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

THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY

AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

by

HOANG TUAN DUNG

Dr. Cynthia Frisby, Thesis Supervisor

MAY 2008

The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled

THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES

Presented by Hoang Tuan Dung,

A candidate for the degree of Master of Arts,

And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.

Professor Cynthia Frisby

Professor Maria Len-Rios

Professor Kevin Wise

Professor Jeffrey Rouder

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to give my undying gratitude to Dr. Cynthia Frisby for accepting the position of

my committee chair and for the overall guidance, patience and professional opinions on

my thesis. I also want to thank her for the assistance in recruiting subjects for my study

and data collection on this project.

I want to give thanks to Dr. Maria Len-Rios, my academic advisor, for all the reading and

re-reading of my thesis draft. I know she now has my paper memorized as well as I do. I

really appreciate the comments and editing suggestions, as it has helped me gain a more

insightful and professional sounding document.

To Dr. Jeffrey Rouder a special thanks for the valuable advice and guidance on the

overall methodology and data analysis of my project. Without his strong, professional

expertise, I am sure my thesis would not be the extremely informative and detailed

project that it is today. I will continue to use his advice and the skills he has taught me

throughout my life.

I want to give my thanks to Dr. Kevin Wise for providing me with pertinent comments on

my hypothesis and research question formulation. His guidance has helped me to build a

strong foundation for my subject matter and keep me focused on the research and input of

data used to obtain the outcome that supported my hypothesis.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................................II

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF EXHIBITS..................................................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... VI

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................VII

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 1 ...............................................................................................................................................4

1.1. DEFINING CONCEPTS......................................................................................................................4

1.1.1 CONGRUITY ....................................................................................................................................4

1.1.2. TYPICALITY ...................................................................................................................................5

1.1.3. MEANINGFULNESS .........................................................................................................................5

1.1.4. OVERLAP IN THESE CONCEPTS.......................................................................................................6

1.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................................7

1.2.1. THEORY OF SCHEMA CONGRUITY .................................................................................................7

1.2.2. EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY ON ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES .........................10

1.2.3. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRODUCT CATEGORY AND ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES .......12

CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................................15

2.1. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................15

2.1.1. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ...........................................................................................................15

Brand name congruity ................................................................................................................... 15 Product category ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.1.2. DEPENDENT VARIABLES...............................................................................................................16

Attitude toward brand names ......................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3. RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................16

2.1.4. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................16

CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................................18

iv

3.1. CATEGORY EFFECTS.......................................................................................................................18

3.2. HYPOTHESIS 1.................................................................................................................................18

3.3. HYPOTHESIS 2.................................................................................................................................19

3.4. OTHER FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................21

CHAPTER 4 .............................................................................................................................................29

4.1. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................29

CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................................34

5.1. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................34

APPENDIX ...............................................................................................................................................36

1. MEANS SCORES OF BRAND NAMES ....................................................................................................36

2. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................................................38

BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................55

v

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Page

1. A Linear Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent………................19

2. Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent…………………………...20

3. Distribution of Names’ Congruity among Perfume and Detergent…………..……….22

4. Comparing Perfume with Detergent………………………………………….……….24 5. Comparing Benefits of Perfume and Detergent……………………………………….26

6. Steep Slope of Perfume Names in the Absence of “Detergentness”………… ………27

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Names with moderate congruity but low liking for perfume………………….............24

2. Names with High Liking for Perfume but Low Liking for Detergent………………...25

vii

THE EFFECT OF BRAND NAME CONGRUITY AND PRODUCT CATEGORY

ON CONSUMERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD BRAND NAMES Hoang Tuan Dung

Dr. Cynthia Frisby, Thesis Supervisor

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research paper is to explore the effect that brand name congruity and

product categories have on attitudes toward brand names. More specifically, attitudes will

be evaluated according to brand names that are congruent, moderately incongruent, and

extremely incongruent from both functional and symbolic product categories. A list of 50

fictitious brand names of perfume (symbolic product) and detergent (functional product)

with alternative levels of congruity was created for the purpose of this study. 38

participants completed a questionnaire to rate how much the names reminded them of a

product category and how much they like them as members of that category. Results

showed that for detergent, name congruity and liking are positively correlated. The more

congruent the names the more they are liked. For perfume, the relationship is more

complicated. Congruity is not a guarantee for liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked

for perfume, have not only to be congruent with perfume but also unique (incongruent

with detergent). Implications of the findings on future naming strategy as well as future

research directions are discussed.

1

INTRODUCTION

Creating favorable consumers’ attitudes toward brands has been viewed as a

central task of brand building and marketing communications (Aaker, 1992; Keller, 1991;

Kohli et al., 2005). Evidence has been found that brand names can have an immediate

impact on brand attitudes based on what the names suggest (Rigeaux-Brickmont, 1982).

Because of these effects on consumers’ attitudes, brand names are among a firm’s most

valuable and strategic assets (Klink and Smith, 2001; Kohli et al., 2005; Meyers-Levy et

al., 1994). For example, the 10 top brands in 2006 were estimated to range from $21.7

billion for Mercedes-Benz to $67 billion for Coca-Cola (Business Week, 2006).

Of all the elements of the marketing mix, brand names appear among the most

stable (Lefkowith and Modenhauer, 1985). Choosing an effective brand name, therefore,

has strategic importance, and, if well done, can offer many advantages. These include

making brands stand out from the pack and easing their trademark registration (Kohli et

al., 2005), facilitating corporate strategies including new product launches, company

creation or renaming (Robertson, 1989), or restructuring (Lefkowith and Modenhauer,

1985). A “good” brand name also facilitates marketing communications by providing

consumers with product information including brand identity, product benefits, and by

eliciting positive attitudes such as trust, confidence, or status (Turley and Moore, 1995).

Research in brand naming has typically focused on how brand name

characteristics, such as length, distinctiveness, congruity, and linguistic features, affect

attitudinal factors, such as liking, recognition, and recall (Kohli et al., 2005). One of the

most studied topics has been on consumers’ attitudes toward brands with congruent and

2

incongruent names. A brand name is said to be congruent when it reminds the consumer

of a product category (Peterson and Ross, 1972) or is “obviously and meaningfully”

associated with the product and its categories (Meyers-Levy et al., 1994). When

evaluated together, conflicting evidence has been found across various studies as to

which brand name – congruent or incongruent - is evaluated more favorably by

consumers (Kohli et al., 2005; Klink, 2001; Pavia and Costa, 1993; Peterson and Ross,

1972; Zinkhan and Martin, 1987; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994).

One possible explanation can be founded in research findings on the effects of ad-

brand incongruity reported by Dahlen (2002). Applying Mandler’s schema congruity

theory, Dahlen suggests that both congruent and incongruent information can positively

affect consumers’ evaluations. While congruent information can have a positive effect on

recall, understanding and, hence, attitudes, congruity, especially when associated with

predictability, lacks the surprise element produced by incongruity, which stimulates

information processing. Under such circumstances, one would expect that both

congruent and incongruent brand names are evaluated positively by consumers.

Although research has identified a product’s category as a defining characteristic

of brand name congruity, there have been very few studies that look at how the impact of

brand name congruity on brand attitudes varies across product categories. The general

assumption is that brand name congruity is perceived and evaluated in the same way for

all product categories. However, product category literature has indicated that consumers

evaluate different product categories differently.

Research on product categorization has established that products can be

classified according to two types of customer needs they address: symbolic/expressive

3

and functional/utilitarian (Ang and Lim, 2006; Bhat and Reddy, 1998; Dahlen, 2002;

Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Mittal; 1989; Bottomley, 2006). One example of

symbolic product is perfume, typically viewed as a product that helps express personality

and status, and boost self-esteem. Detergent can be thought of as utilitarian product given

its functional benefits (cleaning). Functionality and symbolism are said to be two

“distinct concepts in consumers’ minds” (Bhat and Reddy, 1998). As such, these

concepts may involve two different information processing patterns and, thus, influence

brand evaluations. Functional products are rather associated with thinking (Dahlen, 2002)

and “explicit information search” (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) while expressive

products are believed to express feeling (Dahlen, 2002) and require less product

information (Mittal, 1989).

The purpose of this paper is to integrate two approaches to brand attitudes – the

brand name congruity approach and the product category approach – that have existed

side by side with little apparent relation to one another. Given its exploratory nature, the

study aims at generating useful hypotheses upon which further studies can be conducted.

As such a generalization to detergent and symbolic products requires further studies be

replicated to more products representative of these two categories.

4

CHAPTER 1

This chapter reviews the literature addressing the relationship between congruity

and attitudes toward brand names as well as the effects of product category on these

attitudes. Similar concepts and their overlap will be discussed. The Theory of Schema

Congruity that serves as theoretical framework will also be presented.

1.1. Defining Concepts

The study of how brand name characteristics affect brand attitudes has resulted in

significant works using different academic terms representing the same intellectual

construct in both scholarly and professional writing. The most popular concepts in the

literature that have been used to define relationships between brand name characteristics

and brand attitude are “congruity” (Peterson and Ross, 1972; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994),

“typicality” (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987), or “meaningfulness” (Keller et al.,1998). These

concepts define “congruity” from different aspects, but they also have some overlap. The

purpose of this section is to review these concepts and address the differences and

overlap among them.

1.1.1 Congruity

Peterson and Ross (1972) use “congruence” to determine brand name

remindfulness of product categories. According to their study, consumers possess a

“preconceived notion” of the remindfulness of certain words or words sounds. They

suggested that some words are more remindful of the product categories than other

words. For example, they found that, for the breakfast cereal category, the word

5

“whumies” is reported to be more remindful than the word “ackexma”, while in the

detergent category, “dehax” is more remindful than “whumies”. Therefore, Peterson and

Ross (1972) recommend choosing new brand names which are somewhat congruent with

names of existing brands including competing ones.

Drawing on the schema congruity theory, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) define

the general concept of “congruity” as the “match between the attributes of an object, such

as a product, and a relevant schema” [which are representations of prior experience]” (p.

41). More recently, Meyers-Levy et al. (1994) applied this concept to brand names by

specifying that congruity exists when brand names “fit product associations in an obvious

and meaningful manner”. They also stated that congruent brand names are those that are

“meaningful” and “fitting and integratively related to product”.

1.1.2. Typicality

“Typicality” refers to brand name memorability and its ability to “call to mind

imagery that reminds consumers of the product category” (Zinkhan and Martin, 1987, p.

158). These researchers argue that the connection between meaningfulness and imagery

can sometimes be close. They cited Stork Diaper Service as an example of memorable

and typical brand names that evoke certain imagery. This connection, however, can

operate at a subconscious level. Peterson and Ross (1972), for example, found that some

randomly generated syllables are more “remindful” of a particular product class than are

other randomly generated syllables.

1.1.3. Meaningfulness

“Meaningfulness” has been used most frequently in previous research and has had

relatively different but overlapping definitions. In their study of the differences in recall

6

and liking across four categories of brand names: descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and

coined, Kohli and Suri (2000) group these categories into two categories: meaningful

brand names (descriptive and suggestive), and non-meaningful (arbitrary and coined).

The reason, they argued, was that there were essentially no differences in consumer

responses to descriptive versus suggestive names and arbitrary versus coined names.

To explain these concepts, they offered the following definitions and examples:

“A descriptive brand name describes the product (e.g., “Laser Jet” for a laser printer). A

suggestive brand name evokes the product’s benefit(s), such as “Diehard” batteries. An

arbitrary brand name is a common English word that has no apparent relation to the

product category (e.g., “Arrow” shirts). Finally, a coined name is a fictional word,

inherently unrelated to any product or product category (e.g., “Enron”)”.

Keller et al. (1998) also indicate that descriptiveness and suggestiveness are two

dimensions of meaningfulness. However, they consider choosing a descriptive vs.

suggestive brand name as two distinct strategies to make brand names meaningful. The

first branding strategy –choosing a descriptive brand name- should enhance brand name

awareness and identification with the product category. They provided the example of the

name “Lean Cuisine” said to strengthen the low-calorie frozen food category, and

“Newsweek” for the weekly magazine category. The second strategy - choosing a

suggestive brand name- should help with brand positioning (Keller et al., 1998).

“DieHeart” (auto battery), “Mop’s n Flow” (floor cleaner), and “Beautyrest” (mattresses)

are brand names they viewed as being able to highlight salient product benefits.

1.1.4. Overlap in these Concepts

7

The three concepts reviewed above are frequently used interchangeably in

previous research (e.g. Kohli and Suri, 2000; Peterson and Ross, 1972; Meyers-Levy et

al., 1994). This is because although differences among them exist as described above,

they also have overlap. And very few studies have tried to clearly differentiate them from

each other. Still, from the review presented above, it can be noted that the characteristic

these concepts have in common is the name’s remindfulness of the product category. For

this reason and for the purpose of this paper and in line with the theory of schema

congruity which will be presented in the next section, the concept “congruity” will be

used to replace “typicality” and “meaningfulness” in this paper.

1.2. Theoretical Framework

1.2.1. Theory of Schema Congruity

One of the most common theories used to explain the effects of brand name

congruity is the Theory of Schema Congruity. Schemas are representations of prior

experience that influence action and thought (Mandler, 1982). As a sense-making device,

schemas are hypothesized to serve as the benchmark against which encounters (such as

consumers’ exposure to a brand name) are evaluated (Moreau, Markman and Lehmann,

2001).

Mandler (1982) theorized that two factors influence how new encounters are

evaluated: how easily the encounter is comprehended and how much arousal is induced

by the encounter. This theory holds that the more congruity between an encounter and an

established schema the higher the level of comprehension. However, the evaluations that

schema congruity generates tend to be slightly positive, rather than extremely positive,

8

because they match with consumer expectations about the encounter (Mandler, 1982;

Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989).

In contrast, schema incongruity exists when expectations and predictions are

interrupted (Mandler, 1982; 1993). Schema-incongruent encounters appear to be

challenging to comprehend and, thus, require more mental effort by the consumer

(Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989). Mental activity, in turn, is said to induce arousal and

produce evaluations with higher intensity than does schema congruity (Mandler, 1982).

This author claims that schema incongruity may affect evaluations either positively or

negatively depending on whether the incongruity is resolved or not. Resolved incongruity

occurs when information is processed more extensively to identify, successfully, a

meaningful fit between the brand name and the product. Resolved incongruity is said to

produce consumer gratifications, which contributes to positive evaluation. Unresolved

incongruity, on the other hand, frustrates consumers, resulting in a negative evaluation

(Mandler, 1982).

In consumer research, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) operationalized schema

(in)congruity as having three different levels – congruity, moderate incongruity and

extreme incongruity. These operationalizations were derived from the work of Rosch

(1978) and Sujan and Dekleva (1987) on categorization theory. Categorizing is part of the

sense-making process where people group objects that are similar in important aspects in

order to make information processing more efficient and achieve higher cognitive

stability (Cohen and Basu, 2006). These objects are then further grouped according to

different levels or hierarchy of attribute specificity (Sujan and Dekleva, 1987).

9

Products that could be found at the lowest level of specificity – which is called

“product class category” by Sujan and Dekleva (1987) or “superordinate level” by Rosch

(1978) - are portable music devices, for example. Within the portable music device

category, MP3 finds itself at the next higher level of specificity –“product type category”

(Sujan and Dekleva) or “basic level” (Rosch). iPod is an example at the highest level of

specificity – “brand level category” (Sujan and Dekleva) or “subordinate level” (Rosch).

According to Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989), both Rosch (1978) and Sujan and

Dekleva (1987) agreed that the middle level - product type category or basic level -

provides the greatest discrimination between categories and, thus, is most often used by

people to naturally category objects. For example, for the category of portable music

devices, MP3 and Walkman CD Player are likely to be perceived as distinct

subcategories because of the large number of distinct attributes and small number of

shared ones. In contrast, various brands of MP3 might be perceived as having few

distinctive attributes.

On the basis of the categorization theory, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989)

operationally defined schema congruity as the extent to which all the attributes of a

product are represented within the activated schema. Moderate and extreme incongruities

are differentiated by the “ease with which an incongruity can be addressed within the

activated hierarchical [schema] structure” (p. 41). Moderate incongruity occurs when, for

example, a portable music device’s attributes are not represented within the portable

music device schema, such as small size or high storage capacity, but such incongruity

could be resolved by looking at the MP3 schema. Extreme incongruity occurs when

incongruity is unresolved at any schema level, for example, a portable music device with

10

attributes, such as color printing, which are not represented at either the MP3 nor the

Walkmans level category schema. In an experiment involving tasting and evaluating new

beverage, Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) found that moderate incongruity produced

more positive evaluations than schema congruity and extreme incongruity. This finding is

consistent with Mandler (1982)’s theorizing on schema congruity.

1.2.2. Effect of Brand Name Congruity on Attitudes toward Brand Names

While most studies on brand naming agree that brand attitude is a function of

brand name congruity, conflicting evidence was found as to which brand names –

congruent or incongruent - are evaluated more favorably by consumers. A large number

of marketing research found that congruent names are favored by consumers over

incongruent names. This school of thought posits that words do have intrinsic meanings

that can be used to create favorable brand associations and thus lead to high initial brand

preference, recall, and recognition (Kohli et al., 2005).

For instance, Klink (2001) found a direct linkage between sound and meaning,

which he defined as sound symbolism. He found that higher frequency vowels (such as i

and e) and consonants (f,s,v, and z) create sounds that might be perceived as smaller,

lighter, thinner, weaker, and more feminine. Klink also discovered that meaningful names

could be created by embedding semantics (words or morphemes) and sound symbolism

together in the names. And such a naming practice could influence product liking and

positioning.

Furthermore, according to Pavia and Costa (1993), through usage, numbers

acquire certain meanings and are often perceived as being linked to mathematics,

technology, and science. Their analysis revealed that brand names containing numbers

11

can look or sound like scientific expertise and symbolize power, performance, and

sophistication. They concluded that alpha-numeric brand names, including referent and

nonsense mixtures of letters and numbers, therefore, can affect consumers’

understandings and expectations of the product.

Peterson and Ross (1972), Zinkhan and Martin (1987), and Kohli et al. (2005) all

reached the same conclusion that congruent/meaningful/typical names, which are names

that have a connection to a product category, are perceived more favorably than

incongruent/non-meaningful/atypical names.

In contrast with this view, other researchers point out that the relationship

between brand name congruity and brand attitude is not a simple one. Prior research,

based on the schema congruity theory proposed by Mandler (1982), suggests that

people’s preferences are related to the level of brand name incongruity in an inverted U-

shaped manner. Incongruent brand names are defined as not fitting product associations

in a meaningful way.

In two studies, Meyers-Levy et al. (1994) found that brand names are evaluated

more favorably when they are relatively incongruent with the product than when they are

either congruent or extremely incongruent with the product.

These conflicting results are indeed consistent with Mandler’s (1982) theorizing

on schema congruity. As noted earlier, congruity may have positive effects on memory

and attitude because of consumers’ preference for the norm and because of the match

with consumer expectations. Incongruity may also have positive memory attitudinal

effects because consumers process the information more carefully.

12

1.2.3. Relationships between Product Category and Attitudes toward Brand Names

By definition, brand name congruity is inherently linked to the products and

product categories for which the brand name is tied. Research has typically categorized

products according to the types of customer needs they address: symbolic/expressive and

functional/utilitarian.

The conceptualization of product category as symbolic and functional has its

psychological roots in behavioral theory. There are two distinct schools of thought

regarding human needs and motivations (Bhat & Reddy, 1998).

First, the rational school or the “economic man” model suggests that consumers

are rational and behave in such a way to maximize their total utility. In this regard,

consumer decision-making involves a variety of information search and processing

operations. These start with gathering information about competing brands, then

evaluating and comparing product attributes, and finally making the optimal choice based

on their findings.

However, proponents of the emotional school have challenged these believers in

Descartes, arguing that consumers’ motives are emotional in nature. In this regard,

consumers base their consumption decisions on idiosyncratic factors such as taste, pride,

and their desire for self-expression.

Recently, consumer behaviorists have recognized that consumers’ motivations are

both rational and emotional. Research in this area has primarily concentrated on the

definition and measurement of the symbolic and functional dimensions of consumer

attitudes as well as consumer responses.

13

In his seminal work, Udel (1964) defined functional products as those where a

consumer derives satisfaction from a physical performance, and expressive products are

those where consumer satisfaction comes from his or her social and psychological

interpretations of the products.

Ang and Lim (2006) provide further explanations, suggesting that as the

consumption of symbolic products is mainly motivated by self-expressive and affective

purposes. These products are likely to be perceived as more sophisticated than utilitarian

products. In contrast, utilitarian products are viewed to be sincere and competent more so

than symbolic products.

The classification of products as either symbolic or functional has been supported

by empirical research. Bhat and Reddy (1998) found evidence confirming that

functionality and symbolism are distinct concepts in consumers’ minds, and not really

two ends of a brand concept continuum. At the same time, their study suggests that it is

possible to have brands that have both functional and symbolic meanings for consumers.

For example, in their study, Nike was perceived by respondents as functional, prestigious,

and expressive.

As consumers clearly distinguish between functional and symbolic products, their

responses have been found to differ according to product types. In his study on online

advertising, Dahlen (2002) argued that functional products are characterized by thinking

while expressive products lend themselves more to feeling. Holbrook and Hirschman

(1982) contended that the psychosocial interpretation of expressive products is largely

idiosyncratic and less susceptible to explicit information search. Similarly, Mittal (1989)

found that expressive products do not lend themselves easily to content or feature

14

discriminations. It is therefore expected that the degree of brand name congruity is less

important for symbolic products than for functional products.

1.3. Hypotheses:

Based on the review of literature addressing brand congruity-preference

relationship, and product category discrimination, it is hypothesized that:

H1: For functional products, a congruent brand name is evaluated more favorably than an

incongruent (either moderately or extremely) brand name.

H2: For symbolic products, a moderately incongruent name is evaluated more favorably

than either a congruent brand name or an extremely incongruent brand name.

15

CHAPTER 2

Chapter 2 presents the methodology used for this study. It also explains the

research design and describes the independent and dependent variables as well as

participant recruitment procedure.

2.1. Methodology

2.1.1. Independent Variables

Brand name congruity

Brand name congruity is conceptually defined as the degree to which a brand

name “fits product associations in an obvious and meaningful manner” (Meyers-Levy et

al., 1994). It is operationally defined according to three levels, as congruent, moderately

incongruent, or extremely incongruent. Brand name congruity is measured on a seven

point, continuous response scale, ranging from “Doesn’t remind me at all” to “Reminds

me very much” (Zinkhan & Martin, 1987). For the purpose of this study, a name with a

score equal or greater than 5 is considered congruent, between 3 and 4 as moderately

incongruent, less than 3 as extremely incongruent.

Product category

This is conceptually defined as the category in which a product is placed based

upon the types of customer needs it addresses. For the purposes of this study, product

category is operationally defined as functional or symbolic category. A functional

product category features the functional benefits associated with the product and the tasks

which it is designed to accomplish, whereas a symbolic product category captures more

abstract notions and is used to exhibit something personal about the consumer (Ligas,

16

2000). Perfume, because of its expressive and intangible characteristics, is therefore

placed within the symbolic category while laundry detergent, given its utilitarian

attribute, is representative of the functional category. These choices are also consistent

with prior research (Ang & Lim, 2006; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Dahlen, 2002; Mittal,

1989).

2.1.2. Dependent Variables

Attitude toward brand names

Participants’ attitude is measured on a seven point semantic differential scale.

This scale contains the following bi-polar verb pair: 1=Do not like at all/7=Like very

much.

2.1.3. Research Design

A list of 50 fictitious brand names of perfume (symbolic product) and detergent

(functional product) with alternative levels of congruity was created following the

procedures of Kohli, Harich, Leuthesser (2005). The fictitious names ensure that they do

not differ in terms of favorability and do not remind subjects of existing brand names. 38

subjects completed a questionnaire to rate how much the names reminded them of a

product category and how much they like them as members of that category. 20 subjects

were University of Missouri-Columbia students recruited from an undergraduate

journalism class. The rest came from different age and socio-professional groups. A

sample questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2.

2.1.4. Participants and Procedure

In this study, a questionnaire was given to 40 participants who rated how much

the names reminded them of a product category and how much they like them as

17

members of that category. The students who participated in the survey were compensated

with extra credit for their involvement.

18

CHAPTER 3

This chapter reports findings of the study. It shows the statistical results related to

possible category effects and each of the hypotheses as well as other findings.

3.1. Category Effects

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) conducted to examine the effect of category

(perfume or detergent) on names’ congruity and liking indicated no significant category

effect (p >0.43 for congruity and p>0.19 for liking). In other words, none of the two

categories is more congruent or preferred over the other. Thus, such differences are

unlikely to account for effect observed on other measures.

Next, an ANOVA was used on names’ congruity for perfume and detergent

separately. The results indicated that the differences in congruity among names are

statistically significant for each category, F(49, 1850)=11.78, p<0.0001 for perfume and

F(49,1850) =15.35, p<0.0001 for detergent. This means that the 50 names under study

were perceived as having different levels of congruity within each product category.

The means of congruity and liking scores for perfume and detergent are reported in

Appendix 1.

3.2. Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis predicts that for functional products, a congruent brand name

is evaluated more favorably than an incongruent (either moderately or extremely) brand

name. For detergent, it is easy, as shown in Exhibit 1, to observe a strong linear

relationship between congruity and liking (Pearson product-moment correlation

19

coefficient=0.95). This means that it is possible to predict with high accuracy that

congruent names will be preferred over extremely and moderately incongruent names for

the detergent category. Therefore, H1 predicting that for functional products, a congruent

brand name is evaluated more favorably than an incongruent (either moderately or

extremely) brand name is supported.

Exhibit 1, A Linear Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Detergent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Congruity

Lik

ing

Detergent

3.3. Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis predicts that for symbolic products, a moderately

incongruent name is evaluated more favorably than either a congruent brand name or an

extremely incongruent brand name. Because none of the names under study was

perceived as congruent with perfume (M<4), it is not possible to compare among

congruent, moderately incongruent and extremely incongruent names. It is therefore not

20

possible to adequately test H2 stating that for symbolic products, a moderately

incongruent name is evaluated more favorably than either a congruent brand name or an

extremely incongruent brand name.

For this reason, the following analysis is limited to comparing moderately

incongruent and extremely incongruent names. For perfume, names appear to follow two

different patterns. The first group (represented by diamond-shaped points shown in

Exhibit 2) shows a similar pattern to that of detergent names with relatively high

correlation between congruity and liking. The second group (represented by cicles)

includes names with moderate congruity but with liking among the lowest, suggesting

that higher congruity does not mean higher liking. In other words, the congruity and

liking of names in this group seem to be uncorrelated.

Exhibit 2, Relationship between Congruity and Liking for Perfume

21

A closer examination reveals that the names represented in cicle, in addition to

being moderately incongruent with perfume, turned out to be congruent with detergent

and are preferred as detergent names. This suggests something interesting about perfume

and detergent as two distinct product categories. Names, if they are seen and liked as

detergent names, are not evaluated favorably for perfume even if they moderately remind

of perfume.

If the names in circle carrying high detergent “legacy” are removed from perfume

names, the latter exhibit a similar pattern to detergent names’. In this case, the overall

correlation coefficient between congruity and liking for perfume jumps from 0.42 to 0.72.

This suggests that their low correlation is due to the presence of names that are too

“detergent”, causing perfume liking to drop.

3.4. Other Findings

3.4.1 Distribution of Names’ Congruity

Exhibit 3 reveals two distinct patterns of data. First, a high density of names is

located in the upper right hand of Quadrant A, suggesting that a large number of names

are extremely incongruent and moderately incongruent (M<=4) for both perfume and

detergent. In other words, these names were not seen as very appropriate for either

perfume or detergent products. A closer examination indicates that names that are

extremely incongruent (M<=2) such as “AHT”, “Beltone”, “Emcools”… share a

common point: they are random combinations of words and thus don’t have any intrinsic

meanings. Consequently, subjects probably found it difficult to relate these names to

either detergent or perfume or any product category.

22

The second group of names is clustered along the vertical line running in the

middle of the chart. These names have moderate congruity with perfume (M>3) and

various levels of congruity with detergent. Low congruity with detergent suggests names’

inclination toward perfume, moderate congruity indicates an overlapping of congruity

between perfume and detergent, high congruity suggests a leaning toward detergent.

Thus, the names located in the upper left hand of Quadrant C (“Color Brite”, “Nature

Wash”, “River Clean”, and “Wash All”) are highly congruent with detergent (M>=5),

suggesting that even though they could be perfume names, they are seen more as

detergent names.

Exhibit 3, Distribution of Names’ Congruity among Perfume and Detergent

Exhibit 3 Comparing Detergent with Perfume

Similarly, three names located in the lower left hand of Quadrant D (“Midnight

Romance”, “Parisian Sky” and “Pleasurable Sin”) are seen more as names for perfume

Comparing Congruity of Perfume with Congruity of Detergent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Congruity of Perfume

Co

ng

ruit

y o

f D

ete

rgen

t

23

than for detergent. “The Rose Garden” is the only name seen as moderately congruent

with both categories (M=3.47 for perfume, M=3.05 for detergent). Why is it not possible

to have names extremely congruent with both perfume and detergent? It might be that

beyond certain level of congruity (M=3), subjects viewed these two categories as

distinctive. In other words, names can be very “perfume” or very “detergent” but not

both. This is understandable given that names that are extremely incongruent or

moderately congruent are, by definition, not very close to any product category and as

such can be used interchangeably across product categories.

It is also observed that no names are found in the upper left hand of Quadrant B

and the lower right hand of Quadrant D, suggesting that none of the 50 names under

study has pure “perfumeness” or “detergentness”1. This observation, coupled with the

analysis in the previous paragraph, means that the names under study can either have no

“perfumeness” /“detergentness” or contain some mixture of both. More detailed

discussions will follow in subsequent sections.

3.4.2. Congruity and Liking Compared

Data for perfume and detergent are plotted next to each other in Exhibit 4 which

contrasts their distributions. As already mentioned, detergent names exhibit a strong

linear relationship between congruity and liking. In contrast, perfume names show a

strikingly different pattern. A group of perfume names – in circle on the charts - with

levels of congruity ranging from 2.4 to 3.6 have one thing in common: their congruity

and liking seem to be uncorrelated (Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient=0.05).

1 The terms “perfumeness” and “detergentness” are created for the purpose of this study.

24

Why perfume names behave differently among themselves and in comparison

with detergent names around level 3 of congruity?

Exhibit 4, Comparing Perfume with Detergent

It turns out that the names in circles are all the best candidates for detergent. Their

different scores are shown in Table 1.

Table 1, Names with moderate congruity but low liking for perfume

Names Rp* Lp* Rd* Ld*

Clean Slate 3.09 1.97 4.29 4

Color Brite 3.55 1.5 5.53 4.82

Nature Wash 3.49 1.76 5.03 4.79

Rain Guard 3.08 1.53 3.82 3.45

River Clean 3.59 1.87 5.42 4.82

Wash All 3.42 1.37 5.58 4.5

25

*Rp: “Reminds me of perfume”; Lp: “I like as name for perfume”; Rd: “Reminds me of detergent”; Ld: “I like as name for detergent”.

Respondents’ preference for these names as detergent names might be the reason

why within the perfume category, the names in circle follow a different pattern from the

rest in terms of congruity-liking correlation. This raises a question: Why are names that

are highly detergent congruent such as “Clean Slate”, “Nature Wash”, “Wash All”

associated with perfume? It is possible that in the minds of subjects, although detergent

and perfume arguably differ on symbolic dimensions, they offer common functional

benefits such as cleaning (dirty spots and bad odor for detergent and perfume

respectively).

Pursuing the same line of inquiry, another interesting group of names –

represented by squares – contains the best candidates for perfume but, perhaps because of

that, they were seen as incongruent with detergent and consequently are not liked as such,

not even a little bit. Their scores are reported in Table 2. It is interesting to note that for

perfume, some names (in circle in Exhibit 3) can be congruent with both perfume and

detergent as mentioned above. This does not seem to be the case for detergent. Names

that are congruent with perfume (those in green) are seen as incongruent for detergent.

Table 2, Names with High Liking for Perfume but Low Liking for Detergent

Names Rp Lp Rd Ld

Pleasurable Sin 3 4.47 1.71 1.84 Midnight Romance 3.57 4.42 1.79 1.76 Parisian Sky 3.04 3.87 1.76 2.29

Unique 2.62 3.74 1.97 1.92 White Sand 2.97 3.63 2.45 2.68

26

The Kiss 2.93 3.61 1.37 1.89 Cool Night 2.97 3.58 2.03 2.42

It might be that subjects saw detergent as having less “functions” than perfume

and therefore viewed names that suggest benefits other than cleaning as inappropriate.

Exhibit 5 shows cleaning as a hypothesized common benefit of perfume and detergent, as

well as symbolic dimensions seen as unique to perfume.

Exhibit 5, Comparing Benefits of Perfume and Detergent

Detergent

Cleaning Express

personality

Express statusBoost self-

estime

Perfume

It can be derived from this analysis that names’ liking is evaluated differently

according product category. For detergent, the prediction is straightforward. Liking and

congruity are positively correlated. And congruity depends on how clear names are about

their functional benefits. The clearer the more congruent.

For perfume, the relationship is more complicated. Congruity is not a guarantee

for liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked for perfume, have not only to be congruent

27

with perfume but also incongruent with detergent. In other words, for perfume, liking is

positively correlated with perfume congruity and negatively correlated with detergent

congruity. Thus, the more names suggest about perfume symbolic benefits, the more they

are congruent with that category. The less they suggest about perfume/detergent

functional benefits, the more likely, but not necessarily, they are to be congruent with

perfume.

As pointed out previously, if the names carrying high detergent “legacy” are

removed from perfume names, the latter exhibit a steep slope as shown in Exhibit 6. This

means that once “detergentness” is washed off of perfume names, increasing one level of

congruity results in more liking for perfume names than for detergent names. In other

words, perfume names, as long as they don’t remind conspicuously of detergent, take off

faster in liking than detergent names. Compared to detergent, congruity with perfume is

more difficult to achieve as analyzed previously. However, for any given level of

congruity, the liking is likely to be higher for perfume. It is therefore possible for

perfume names to have a lower congruity but still have similar liking to detergent names.

Exhibit 6, Steep Slope of Perfume Names in the Absence of “Detergentness”

29

CHAPTER 4

This chapter will discuss the study’s results as well as its theoretical and practical

implications. Limitations of the study and future research directions will also be

discussed.

4.1. Discussion

4.1.1. Naming Strategy for Detergent

The findings related to Hypothesis 1 suggest that for detergent, subjects acted as

rational consumers and indicated their preference for names that would maximize

subjects’ total utility. Their decision making is largely based on information search and

product attribute and performance evaluation. They simply focused on detergent’s

functional benefits -cleaning- and did not seem very interested in resolving any

incongruity, even moderate. Any names that suggested “loud and clear” these benefits

were preferred over names that did not because “good” names would reduce consumers’

search time and help them make accurate choices.

The implication of this finding is that for detergent, it is important that product

names suggest clear functional benefit. Doing otherwise would be a waste of time for

consumers and marketers will have to spend more time and money explaining and

reminding what their products can do.

4.1.2. Naming Strategies for Perfume

It can be derived from the findings related to Hypothesis 2 that names’ liking is

evaluated differently according product category. For detergent, the prediction is

30

straightforward. Liking and congruity are positively correlated. And congruity depends

on how clear names are about their functional benefits. The clearer the more congruent.

For perfume, the relationship is more complicated. Congruity is not a guarantee

for liking, even moderate. Names, to be liked for perfume, have not only to be congruent

with perfume but also unique to perfume (incongruent with detergent). In other words,

for perfume, liking is positively correlated with perfume congruity and negatively

correlated with detergent congruity. Thus, the more names suggest about perfume

symbolic benefits, the more they are congruent with that category. Also, the less they

suggest about perfume/detergent functional benefits, the more likely, but not necessarily,

they are to be congruent with perfume.

To avoid low liking scores, names should not be extremely incongruent (due to

their lack of intrinsic meanings), and in the case of perfume, names should not mention

functional benefits that remind of detergent.

Based in this analysis, it is advisable for marketing practitioners to choose product

names that focus on functional benefits for functional products and symbolic benefits for

symbolic products. It is generally easier to figure out the main functional benefits of a

product. However, it is often harder to know what symbolic benefits are important to

consumers. The reason is that, as pointed out by Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) and

Mittal (1989), consumers’ decision making process is different according to product

category. Symbolic products are often interpreted idiosyncratically, information search

and attribute evaluation are less explicit because content or feature discriminations are

lower.

4.1.3. Perfume and Detergent Perceived as Two Distinct Categories

31

The reason why perfume and detergent differ in terms of their congruity-liking

relationship is that they are perceived as two distinct categories despite some functional

overlapping. In the minds of subjects, detergent and perfume arguably share common

functional benefits such as cleaning (dirty spots and bad odor for detergent and perfume

respectively). Beyond the similarity of functional benefits, perfume and detergent differ

on key dimensions.

Presumably, perfume is typically viewed as a product that helps express

personality and status, and boost self-esteem –all symbolic benefits that detergent does

not have. In this study, subjects appeared to heavily focus on symbolic benefits when it

comes to perfume. Thus, the most congruent-with-perfume names are very remotely

related to cleaning and closely related to symbolic benefits such as expressing personality

(“Pleasurable Sin”, “Unique”), or evoking romanticity (“Midnight Romance”, “Parisian

Sky”, “White Sand”, “The Kiss”) or point of origins associated with perfume (“Parisian

Sky”). Maybe for this reason, while it is often sufficient for brand names to include

words suggestive of functional benefit such as “care”, “color brite” , “green”, “wash”,

“clean” or “soft”… to appear congruent with detergent (M>4), to be congruent with

perfume, a brand name needs to go beyond functional benefits.

4.1.4. Are Congruent Names always better than Incongruent Names?

Clearly, highly congruent names have major advantages but they are not without

drawbacks. Their perceived closeness to a product category turns out to be a heavy

legacy that makes it difficult for brand repositioning or extension to other product

categories. In contrast, incongruent or moderately congruent names might be liked less

but, because they have no or little legacy, they might offer the advantage of being more

32

flexible and distinctive. Thus, choosing moderately and even extremely congruent names

might be a good decision in case of brand repositioning or extension. As pointed out

previously, incongruent names work better for symbolic than for functional products.

Another drawback of congruent names is that they are often already taken, leaving no

other choice than less congruent ones. In this case, advertising might be used to increase

awareness and familiarity of the brands. Consequently, the answer to the question “which

ones are better” is “it depends”. Product naming strategies depend on marketing

objectives.

4.1.5. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

This research has drawbacks like many surveys and experiment-like studies. First,

it relied on self-report for collecting data. Second, it is suspected that because the order of

questions was not randomized, there might be some carry-over effects, hopefully limited

given the long list of unfamiliar names. This could be improved by having subjects come

to the lab where questions’ order can be randomized. Moreover, having participants

divided into two groups, each receiving a questionnaire either for perfume or detergent

might help reduce these effects. Next, due to the convenient sampling, the majority of the

respondents are female, raising the concern that gender might influence research findings

as they are suspected to be more familiar with detergent and perfume than males.

Therefore, it is suggested that gender as a variable be included in future research. Also a

more representative sampling will enable future studies’ results to be generalized to other

population groups.

The limited number of congruent names for perfume was expected but their total

absence prevented the second hypothesis from being tested. In contrast, extremely

33

incongruent names were over-represented. It might be necessary in the future to include

more names that have high potential of being congruent with perfume to increase their

selection chance. Alternatively, future studies might need to address the issue of

differential measurement of functional and symbolic products. For example, product from

these two categories might need to be measured on different scales.

Finally, the findings of the study are limited to detergent and perfume. Given its

exploratory nature, the study aims at generating useful hypotheses upon which further

studies can be conducted. As such, a generalization to functional and symbolic products

requires further studies be replicated to more products representative of these two

categories.

34

CHAPTER 5

This chapter concludes the study by restating research objectives, and

summarizing the results and the main discussion points presented in Chapter 4.

5.1. Conclusion

Brand names are seen among companies’ biggest assets. Choosing “good” brand

names for products has therefore major marketing implications. Previous research

suggest that, if marketing objective is to achieve immediate awareness, recognition,

memorability, and ultimately preference for products, then congruent brand names are a

good choice. Previous research also report that consumers’ attitudes towards brands and

brand names differ according to product categories. Therefore, this exploratory study

proposed to investigate the effects of brand name congruity on consumers’ attitudes

toward brand names across functional - represented by detergent - and symbolic –

represented by perfume - product categories. After reviewing the literature related to

brand name congruity and product category, and presenting the theoretical framework,

the study described the methodology, reported and thoroughly discussed results as well as

research limitations and suggestions for future research.

One of the most interesting findings is that Mandler’s theorizing about the

inverted-U shaped relationship between brand name congruity and preference was not

supported. Results show that for detergent (functional products), name preference is

positively correlated with congruity. For perfume (symbolic products), this correlation

also seems to work provided that brand names don’t suffer from the adverse effects

35

caused by their possible reminding of functional benefits they share with detergent.

Another highlight of the study is that it is more difficult for perfume to have congruent

names since, unlike detergent, name evaluations are largely idiosyncratic. However,

lower congruity does not prevent perfume names from being equally liked. Given these

findings, the main task is therefore to increase name congruity which will increase name

liking. For perfume, the challenge might be to come up with names that are both

congruent with this category and unique, and at the same time have an appeal that is

universal enough to transcend idiosyncratic tastes, which, by the way, are two redundant

terms. This might be a good topic for future research.

36

APPENDIX

1. Means Scores of Brand Names

BRAND RemindP RemindD LikeP LikeD

24 hours 2.61 2.66 2.95 2.50

AHT 1.68 1.92 1.18 1.61

Beltone 1.91 1.92 1.61 1.61

Best Care 2.91 4.37 1.21 4.05

Blue Horizon 3.16 2.74 2.87 3.00

Brij 2.22 2.03 2.37 2.21

Clean Slate 3.09 4.29 1.97 4.00

Color Brite 3.55 5.53 1.50 4.82

Cool Night 2.97 2.03 3.58 2.42

Courant d’Air 2.89 1.97 3.58 2.29

Deep Feeling 2.58 1.95 2.61 1.82 Emcools 1.72 1.42 1.92 2.05 Empigen 1.74 1.84 1.82 1.55

Eresto 2.21 2.03 2.24 1.84

Evolair 1.89 2.03 1.89 1.66

Excessive 2.57 1.89 2.18 1.55

F1 2.08 1.89 2.11 1.92

Fast Effect 2.59 3.29 1.74 2.89

Full Moon 2.68 2.18 3.18 2.00

Green Land 2.57 3.47 1.68 3.29 Joyeux 2.80 2.13 3.32 2.08 Lola T70 2.09 1.53 2.00 1.24

Max Care 2.87 4.29 1.55 3.61

Midnight Romance 3.57 1.79 4.42 1.76

37

N20 2.01 1.63 2.08 1.39

Nature Wash 3.49 5.03 1.76 4.79

Nice Surprise 2.80 2.89 2.66 2.45

Orange Night 2.53 2.18 2.71 2.47

Overdose 2.33 2.03 2.03 1.82

Parisian sky 3.04 1.76 3.87 2.29

Pleasurable Sin 3.00 1.71 4.47 1.84 Ponster 1.83 2.00 1.55 1.34 Premid 1.83 1.95 1.71 1.76

Rain Guard 3.08 3.82 1.53 3.45 Renova 2.24 2.26 2.32 1.89

River Clean 3.59 5.42 1.87 4.82

Secret Spot 3.01 2.55 2.71 2.05 Soft Max 2.62 3.50 1.42 3.42 Stoxx 1.89 1.82 1.58 2.00

The Fifth Element 2.22 2.00 2.74 2.24 The Kiss 2.93 1.37 3.61 1.89 The N 2.07 1.84 1.66 1.26

The Rose Garden 3.47 3.05 3.58 2.82 Tween 2.24 1.79 2.08 1.74 UNIQUE 2.62 1.97 3.74 1.92

UltraSpeed 2.42 3.34 1.63 2.68 Volks 1.78 1.79 1.39 1.45 Wash All 3.42 5.58 1.37 4.50

White Sand 2.97 2.45 3.63 2.68

Zwittergent 2.14 2.89 1.61 2.16

38

2. Sample Questionnaire

Part A The purpose of this questionnaire is to understand how brand names can affect consumers’ attitude toward brands. We would appreciate your spending 10 minutes filling in this questionnaire. Please read the following brand names and use the corresponding scales to indicate how much the brand names remind you of products such as perfume and detergent. Do not spend more than a few seconds on each brand name. Circle the number that is most appropriate to your immediate response. For example, if the brand name “Eternity” reminds you very much of perfume, you may want to circle number 7. Perfume: Brand name “Eternity”

Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 á

Perfume: “Unique”

Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Detergent: “Unique” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Courant d'Air”


Detergent: “Courant d'Air” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Pleasurable Sin”


Detergent: “Pleasurable Sin” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “The Fifth Element”


Detergent: “The Fifth Element”

39


Perfume: “Nice Surprise” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Nice Surprise”


Perfume: “24 hours” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “24 hours”


Perfume: “Blue Horizon”


Detergent: “Blue Horizon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Full Moon”


Detergent: “Full Moon” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Excessive”


Detergent: “Excessive” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Orange Night”


Detergent: “Orange Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Joyeux”

40


Detergent: “Joyeux” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Cool Night”


Detergent: “Cool Night” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Overdose”


Detergent: “Overdose” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Secret Spot”


Detergent: “Secret Spot” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Deep Feeling”


Detergent: “Deep Feeling” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “The Kiss” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “The Kiss”


Perfume: “The N” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “The N”

Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “Volks” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Volks”


Perfume: “The Rose Garden” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “The Rose Garden”


Perfume: “Eresto”


Detergent: “Eresto” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “Midnight Romance” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Midnight Romance”


Perfume: “White Sand” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “White Sand”


Perfume: “Emcools” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Emcools”


Perfume: “Parisian sky” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42

Detergent: “Parisian sky” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “F1”


Detergent: “F1” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Zwittergent”


Detergent: “Zwittergent” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Empigen”


Detergent: “Empigen” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Tween”


Detergent: “Tween” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Brij”


Detergent: “Brij” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Lola T70”


Detergent: “Lola T70” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43

Perfume: “Premid” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Premid”


Perfume: “Nature Wash”


Detergent: “Nature Wash” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “Beltone” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Beltone”


Perfume: “Color Brite”


Detergent: “Color Brite” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “River Clean”


Detergent: “River Clean” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Renova”


Detergent: “Renova” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Soft Max”


44

Detergent: “Soft Max” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “Ponster” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Ponster”


Detergent: “Rain Guard” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Rain Guard”


Detergent: “Stoxx”


Perfume: “Stoxx” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Detergent: “Evolair” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “Evolair”


Perfume: “N20”


Detergent: “N20” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perfume: “AHT”


Detergent: “AHT” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45

Perfume: “UltraSpeed” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “UltraSpeed”


Perfume: “Green Land”


Detergent: “Green Land” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “Max Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Max Care”


Perfume: “Wash All”


Detergent: “Wash All” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Perfume: “Fast Effect” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Fast Effect”


Perfume: “Clean Slate” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Detergent: “Clean Slate”


Perfume: “Best Care”


46

Detergent: “Best Care” Does not remind me at all Reminds me very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Part B Please read the following brand names and use the corresponding scales to indicate how much you like following brand names. Do not spend more than a few seconds on each brand name. Circle the number that is most appropriate to your immediate response.

“Unique” as a name for Perfume

I do not like at all I like very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“Unique” as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 “Courant d'Air” as a name for Perfume


“Courant d'Air” as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasurable Sin as a name for Perfume


Pleasurable Sin as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Fifth Element as a name for Perfume


The Fifth Element as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nice Surprise as a name for Perfume


Nice Surprise as a name for Detergent

47


24 hours as a name for Perfume


24 hours as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Blue Horizon as a name for Perfume


Blue Horizon as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Full Moon as a name for Perfume


Full Moon as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excessive as a name for Perfume


Excessive as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Orange Night as a name for Perfume


Orange Night as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Joyeux as a name for Perfume


Joyeux as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cool Night as a name for Perfume

48


Cool Night as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Overdose as a name for Perfume


Overdose as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Secret Spot as a name for Perfume


Secret Spot as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Deep Feeling as a name for Perfume


Deep Feeling as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Kiss as a name for Perfume


The Kiss as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The N as a name for Perfume


The N as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Volks as a name for Perfume


Volks as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The Rose Garden as a name for Perfume


The Rose Garden as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eresto as a name for Perfume


Eresto as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Midnight Romance as a name for Perfume


Midnight Romance as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 White Sand as a name for Perfume


White Sand as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Emcools as a name for Perfume


Emcools as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Parisian sky as a name for Perfume


Parisian sky as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

50

F1 as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F1 as a name for Detergent


Zwittergent as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zwittergent as a name for Detergent


Empigen as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Empigen as a name for Detergent


Tween as a name for Perfume


Tween as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brij as a name for Perfume


Brij as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lola T70 as a name for Perfume


Lola T70 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Premid as a name for Perfume


51

Premid as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nature Wash as a name for Perfume


Nature Wash as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Beltone as a name for Perfume


Beltone as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Color Brite as a name for Perfume


Color Brite as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 River Clean as a name for Perfume


River Clean as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Renova as a name for Perfume


Renova as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Soft Max as a name for Perfume

52


Soft Max as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ponster as a name for Perfume


Ponster as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rain Guard as a name for Perfume


Rain Guard as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stoxx as a name for Perfume


Stoxx as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Evolair as a name for Perfume


Evolair as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N20 as a name for Perfume


N20 as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

53

AHT as a name for Perfume


AHT as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UltraSpeed as a name for Perfume


UltraSpeed as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Green Land as a name for Perfume


Green Land as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Max Care as a name for Perfume


Max Care as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wash All as a name for Perfume


Wash All as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fast Effect as a name for Perfume I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fast Effect as a name for Detergent


54

Clean Slate as a name for Perfume


Clean Slate as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Best Care as a name for Perfume


Best Care as a name for Detergent I do not like at all I like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research,

347-356.

Ajzen, I., & M. Fishbein. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on

brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 39-53. Campbell, M.C. and Goodstein, R.C. (2001). The moderating effects of perceived risk on

consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 28 December, 439-449.

Bhat, S., & Reddy, S.K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal

of Consumer Marketing, 15, 32-43.

Bottomley, P.A. (2006). The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Marketing Theory, 6(1), 63-83.

Business Week (2006). The 100 Top Brands 2006. Business Week Online, accessed on October 27, 2007 (available online at: http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006)

Cohen, J.B. and Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: Toward a

contingent processing framework. The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, 455-472.

Collins, L. (1977). A Name to Conjure With. European Journal of Marketing, 337.

Dahlen, M. (2002). Thinking and feeling on the World Wide Web: The impact of product

type and time on World Wide Web advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8, 115-125.

Gardner, M.P., Michell, A.A. and Russo, J.E. (1985). Low involvement strategies for

processing advertisements. Journal of Advertising, Vol 14 No2, 4-13. Heckler, S.E. and Childers, T.L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory

for verbal and visual information: what is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 March, 475-492.

Goodstein, R.C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising:

Motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 20 June, 87-97.

56

Keller K.L., Heckler S.E., & Houston M.J. (1998). The effects of brand name

meaningfulness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 48– 56. Klink, R. R. (2001). Creating meaningful new brand names: A study of semantics and

sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing, 27-34.

Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001). Threats to external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXVIII, 326-335.

Kohli, C., & Suri, R. (2000). Brand names that work: A study of the effectiveness of

different types of brand names. Marketing Management Journal, 112-120. Kohli, C. S., Harich, K. R., & Leuthesser, L. (2005). Creating brand identity: A study of

evaluation of new brand names. Journal of Business Research, 1506-1511. Lee, Y.H. (2000). Manipulating ad message involvement through information

expectancy. Journal of Advertising, Vol 29, No2, 29-43.

Lefkowith, E.F. and Moldenhauer, C.A. (1985). Recent cross-currents in brand name development- and how to cope with them. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2, 73-77.

Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. Affects and cognitions: the 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition.

Mandler, G. (1993). Approach to a psychology of value. The origin of value. Meyers-Levy J. and Tybout, A.M. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation.

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 June, 39-54. Meyers-Levy J., Louie T. A., & Current M. T. (1994). How does the congruity of brand

names affect evaluations of brand name extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 46 – 53.

Mittal, B. (1989). Must consumer involvement always imply more information search?

Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 167–72.

Pavia T., & Costa J. A. (1993). The winning number: Consumer perceptions of alphanumeric brand names. Journal of Marketing, 85– 98.

Peterson, R. A., & Ross, I. (1972). How to name new brands. Journal of Advertising

Research, 29-34. Rigeaux-Brickmont, B. (1982). Influence of brand names and packaging on perceived

57

quality. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, 706-713. Robertson, M. (1989). Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. The Journal of

Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 4, 61-71. Sujan, M., & Dekleva, C. (1987). Product categorization and inference making: Some

implications for comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 372-378.

Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. Brand name strategies in the service sector (1995). Journal

of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No.4, 42-50 Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003) Measuring the hedonic and

utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 310-320.

Zinkhan, G. M., & Martin, C. R. (1987). New brand names and inferential beliefs: Some

insights on naming new product. Journal of Business Research, 15, 157–172.

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

Business

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