4.5 Sound Symbolism in different Languages
As markets are increasingly globalizing, the challenges of brand naming strategies also rise. For example, when expanding into China, brands need to ask themselves whether they want to maintain the meaning of the name by literally translating their brand name into the Chinese writing system or try to maintain the sound meaning by using phonetic translation (Shrum, Lowrey, Luna, Lerman & Liu, 2012).
Early proof for the influence of sound in multiple languages comes from the study of Huang,
Pratoomaraj and Johnson (1969). Magnitude symbolism, or the sound symbolism effect for size, was investigated throughout three different languages. English, Chinese and Thai subjects were asked to produce words that meant largeness or smallness in their language. Findings yielded an association with smallness for ´i´ and ´e´ and with largeness for ´a´, ´o´ and ´u´ in each of the three languages. These findings point toward universal sound symbolism, however only for words that indicated size.
Shrum and colleagues (2012) investigated whether the universal effects of phonetic
symbolism occurred in fictitious brand names. Their sample existed of French-, Spanish- and Chinese-speaking participants who were bilingual in English. Between these three groups there was no difference between chosen brand names; most subjects preferred brand names for which the phonetic symbolism matched with the products attributes (also called semantic appositeness). Furthermore, a distinction could be made in the sample between subjects who spoke English as a first or second language. Interestingly, this distinction did not affect the results because the
were in logographic or alphabetic form (Shrum et al., 2012). Thus, when expanding brands into foreign markets the same advantages (and possible disadvantages) will probably rise from the sound of the brand name for the home country as well as for the host country. However, it is important that the fit between sound and attribute is maximized. Lastly, Shrum and colleagues place less
importance on the role of sound in relation to the semantics of the brand name (2012). They suggest that for some names the meaning might possible be able to overwhelm its vowel sound. Two
examples of such names are bicycle brand names ‘Focus’ and ‘Equinox’. The meaning of ‘Focus’ hints upon positive attributes for a bicycle, but the name ‘Equinox’ does not infer such attributes.
However, ‘Focus’ only contains back vowels, whereas ‘Equinox’ contains mostly front vowels. As front vowels were found to be stronger associated to the product attributes fast and light this means that the vowel guideline is being violated in these names (Klink, 2000). This again raises the question how brand name sound and semantics interact when influencing brand evaluation.
+ + H1a H2a H2b H3a - H3b + H1c H3c - H3d + H2c + + + + H1b +
C
hapter 5.
H
ypotheses &
C
onceptual
M
odel
Research reveals that both brand name semantics and sound have a significant influence on brand perception. On one hand was the meaning of brand name found to convey product associations (Wänke, Hermann & Schaffner, 2007) and on the other hand did the sound of a brand name also elicit product associations (Klink, 2000). The impact of both the semantics and sound of a brand name thus seem to affect brand perception but implications also arise for brand positioning. That is, the meaningfulness of a brand name was found to have detrimental effects on brand positioning (Keller, Heckler & Houston, 1998) and not all market segments respond in the same way to name sounds (Klink, 2008). To investigate which of these two factors plays a bigger role in brand perception and brand positioning it is important to consider how these two factors influence both brand
evaluation and purchase intentions. In addition, the possible moderating effect of brand awareness will be investigated. Figure 1 shows these factors in a conceptual model of the current research.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the main constructs and their relations to be researched
5.1 Researching Brand Evaluation
Consistent with Lowrey and Shrum’s findings (2007) on the influence of sound on brand preference it is expected that brand names with vowel sounds that are in line with the associated attributes are preferred over names that do not evoke these associations. Klink’s findings shed light on the exact vowel and consonants that were associated with product attributes (2000). For example, front vowel sounds like ‘e’ and ‘i’ were stronger associated with light and soft attributes, whereas back vowels like ‘o’ and ‘u’ are stronger associated to dark, strong and masculine attributes (Klink, 2000). Since light and soft attributes are expected to be preferred in toilet paper, it follows that brand names like
Fit Brand Name
Sound Brand Name Evaluation
Fit Brand Name
Semantics Purchase Intentions
‘Kleenex’ and ‘Edet’ (both containing front vowels) will be favored over ‘Popla’ and ‘Lotus’ (both containing back vowels). This sets out the first hypothesis:
H1a: Brand evaluation will be more positive for brand names with a fit between its sound and
preferred attributes compared to brand names with a misfit between sound and attributes. However, when people process brand names not only their sound but also their meaning will be taken into account. Both ‘Kleenex’ and ‘Lotus’ are expected to be meaningful in the sense that they communicate positive attributes related to toilet paper. ‘Kleenex’ has the word ‘clean’ in it in different spelling and a lotus is a soft white flower. However, ‘Edet’ and ‘Popla’ fall short in this meaningful function; both seem to be meaningless in the way that they are unable to convey associations that can be positively related to toilet paper. It can thus be hypothesized that the two meaningful names will be higher evaluated than the two meaningless brand names:
H1b:Brand evaluation will be more positive for brand names with a fit between its meaning and
preferred attributes compared to brand names with a misfit between meaning and attributes. Looking more closely at ‘Lotus’ and ‘Edet’, it seems that the first name is meaningful but has negative sound associations (containing back vowels), whereas the second is meaningless but has positive sound associations (containing front vowels). For these two names, the question arises whether a positive meaning paired with a negative sound is higher evaluated than a positive sound paired with a negative meaning. According to the discussed Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo 1983) attitude change occurs through either the central or peripheral route depending on both motivation and ability to process. In the context of brand names, it can be argued that the sound of a brand name is a simple cue, processed in an automated unconscious way (Yorkston & Menon, 2004). In addition, the subjects will not be asked to highly elaborate on the brand names as the brand evaluation is not personally relevant for them. This lack of motivation will cause subjects to follow the peripheral route of attitudinal change. A misfit in semantics combined with a fit in sound will thus lead to a higher brand evaluation than a misfit in sound paired with a fit in meaning. In other words; brand name sound is more important for predicting brand evaluation than brand name semantics.
In addition, the cognitive dissonance effect (Festinger, 1957) must be considered here as
well. It was explained that when experiencing two inconsistent cognitions, people derive at an uncomfortable psychological state. Since this is an unpleasant state, subjects are expected to express lower levels of brand evaluation when either a misfit for sound or semantics exist. A fit for both sound and semantics will thus yield the highest brand evaluation. Following this argumentation, it is hypothesized that:
H1c: The difference between the evaluation of brand names with a fit and misfit in sound will be
bigger for brand names with a semantic fit than for brand names with a semantic misfit.
5.2 Researching Purchase Intentions
The considered research of Yorkston and Menon (2004) not only led to higher brand preference but also directly to higher purchase intentions for products that contained names of which the sound matched the product attributes. Brand names with a match between the vowel sound and preferred product attributes are thus expected to yield higher purchase intentions:
H2a: Purchase intentions will be higher for products that contain brand names with a fit between its
sound and preferred attributes compared to brand names with a misfit between sound and attributes.
For meaning of brand names it was also found that both ratings and intentions to buy increased when the names were paired with consistent attributes (Wänke, Hermann & Schaffner, 2007). Thus, brand names of which their meaning conveys preferred product attributes are expected to yield higher purchase intentions:
H2b:Purchase intentions will be higher for products that contain brand names with a fit between its
meaning and preferred attributes compared to brand names with a misfit between meaning and attributes.
However, when looking more closely at the two different misfits it seems that the two routes of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1983) must again be considered. When someone considers buying a product, it means spending one’s own money which makes the decision become personally relevant. This will increase motivation to process and therefore causes a person to follow the central route of processing, making them more likely to elaborate upon the available cues. Thus, contrary to brand evaluation, it seems that for purchase intentions a more elaborate processing of cues is carried out. This means that purchase intentions are expected to be higher when a misfit of sound is paired with a fit of semantics, compared to a misfit of semantics paired with a fit in sound. Or in other words; brand name semantics are more important for predicting purchase intentions than sound.
In the context of dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), higher levels of purchase intentions are
expected for brand names that can convey positive attributes both by sound and meaning. As was explained, this is because inconsistent cognitions cause an unpleasant feeling called cognitive dissonance. In addition, this dissonance is considered to cause stronger reactions when the self is
