The influence of perceived product similarity between brands and its influences on
consumers have received empirical support over the past few decades (Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason, 1993; Loken et al., 1986; Balabanis and Craven, 1997; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005;
Walsh et al., 2010; Penz and Stottinger, 2008; Miceli and Pieters, 2010; van Horen and Pieters, 2012). This field of research is observed to continue its growth and development as it seems that there is still much that is yet unknown within the literature. While the main
purpose of branding and product differentiation is to lead to product positioning in the minds of consumers, the increase in the number of similar products make it hard for consumers to choose and distinguish between brands (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). Through such confusion, there is the risk of the loss of utility (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005) and the mistakes of making misinformed or wrong purchases (Balabanis and Craven, 1997). For example, Loken et al.
(1986) found that with higher perceived similarity between two brands, consumers tend to generalize the same meanings and associations across both brands (Finch, 1996). This in turn leads consumers to translate the quality and performance of the original brand to the imitator (Ward et al., 1986).
A growth in research in understanding how variation in designs and priming of information increases consumer preference is observed (Chitturi et al., 2008; Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2008;
Orth and Malkewitz, 2008; Kristensen et al., 2012). More common than before, consumers are presented with many product choices with very similar designs and are required to make a choice based on attributes such as brand name, price or other information attached to the object (Kristensen et al., 2012). It is observed in magazines and other media that showcases and compares branded design objects, which is usually high priced with cheaper substitutions available in the marketplace (e.g. Cosmopolitan has a section named Splurge and Steal, or ASOS mimics red carpet or runway designs for the masses (see Diagram 2.8 on mimicry in
61 fashion). This provides an alternative to consumers who may not be able to afford the high priced item, but can choose to purchase the cheaper variation (Raustiala and Sprigman, 2006).
Diagram 2.8: Mimicry in fashion
The extant literature within mimicry and imitation has shown that consumers perceive
similarity based on their judgments of the attributes of the products and brands (Boush, 1997;
Loken et al., 1986; Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason, 1993; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). The study on corporate image and product similarity by Penz and Stottinger (2008) divided product attributes into three different aspects. Similarly, Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason (1993) discussed that marketing researchers have used a wide variety of descriptors to measure similarity preference. Within the myriad of terminologies, there are three basic types of characteristics that present a common strain in the literature. These characteristics are physical
characteristics (appearance and design); beneficial (the purpose or use of the product); and image (how the use of the product associate the user to a desired group, role, or image) (Lefkoff-Hagius and Mason, 1993; d’Astous and Gargouri, 2001). Prior to that, Wee et al.
(1995) and Tom et al. (1998) have identified and used similar attributes when studying the important attributes of counterfeit products. In addition, van Horen and Pieters (2012a) have identified two overarching forms of imitation based on the attributes that the brands copy. For example, they have termed the copying of distinctive perceptual attributes or distinctive features of a brand in terms of colour, shape, packaging, or letters as feature imitation. Visual similarities are often used as cues to help elaborate on ambiguous stimuli (i.e. a brand that consumers are not familiar with). This is seen as a more popular copycat strategy that has received great amount of attention within the infringement literature (Miaoulis and d'Amato, 1978; Loken et al., 1986; Kapferer, 1995; Collins-Dodd and Zaichkowsky, 1999; Howard et al., 2000; Warlop and Alba, 2004; Zaichkowsky, 2006), and is often thought to free-ride on the brand equity of the model brands. The other form of imitation strategy they have
identified is known as thematic imitation whereby the focus is on the copying of the semantic meaning or inferred attributes of the model brand. These distinctions contribute a new level of meaning to the literature by providing greater depth into the varied forms of imitation that can take place in the marketplace. As such, copying may not be on the superficial features, but even on a conceptual level. In addition, some authors have postulated other characteristics that influence consumer evaluation of imitation, such as price (Cordell et al., 1996; Turunen and Laaksonen, 2011) and retailer of the mimic brands (Cordell et al., 1996; d’Astous and Gargouri, 2001).
One of the key impacts of high-perceived product similarity between the mimic brand and the model brand would be the generalizations that occur between the mimic brand and the model brand (d’Astous and Gargouri, 2001). Products that are similar generate inferences which
63 consumers will connote similar meaning. Consumers tend to infer that the attributes between products that share similar packaging and other visual similarities to be the same in terms of quality, benefits and performance (Loken et al., 1986; Balabanis and Craven, 1997). However, this inference may in fact be misleading to consumers (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). In some situations, consumers may also be mistaken into believing that they are buying the original rather than an imitation (Balabanis and Craven, 1997; d’Astous and Gargouri, 2001). In addition, Walsh and Mitchell (2005) stated that when consumers start to believe that all products within a category are similar, it can also lead to product misuse, product
misunderstanding, the misattribution of product attributes and also consumer vulnerability.
One of the main reasons for consumers perceiving brands to be similar is founded on their willingness to generalize among brands, which in turn leads to the evaluation of the brands (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). Studies have also postulated that there is a relationship between consumers’ evaluation and the level of product similarity between the mimic and the model brand (Richardson et al., 1994; d’Astous and Gargouri, 2001; van Horen and Pieters, 2012a, 2012b). According to Warlop and Alba (2004), copycats with high degree of physical similarity (visual) is less positively evaluated than mimic brands which are mimicking based on attributes (perceptual). Further elaborated by Miceli and Pieters (2010), the authors found in their study using two experiments that when the optimum level of similarity between the model and mimic brand is reached, consumers may begin the have negative evaluations towards the mimic. However, this result varies depending on the type of copycat (thematic or attribute based). In addition, van Horen and Pieters (2012b) believed that subtle copycats are often more effective than blatant or direct copycats. Because of the unabashed imitation strategy, blatant copycats may be perceived to take unfair advantage of the model brand, which makes the copycats less liked by consumers. The authors also found that consumers’
appraisal of copycats depends largely on the evaluation mode. They found that under a
situation that is non-comparative (the mimic is not directly comparable with the model brand), high degrees of similarity can be positive. In contrast, when consumers are in a situation where they are able to make comparisons between the mimic and the model brand, high similarity copycats are less positively evaluated than moderately similarity copycats.
Interestingly, it was found that moderately similar copycats may be more harmful to a model brand, than a highly similar copycat that is easily detected (van Horen and Pieters, 2012b).
This is based on the premise that moderately similar copycats may be “under the radar”, hence they can go undetected by both consumers and the law. Furthermore, it was also found
that brands that imitate highly distinctive features or physical attributes of the model brand are negatively evaluated by consumers (van Horen and Pieters, 2012a). Therefore, high perceived product similarity may not necessarily bring about positive evaluation, much against common belief (Loken et al., 1986; Warlop and Alba, 2004).
To date, the definition of the degree of imitation and product similarity in the marketplace is still constantly evolving (e.g. Loken et al., 1986; Balabanis and Craven, 1993; Warlop and Alba, 2004; Miceli and Pieters, 2010; van Horen and Pieters, 2012b). For complex industries like the fashion industry, the argument for copyright for fashion designs was on the basis of physical and conceptual separability of the design (Scruggs, 2007). It is often easier for policy makers and companies to discern a product when the physical element can be distinct from the utilitarian or useful element of the product. However, conceptual similarities
between products are harder to distinguish and can be confusing under various circumstances.
Conceptually, if the product design is not designed primarily for utilitarian reasons it can be suggested to be conceptually distinct. However, such arguments are mostly subjective (Scruggs, 2007). The measurement for product similarity in the legal system is mostly based on past cases and formed by persons trained in law (Mitchell and Kearney, 2002; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005; Scruggs, 2007). Thus far, while the knowledge in the area of copying is fast increasing (e.g. Miceli and Pieters, 2010; van Horen and Pieters, 2012a, 2012b), the
conditions under which consumers perceive an model brand and a mimic to be similar are yet unclear (Miceli and Pieters, 2010). Hence, this is yet an unresolved gap within theory and practice that serves as a call for further research (d’Astous and Gargouri, 2001; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005; Miceli and Pieters, 2010; van Horen and Pieters, 2012a, 2012b).