Date 17
thof August 2011
Author Marlous Duursma
Student number s1808575
Adress Hamburgerstraat 6, 9714 JB Groningen Mobile number 06-27487512
E-mail marlousduursma@gmail.com
University RijksUniversiteit Groningen Department Business Administration Specialization Marketing Management Qualification Master Thesis
First supervisor Dr. K.J. Alsem Second supervisor Ms. J. Liu
Copyright Unpublished work © Marlous Duursma 2011
Management Summary
Several studies state that meaningful brand names are evaluated more positive than non- meaningful brand names. This seems quite logic because consumers are always searching for something recognizable, and familiar. But looking the Top 100 Interbrand list 90% of the brand names can be categorized as non-meaningful brand names. This interesting finding was the starting point of this study.
A limitation of studies regarding brand names, is that they mainly are short term oriented. In this study we look at long time effects of brand names on consumers.
Hence, the following problem statement is formulated:
What is the effect of different brand name types and category awareness of a new product offering on consumer’ evaluation, brand uniqueness and brand associations after repeated exposure?
In this study the dependent variables are consumer’ evaluations, brand uniqueness and brand attitudes towards new, fictitious brand names. The outcome depends on the independent variables - type of brand name (meaningful versus non-meaningful brand name) and the awareness of the product category (known/familiar versus relative unfamiliar product category). In this study the variable type of brand name is manipulated.
Moreover, the time dimension involved in this study is proposed as moderator in determining brand attitudes, brand uniqueness and consumer’ evaluation of a new brand name.
Incorporating time, as mere exposure effect, in this study may result in significant differences compared with previous studies in the area of consumer evaluation of new brand names.
Above explained variables resulted in a 2x2x3 factorial design, which consisted of four experimental conditions:
- new meaningful brand name operating in a high level of category awareness;
- new non-meaningful brand name operating in a low level of product category awareness;
- new meaningful brand name operating in a low level of product category awareness;
- new non-meaningful brand name operating in a high level of product category awareness.
Sport drinks is incorporated as familiar product category, where Electric bikes is selected as product category with low awareness among consumers.
The subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental group. Each group received a questionnaire with two experimental conditions, because it saved time to ask more conditions per subject. Subjects were asked to evaluate each experimental condition on overall liking, perceived quality, and buying intention, and evoked brand attitudes and brand uniqueness (8- point Likert scale). Each group consisted of 20 to 21 subjects conducted all sessions in this experiment.
Derived from this study some important conclusions can be made. The main conclusion is
that non-meaningful brand names are better evaluated by consumers than meaningful brand
names after repeated exposure. The process that non-meaningful brand names exceed the meaningful brand names takes more time in product categories which have low awareness among consumers than high awareness product categories.
Besides, the long term effects for non-meaningful brand names benefits the brand attitudes – both utilitarian as hedonic – and brand uniqueness over the meaningful brand names. Also here is the process that non-meaningful brand names surpassed the meaningful brand names faster in case of high awareness product categories.
Furthermore, these results amplifies the effect of learning, understanding, and encoding new information is higher in case of non-meaningful brand names. The integration of new information results in a higher level of brand uniqueness which results in more favorable, stronger, and unique brand attitudes in long term.
The main recommendation for managers derived from this study is to follow the Juliet
principle. A distinctive, unique, unfamiliar brand name receives more positive consumer
evaluations, more positive brand attitudes, and your brand received a higher brand uniqueness
and buy intention.
Preface
This Master Thesis has been written to accomplish my Master Business Administration, specialization Marketing Management at the University of Groningen. With this thesis I finish my second study.
During the master Marketing Management I followed the course Brand Management and Communication. During that program, a Brand Experience Day was been organized, where I followed a workshop of a brand naming expert. At that moment I discovered my passion for branding, and naming. The combination of strategic and out-of-the-box thinking is a combination I like and search in a job. For these reasons and many others I would like to specialize myself in branding. This thesis is about branding.
During this study I have learned a lot about myself. Next to this study I did an internship, so it was hard to push and discipline myself to work at this study in the evening. Furthermore, I have a lot more knowledge about statistics and how I should conduct several analyses then when I started with this Master Thesis.
I would like to thank some persons in special. First, I would like to thank my first supervisor Karel-Jan Alsem for providing me with advice during the development of my study. In addition, I would like to thank my second supervisor Jia Liu, who gave me additional information. Globrands Naming & Strategy, especially Mike Dijkstra Taurel and Camiel Verberne, for creating brand names which have been used in my experiment.
Finally, I like to express special thanks to my boyfriend and parents who supported me mentally and financially during my study period and especially during this thesis period.
Marlous Duursma
Groningen, 17th of August, 2011
Table of Content
Chapter 1 Introduction p. 9
1.1 Research topic p. 9
1.2 Problem statement p. 10
1.3 Structure thesis p. 12
Chapter 2 Literature research p. 13
2.1 Naming p. 13
2.1.1 Brand naming p. 13
2.1.2 Role of brand names p. 14
2.1.3 Importance of brand naming p. 15
2.1.4 Requirements of brand naming p. 15
2.2 Brand name types p. 16
2.2.1 Classification of brand names p. 16
2.2.2 Categorization of brand name types p. 17
2.3 Consumers’ information integration process p. 19 2.3.1 Information integration process of new information p. 20 2.3.2 Difference in processing brand names types p. 21
2.4 Effectiveness of new brand names p. 23
2.4.1 Consumer evaluation p. 23
Chapter 3 Conceptual framework p. 25
3.1 Hypotheses p. 25
3.1.1 Consumer evaluations p. 25
3.1.2 Brand attitudes p. 25
3.1.3 Likability p. 26
3.1.4 Mere exposure effect p. 26
3.1.5 Category awareness p. 27
3.1.6 Brand uniqueness p. 28
3.2 Conceptual model p. 29
Chapter 4 Research methodology p. 30
4.1 Research method p. 30
4.2 Methodology p. 30
4.3 Variables p. 31
4.3.1 Dependent variables p. 31
4.3.2 Independent variables p. 31
4.4 Stimulus material p. 31
4.4.1 Stage 1 pre-testing: product categories p. 31
4.4.2 Stage 2 pre-testing: brand names p. 32
4.5 Questionnaire p. 34
4.6 Data collection p. 35
Chapter 5 Analysis and results p. 36
5.1 Representativeness p. 36
5.2 Reliability p. 36
5.3 Testing hypotheses p. 36
5.5.1 Hypothesis 1: Consumer evaluation after one exposure p. 39 5.5.2 Hypothesis 2: Brand attitudes after one exposure p. 39 5.5.3 Hypothesis 3: Likability after repeated exposure p. 40 5.5.4 Hypothesis 4: Mere exposure effect of consumer evaluation p. 41 5.5.5 Hypothesis 5: Brand attitudes after repeated exposure p. 42
5.5.6 Hypothesis 6: Category awareness p. 42
5.5.7 Hypothesis 7: Brand uniqueness after repeated exposure p. 43
5.6 Additional findings p. 44
5.7 Discussion p. 45
Chapter 6 Conclusions, implications and future research p. 48
6.1 Conclusions p. 48
6.2 Managerial implications p. 49
6.3 Limitations and future research p. 49
References p. 51
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Questionnaire pre-test: Brand Names (Dutch version) p. 55
Exhibit 2 Measurement and scaling p. 56
Exhibit 3 Example questionnaire (Dutch version) p. 57
Exhibit 5 Demographic data p. 67
Chapter 1 Introduction
In this chapter the research topic brand naming and its relevant information will be discussed.
Next, the objective, problem statement, research questions and the contribution and relevance of this study for scientific research will be formulated. At the end, the structure of this report is given.
1.1 Research topic
It is all in the name! This also holds true for brand names. The choice of a new brand name is a very important one, because this brand element is one of the major elements which can en should build brand equity (Keller, 2008, p.48). Furthermore, the brand name is hardly changeable brand element which should be avoided by marketers. In many cases, consumers are first confronted with the brand name before other brand elements such as packaging or slogan appear. Therefore, the brand name should be considered as a very important element of identification of a brand (Alsem, 2007; Keller, 2003; Aaker, 1996). Additionally, a carefully created and chosen brand name can bring inherent and immediate value to the brand (Kohli and Suri, 2000). In other words, an effective brand name can enhance awareness and create a favorable image for the brand which will lead to more positive customer-based brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2008, p. 53). The evoked brand associations of a new brand name may lead to brand preference or brand choice.
Within the naming theory there are two broad streams, the Juliet and Joyce principle. The proponents of Joyce principle state that the brand name itself should have meaning, and should automatically evoke associations by hearing or seeing the brand name for the first time. At the other hand, Juliet’ principle is based on the idea that words do not have intrinsic meaning, but the learned associations which are linked to the brand name are important.
These two opposites will be analyzed in this study, and are an interesting topic which can be linked to different brand name types.
Four types of brand names are distinguished in theory; descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and coined brand names (Melton, 1979; Kohli and Suri, 2000; Riezebos, 2002). Descriptive and suggestive brand names can be classified as meaningful brand names, and the latter two (arbitrary and coined) brand names as non-meaningful brand names.
Meaningful brand names have the advantage of being easily processed, remembered and understood (Kohli and Suri, 2000; Meyers-Levy, 1989; Zinkham and Martin, 1987). In the contrary, non-meaningful brand names have a high recognition rate, protectable, transferable, uniqueness and may create distinguished associations (Cohen, 1986; Hoeffler and Keller, 2003 Schulman and Lovelace, 1970). Thus, each category has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, several studies (Kohli and Suri, 2000; Lerman and Carbarino, 2002;
Kohli et al., 2005) have investigated that consumers evaluate meaningful brand names more positively than non-meaningful brand names.
A striking conclusion noticed from practice is that the top 100 Interbrand consist of a vast
majority (90%) of non-meaningful brand names. Many brand names on this list have created
favorable, strong, and unique associations over years, but the brand name itself does not mean
anything. Examples of these non-meaningful brand names are IBM, Nokia, Google and
Toyota.
This contradiction will be included in this study. A lot of research state that meaningful brand names will be evaluated more positive by consumers, but can this conclusion made on the long run? Are meaningful brand names always, in any situation, better evaluated? Also when consumers are exposed with the new brand name several times? To be more specific, which principle (Juliet versus Joyce) is evaluated more positive after a certain amount of exposures?
Researchers have formulated four branding strategies to position new brand names, namely 1) a complete new brand name 2) nested branding strategy 3) sub-branding strategy, and 4) brand extension (Bhat et al., 1998). A lot of research is investigated about brand extension strategy, where the new offering is supported by an already established brand name. In situation of nested and sub-branding strategy brand names also will supported by an existing brand name, but in limited extent. The already positioned brand, and its customer-based brand equity, can hasten or facilitate the introduction of a new brand, due to associations in consumers’ mind (Hoeffler and Keller, 2003).
In this study the focus is on ‘complete new brand name’ strategy, whereby the relevance is in understanding the information integration process of consumers. This process will be discussed later, where the new learned associations are a part of this discussion.
Creating new brand names is conducted in two situations, according to Osler (2004):
1) The creation of a new business or a new offering that the firm will market;
2) Some change in existing business condition that necessitates renaming a firm or offering.
In this study, situation one will be addressed and investigated. In the latter situation, consumers can link the old learned associations to the new positioned brand name. But in this study the investigated variables will be in the light of processing the new information, and especially the associations and image of the new brand name.
As mentioned earlier, marketers should generally avoid changing the brand name, because the linked associations of the old name are learned over several years (Aaker, 2008).By hearing and/or seeing a brand name, meaningful or non-meaningful, it should evoke some associations over time. According to Keller (2008, p. 53) these associations should be favorable, strong, and unique to that brand name. Obvious, it is up to the marketers and its marketing communication activities to learn the consumers these associations and create a positive image. Also in this situation it is important to understand which principle combined with a brand name type, is most appropriate in positioning a new brand.
For marketers it is important to understand how consumers process information, and
especially new, unknown information. According to Gragan-Paxton and John (1997)
consumers are always searching for something familiar or recognizable by the first time
exposure of a new information. But the lack of familiarity in case of non-meaningful brand
names is compensated by the enhanced activity in the brains by processing the non-
meaningful brand name (Butler, 2008). In other words, consumers are more involved in
processing non-meaningful brand names than in processing meaningful brand names. Thus, in
situation of processing meaningful brand names consumers’ inferences are based on similar
names, and may think that the brands are the same or made by the same company (Hoyer and Macinnis, 2007, p.113). This situation should be avoided for both brands.
Furthermore, next to the information process, the forming of an attitude when viewing the brand name is also a relevant issue in this study. According to Zinkhan and Martin (1987) consumers form attitudes about brand names through a four stage process;
Step 1 Exposure to a brand name
Step 2 Image of the new brand name is formed Step 3 Inferential beliefs are formed
Step 4 Attitudes towards new brand names are formed
Table 1. Forming attitudes process
Even after one exposure consumers have some thoughts of the brand name and can form an image and attitude about the brand name, whether these are correct or not. By using several exposures consumers may create/form stronger attitudes towards a new brand name. Through repeated exposure, consumers might form attitudes towards a brand name, which may be different for meaningful brand names versus non-meaningful brand names. This mere exposure effect is already investigated by Kohli et al. (2004), which will be also a moderator in this study. Furthermore, the information processing of consumers will be analyzed. In contrast with other naming researchers, Juliet and Joyce principle is an important topic.
Within this study the Juliet versus Joyce principle is the starting-point. This study should give evidence which principle and thus which brand name type should lead to higher acceptance of consumers after repeated exposure.
1.2 Problem statement
The objective of this study is to identify what type of brand name, and so which principle is being perceived as better positioned in situation of launching a new brand, whereby the mere- exposure effect is involved. Will perform meaningful brand names better than non- meaningful brand names, and how do consumers react to the different brand name types?
This reaction/evaluation may give insight which principle and its linked brand name type can better positioned when launching a new offering. As stated earlier, the time dimension is an important issue in determining consumers’ evaluation. During this study the following problem statement will be analyzed:
What is the effect of different brand name types and category awareness of a new product offering on consumer’ evaluation, brand uniqueness and brand associations after repeated exposure? Is there a significant difference after one exposure, and after 7 exposures?
Based on this problem statement the following research questions are composed:
1) What types of brand names exist, and what is the effect of these different brand name types on consumer evaluation?
2) What is the Joyce versus Juliet principle, and how can this linked with brand name types?
3) How do consumers process new information (information integration process)?
4) How do consumers response when confronting new brand names?
5) What are important aspects of consumer evaluations?
6) What factors are important when creating a new brand name?
This study will investigate different new product and product categories, brand name types, and consumer behavior when consumer will be exposed to new brand names. This results in several hypotheses and a conceptual model.
Moreover, this research topic will contribute to and is relevant for scientific research, because it is important to know which principle and what type of brand name will lead to a more positive consumer evaluation in case of positioning a new brand name. An added value in this study is the mere exposure effect, which can give important finding.
Additionally, this study is a follow-up of the study of Kohli et al. (2004) which also investigated the importance of meaningful versus non-meaningful brand names on consumer evaluations. That study was the first study which implemented a semi-long oriented research.
Therefore, this study will also have a long-term orientation, because the creation of strong, favorable and unique associations may result in an important and different outcome. Besides, the research design has some different points.
It should be mentioned that there is quite some literature about branding. Although, a limited amount of research is investigated about brand names. And even more limited research is about the principle of Joyce versus Juliet. Finally, the existing studies about this topic are not very recent.
1.3 Structure Thesis
Chapter 2 will describe relevant literature to give this study a scientific basis, which result in
the conceptual model and hypotheses formulated in chapter 3. In chapter 4 the choice of the
research, the design of the experiment and the method of data collection are explained. After
that, chapter 5 presents the results of the experiment, and the answers of the hypotheses and
their effects are discussed. Finally, chapter 6 will end this study with conclusions, managerial
implications, limitations of the study, and some directions for further research.
Chapter 2 Literature research
This chapter will first discuss brand naming and the role and importance of naming where the customer-based brand equity is provided. Subsequently, different brand name types will be analyzed, where several classifications were given with its advantages and disadvantages.
After that, the information integration process of consumers will be discussed, with focus on new, unknown information. Furthermore, the essential differences of processing meaningful or non-meaningful brand names will be highlighted. Afterwards, the effectiveness of new brand names will be analyzed.
2.1 Naming
Brand names can come in many different forms; they can be based on real people, places, animals, things, and objects or just be made up (Keller et al., 1998). Before launching a new brand name, the company has to decide which type of brand name is most suitable to create the most appealed identity between the name and the new offering. There are different brand names which can be categorized on several dimensions. In the literature, many brand name categorizations are used by both academics and practitioners.
First, the definition of brand names and some relevant theory of naming is provided, and then brand name types are described. Subsequently, brand name roles and characteristics of the different types of brand names are depicted. Finally, the importance of branding will be analyzed.
2.1.1 Brand naming
Farquhar (1989) states that branding is centuries old. Brick makers in ancient Egypt placed symbols on their bricks to identify their products. Brand names, however, first appeared in the sixteenth century. Brand name refers to ‘the textual part of a brand that can be uttered’
(Usunier and Shaner, 2002). A brand name can be a combination of signs representing both words and numbers.
As stated before, a brand name is one of the six brand elements (Keller, 2008, p. 145), which is hardly changeable, or at least which should be avoided to change. The power of a brand name lies in the brains of consumers. A brand name should evoke a network of associations, which can be positive but also negative for consumers. Marketers should position its brand name which evoke associations which are favorable, strong, and unique (Keller, 2008, p. 53).
In the long run, a brand name should represent a complex set of associations, nuances, and meaning in the mind of consumers (Collins, 1977). Additional, the choice of a new brand name has been suggested to be important, because this name has to build customer-based brand equity for the new offering (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993, 2003).
Brand name is something more than just a label; brand name may be a major product attribute and a part of what the consumer purchases. In other words, a brand name can make it easier for the consumer to distinguish products from each other (Riezebos, 2002). Furthermore, a brand is image-creation, consumers purchase an image instead of a product.
2.1.2 Role of brand names
A brand should provide meaning to a customer. It is the task of marketers to add favorable,
strong, and unique associations to a brand. These associations should come to customers’
mind by coming in contact with the brand name. In other words, the brand name should evoke positive feelings. However, a brand name itself can also provide meaning to the brand. In general, a brand name can evoke two types of associations for consumers. Both streams have its proponents and opponents.
Juliet principle
The principle of Juliet is based on the idea that words have no intrinsic meaning, referring to Shakespeare’s much quoted line, said by Juliet ‘that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet’ (Collin, 1977). It suggests that through the associations that consumers make with them, a brand provides an image. In other words, the brand name itself does not matter, it is about the learned associations the consumers’ link with the brand name.
Considering the Juliet principle, little emphasis is put on linguistics (Usunier and Shaner, 2002). It does not matter how a brand name sounds and what kind of associations come to mind by hearing or seeing the brand name for the first time. Consumers’ associations associated towards a brand name will be learned through marketing communications and over time.
Brand names have no intrinsic or meaning, the brand name itself is a fictitious word, but after time consumers have learned the meaning and associations of the brand. This is in line with Bornstein (1989) which stated that known brand names (whether meaningful or non- meaningful) become ‘meaningful’ words. In other words, over several years non-meaningful brand names become meaningful due to its learned associations and image.
Proponents of Juliet principle think that brand awareness will be mainly based on brand age and accumulated advertising expenses (Usunier and Shaner, 2002). Following this strategy is simple a way of consciously adding value to brand names. In this perspective, any particular brand can give words any meaning they would like (Kapferer, 1996).
Joyce principle
In contrast, the Joyce principle would say ‘a rose is a rose is a rose….. (Collins, 1977). This suggest when a consumer confronts the brand name for the first time, the brand name will evoke certain associations for the consumer. In other words, the brand name itself should provide a meaning. The Joyce principle is named after the writer James Joyce, who uses phonetic symbolism in his books. Two aspects which are part of this principle: 1) the initial meaning of a brand name can evoke associations, and 2) the sound of a word can evoke associations (Klink, 2001). Thus, the Joyce principle involves choosing a brand name desirable phonetic symbolism and meaningful, positive connotations. Firms who follow this strategy seek to provide a ‘jump start’ in establishing favorable brand associations that, in turn, lead to high initial brand preference, recall and recognition.
According to Riezebos (2002) the Joyce principle is not better than the Juliet principle or vice
versa. It depends on the degree of marketing expenses and marketing communications a firm
will invest to provide meaning to the brand name. Also, the effort and time involved in
positioning the brand name is an issue which should take into account. Brand names which
fall under the classification of Joyce principle will be easier and sooner positioned. But are
the learned associations more favorable, distinguished and unique in case of Joyce or Juliet
principle?
2.1.3 Importance of brand naming
According to Keller (1993), a brand name is one of the brand elements which can build customer-based brand equity. Customer-based brand equity (Keller, 2008, p. 48) refers to the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand. Differential effect is determined by comparing consumer response to the marketing of a brand with the response to the same marketing of a fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service. Consumer responses to marketing are defined in terms of consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior arising from marketing mix activity. In other words, the power of a brand lies in what resides in the minds of customers. It is all about the knowledge of consumers, which drives brand equity. This is the reason why information integration process when consumers are composed to new information is important.
Customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer has a high level of awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favorable, and unique brand associations in memory (Keller, 2008 p. 53). In line with this is the theory of Lane & Jacobson (1995), which stated that brand equity consist of two components, namely brand attitude and brand name familiarity. There can be said that familiarity is a requirement of the Joyce principle, because logically familiarity will increase the meaningfulness of a new brand name.
2.1.4 Requirements of brand naming
Kotler (2004) argues that marketers should be aware of the desirable qualities for a brand name, which are the following:
- It should suggest something about the product’s benefits;
- It should suggest the product or service category;
- It should suggest concrete, ‘high imagery’ qualities;
- It should be simple, easy to spell, recall, pronounce, recognize, and remember;
- It should be facilitate the trademark registration;
- It should not carry poor meanings in other countries and languages;
- Given the rapid growth of the global marketplace, companies should choose brand names that work globally;
- It should be familiar and meaningfulness (Keller, 2008, p. 149);
- Its associations should be differentiated, distinctive, and unique (Keller, 2008, p. 150).
As can be noticed, many of these requirements are in line with the Joyce principle. The only requirement of Juliet’ principle is the last one, that the brand name should be differentiated, distinctive, and unique. These qualities also hold for branding, and are perhaps the most important one for building customer-based brand equity.
Some qualities can be striking, for example brand name should suggest something about the product’s benefits, but at the same time the brand name should be distinctive. Furthermore, a brand name should appeal to consumers as well as facilitate trademark registration, qualities that can be striking. Here is the remark, what kind of brand name appeal to customers?
Several researchers investigated that meaningful brand names are better evaluated than non-
meaningful brand names. It probably does not depend on which principle or what type of
brand name, but on some positive feeling about the brand name. Quality four - a brand name
should be simple, easy to spell, recall, pronounce, recognize, and remember - has factors
which are more positive for meaningful brand names, and factors which belong to non- meaningful brand names. This issue will be continued in paragraph 2.3.2.
Every brand, whether a meaningful or non-meaningful brand name, should invest in branding.
Where the Joyce principle with his meaningful brand name could have a ‘jump start’, it is not enough to acquire a successful brand. Branding is an ongoing process, where the brand name is a small part of. In other words, does it matter which principle a brand follows to receive better evaluations or brand attitude?
2.2 Brand name types
In this paragraph different brand name types with their advantages and disadvantages will be analyzed. Before focus is on different brand name types, it has to be emphasized that this research investigated the strategy of having a completely new brand name. The new brand should not only get a position in the market but also into consumers’ mind, which can be a difficult task due to the lack of knowledge of the new brand and its limited associations.
2.2.1 Classification of brand names
Melton (1979) was the first researcher who classified the brand names into five categories (table 2). In line with this classification, the descriptions of Kohli and Suri (2000) and Riezebos (2002) are given.
Types of brand names
Description (Kohli and Suri, 2000)
Description (Riezebos, 2002)
Example
Generic brand names
General term used for the product
Salt
Descriptive brand names
Describes the product Direct way to brand a product/service/firm
Newsweek
Suggestive brand names
Evokes the product or its benefits
Indirect way to brand a product/service/firm
Microsoft
Arbitrary brand names
Common English word with no apparent relation to the product category
Brand name has no link with the product/service, but might have meaning on its own
Apple, Camel, Orange
Coined brand names
Fictional word, unrelated to the product and product category
Brand name has no intrinsic meaning
Ikea, IBM, Marlboro
Table 2. Descriptions of several brand name categories
Melton (1979) categorized five types of brand names, where the generic brand name is the general term of the product. That is the reason why this type of brand name is not the type of brand name which will be discussed and investigated during this study. Descriptive brand names is a way of branding referring to the product as a whole, the composition of the product, the characteristics of the product, the function or key benefit of the product or the possible product advantages. In other words, descriptive names can be labeled as functional brand names (Alsem, 2007).
Suggestive brand names evoke the product or its benefits (Kohli and Suri, 2000). The brand
name can highlight the possible advantages, or associations of consuming this product in an
indirect way. A remark with this type of brand names is that consumer may have some
difficulty to understand of the brand name.
Arbitrary brand names consist of a common word which is incongruent to the product category (Kohli and Suri, 2000). Examples of arbitrary brand names are ‘Camel’ for cigarettes, or ‘Orange’ for the Dutch telecommunication organization.
The coined brand names have a variety to choose from: fantasy names, nouns and verbs, which can be classified as not to the product related descriptive words, strange words or names, derivations, abbreviations and acronyms. Brand names which contain person-based or geographical data are also part of coined brand names. Figure 1 shows how to categorize the different brand names along a meaningful to non-meaningful dimension with four main categories.
Meaningful Non-meaningful
Descriptive Identification Specification Compound
Suggestive Geographic Alpha-numeric Specialization Compound Associative
Arbitrary Freestanding Symbolization Associative
Coined
Fanciful/fictive/abstract Geographic
Person-based Abbreviations Imagination Classical
Figure 1. Categorization of brand name types along a dimension of meaningfulness
2.2.2 Categorization of brand name types
According to Keller (2007) a brand name must be chosen with the six general criteria of memorability, meaningfulness, likability, transferability, adaptability, and protect-ability in mind. The focus in this paragraph lies on transferability, meaningfulness, protect-ability and likability. The adaptability, and memorability will be omitted, because the brand name is the brand element which should not be changed (Keller, 2008, p. 178).
These four types of naming a brand can be characterized by:
- Meaningfulness; a brand name can take on all kinds of meaning, with either descriptive or persuasive content (Keller, 2008, p.141). According to Keller (2008, p.141) descriptive content in brand names lead to higher/better brand awareness and the persuasive content is an important determinant of brand image and positioning. When evaluating this theory with the brand name types, the following can be assumed. A descriptive brand name is a brand name with the highest meaning, the word (brand name) is a description of the new offering. When viewing or hearing such a brand name for the first time, consumers may have an idea what type of product this will be. Coined brand name has the lowest meaning, most of the time it is a fictitious word or abbreviation. Such a brand name does not appeal any associations when hearing or viewing this brand name for the first time. So, descriptive brand names are the most meaningful, and coined brand names the less meaningful brand name. And suggestive and arbitrary brand names (in this order) lie between these two types of brand names (Kohli and Suri, 2000).
- Protect-ability refers to whether the extent of the brand name is protectable – both in a
legal and a competitive sense (Keller, 2008, p.143). In research of Cohen (1986) is found descriptive brand names have the lowest degree of legal protection. Because these names are kind of a description of the new offering, the new brand name is probably a common word which is used frequently. A lot of organizations use descriptive or suggestive names, and due to these very common used product-related brand names, the legal protect-ability within a product category will reduce. Also the competitive protect-ability is under question, will consumers notice the difference between your competitor and your organization, which carrying a similar brand name?
At the other hand, the arbitrary and the coined brand names contain unusual words or words which are not related to the product category. These words are not common is this product category, and thus there is probably not a competitor with the same or an equal brand name. This will enhance the protect-ability, in legal and competitive way, of arbitrary or coined brand names.
- Transferability; transferability measures the extent to which the brand name adds to the brand equity, of new products for the brand (Keller, 2008, p.142). In other words, how useful is the brand name for line or category extension? Descriptive and suggestive brand names have the lowest change to transfer into another country. Thus, when a brand decides to expand their operations to abroad, descriptive and suggestive brand names might be changed to become transferable. These names may be select to a particular country or region, and the language of the brand name may be one of that country or region. The chance to have a successful transfer will be minimal. At the other hand, arbitrary or coined brand names do not have a connection with the product category. Furthermore, these names are often not language-sensitive, which will facilitate the transfer to another country.
- Likability: likability measures the extent to which degree the brand name has aesthetically appealing to consumers? Researches stated that consumers evaluate meaningful brand names more positively than non-meaningful brand names (Kohli and Suri, 2000; Kohli et al., 2000). One remark here is the time dimension, many studies investigated one exposure whereby the likability of meaningful brand names preferred the likability of non-meaningful brand names. This seems quite logic because consumers like to know what they are evaluating about, what kind of product it is. And meaningful brand names evoke directly some associations. The likability is one of the variables which is investigated in this study.
The above explained theory, except for likability, is visualized in figure 2.
Figure 2. Visualization of characteristics of various types of brand names
The different subjects of figure 2 are related. A brand name which has low legal protection is almost always a meaningful brand name and vice versa.
Kohli and Suri (2000) categorized these four types of brand names into two broad approaches to brand naming. Descriptive and suggestive brand names fall under the classification of meaningful brand names. Meaningful brand name refers to a brand name which conveys relevant information about the product, or an important product attribute, or establishes a connection between the product and the product category (Keller et al., 1998). Arbitrary and coined brand names fall under the classification of non-meaningful brand names. Non- meaningful brand names are distinctive and uncommon for the product category. From this point there will be talked about meaningful brand names and non-meaningful brand names.
The principles and the types of brand names can be combined. Proponents of the Juliet principle prefer the non-meaningful brand names, where proponents of the Joyce principle should prefer the meaningful brand names. This is visualized in figure 3.
Joyce Principle Meaningful
Juliet principle Non-meaningful
Descriptive Suggestive Arbitrary Coined
Figure 3. Dimension of Joyce vs. Juliet principle
2.3 Consumers’ information integration process
According to Kay (2005) and Keller (1993) the brand name strength is matter of consumer’
perception. In addition, Zinkham and Martin (1987) investigated that consumers can form complex attitudes towards a brand name. This emphasizes the importance of understanding how consumers process information, and especially new, unknown information. Furthermore, understanding how to become consumers’ preference. That is the challenge of positioning a new brand name.
The information integration process will be analyzed, and the differences between meaningful and non-meaningful brand names will be discussed.
2.3.1 Information integration process of new information
Understanding consumers’ behavior means understanding how marketing programs affect consumer learning. And this consumer learning occurs inside the ‘black box’ of a human being. When consumers expose a new brand name for the first time, there is activity in the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus – the brain areas where our higher cognitive and memory functions reside (Walvis, 2008). The so-called neuromarketing emphasizes that branding seeks to increase the likelihood that the neuron-assembly or association network that represents that brand is activated and the brand name enters our awareness during the choice process. In other words, the brand that win the battle for awareness (i.e. the most salient brands) are more likely to be chosen (Walvis, 2008). Brand salience measures the awareness of a brand name, where issues like recognition and recalling are evaluated. Recognition and recall will be higher when the brand name is processed correctly at time of encoding.
According to Nedungadi (1990) this depends on two factors:
- The activation of the strength of the brand node; which is influenced by memory
and how often the brand is mentioned;
- The strength of associations between brand node and other nodes. Relational elaboration, learning brand names; linking new brand names to other brands within category.
As may be noticed, the awareness of a novel brand name all depends on the memory of the consumer. But how does this process work?
Promoting a new or unfamiliar brand name can be considered as type of paired associate learning, where the consumer has to learn to associate a particular brand name with a product or service (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987). Consumers form attitudes about brand names through a four stage process, which is shown in table 3.
Step 1 Exposure to a brand name
Step 2 Image of the new brand name is formed Step 3 Inferential beliefs are formed
Step 4 Attitudes towards new brand names are formed
Table 3. the formation of attitude towards new brand namesBrand attitudes and brand images are part of the overall associations’ consumer form of a brand (Low and Lamb, 2000). Brand associations refer to anything linked to memory of a brand. In this way, consumers may form conclusions about a new brand when the only available cue in the environment is brand name itself. There is evidence that brand name attitudes exist independent of product attributes (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987).
Before consumers have formed attitudes, the issue of awareness is according to Palda (1966) important in terms of consumer responses in the hierarchy of effect model:
Awareness Attitude Behavioral intention
But how do consumers process new brand name information, and transfer this information into an attitude? According the Gragan-Paxton and John (1997) consumers learn through a process of internal knowledge transfer. When a new product is launched in a certain product category, consumers search for information in external sources which already is processed/stored in their mind to link this information to the new launched product. In other words, consumers search for familiar issues in memory to understand the new launched offering. The consumers relate the new information into existing knowledge structure (Peterson and Ross, 1972; Klink, 2001).
This theory is in line with the semantic memory theory. According to this theory, experience within a product category can lead to the formation of memory schemata. This memory schema may be defined as an association set, which refers to a group of concepts that are meaningfully related to a target word or brand name (Meyers-Levy, 1989). So, the association set may be activated and used as a basis for interpreting new information and for making inferences. From these theories can be concluded that meaningful brand names benefit from the process of inferential belief formation (Zinkhan and Martin, 1989).
2.3.2 Difference of processing meaningful or non-meaningful brand names
Research of neuromarketing stated that decrease of activation in the brain parts after repeated
encoding of the new brand name, was process specific; the decrease of activation occurred when words were non-distinctively reprocessed but not when words were distinctively reprocessed. In other words, new meaningful brand names were seen as similar of other brands in a certain category, but consumers are more involved in learning the meaning of non-meaningful brand name.
In terms of meaningful brand names, the brand name itself evokes some images and associations when it is exposed for the first time. The name will have a node in memory that may be associated with other brands of that product category (Hoeffler, Keller, 2003), which result in a more facilitating identification with the product category. Thus, the already stored information in consumers’ mind of a particular category will be linked to the new brand name. This process is called non-distinctive encoding (Meyers-Levy, 1989). In other words, the higher the number of associations to a brand name, the higher the number of competing associations that might be activated and interfere with brand name retrieval increases (Anderson, 1976). When a company with a meaningful brand name would try to place new associations next to the already stored memories, it can lead to confusion or overlapping associations. This will result in sufficiently weak associations between the brand and their memory traces.
The type of encoding (distinctive vs. nondistinctive encoding) also depends of the frequency of words used in daily life. Novel brand names can activate lexical knowledge of a single language, whereby meaningful brand names have higher activation of lexical knowledge than non-meaningful brand names (Nedungadi, 1990).Rare, uncommon words are more distinctively processed than common words. This occurs when infrequently used words are rather unexpected, which leads consumer to struggle to find (distinctive) meaning in them in relation to their context. In contrast, common words can be processed with little effort, and therefore receive limited process time, suggesting relatively non-distinctive processing during encoding. Furthermore, non-distinctive processing produce greater amount of recall than tasks requiring the processing of distinctive information (Wright et al., 1977). In other words, the more meaningful the brand name, the better the recall associated with that name (Robertson, 1999). Besides the higher recall of meaningful brand names, they are also easier to remember because these names possess congruence with names of existing brands in the category (Kohli and Suri, 2000; Peterson and Ross, 1972). Meaningful brand names had a higher recall, but these names also had a higher incorrect recall. This is because of the presence of similar kind of names and so similar associations which are stored in the brain next to the other brands in the product category. Non-meaningful brand names are less recalled, but when they are recalled they are always correct recalled (Kohli and Suri, 2000).
Familiar elements in brand names will facilitate the integration process. These familiar elements will facilitate the degree of recall and simplicity because the brand name itself conveys information about product features or benefits. The latter property will enhance the comprehending and processing of the brand name to facilitate word-of-mouth exposure (Klink, 2001). Meaningful brand names are understood better by consumers, because consumers often rely on existing brand names to reduce the perceived risk involved with a new product purchase decision (Montgomery and Wernerfelt, 1992; Smith and Park, 1992).
The recognition performance is better in case of non-meaningful brand names than by
meaningful brand names (Schulman and Lovelace, 1970). This is because of the uniqueness
of the brand name, which enable consumer to better discriminate them from distractors. Due
to the familiar, high frequency words used in meaningful brand names may reduce product uncertainty, and thereby enhance consumers’ acceptance of the new product. Overall, consumers evaluate meaningful brand names more positively than non-meaningful brand names (Klink, 2001; Keller et al., 1998; Pavia and Costa, 1993). One remark here, consumers’ evaluations of brand names after repeated exposure suggest qualified support for the non-meaningful brand names. That is, even though non-meaningful brand names may have a disadvantage early in its life, based on their research it appears that repeated exposure to the brand name may yield incremental gains in brand evaluations that exceed those for meaningful names (Kohli et al., 2005).
As stated before, being perceived as different by consumers is the key of branding. A brand can be distinctive in its brand name. In particular, meaningful brand names are not distinctive in terms of competitors, but so do non-meaningful brand names. Non-meaningful brand names will have the potential for truly independent consumer attributes. In other words, the new brand name can establish a more unique position within the product category (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987; Kohli and Suri, 2000; Keller, 2003). A great opportunity for non- meaningful brand names, where the meaningful brand names are restricted.
Marketers might prefer a meaningful brand name for a better start position and it saves money in field of marketing communication budget (Kohli and Suri, 2000). Besides, research of Lee and Sternthal (1999) state that expanded information and worse fit (between brand name and product category) result in a more positive brand attitude and thus better evaluation than limited information and better fit between brand name and product category. This result indicates that new brands, but also brands in general, should expose expanded information, whether you choose a meaningful or non-meaningful brand name. Initially, brands with a meaningful name may restrict themselves in terms of learned associations. As state before, consumers might not see the difference between brand A and its competitor. Even in this situation, organizations should have a high promotional budget to overcome these wrong associations. A summary is given in table 4.
Meaningful brand names Non-meaningful brand names
Recall High, but also high incorrect names Low, but when recalled, hardly always a correct recall
Recognition Low - moderate High
Processing Non-distinctive encoding Distinctive encoding
Table 4. Characteristics of meaningful vs. non-meaningful brand names
