(a) Classical conditioning: stimulus generalisation (b) Cue utilization theory
(c) Categorization theory (d) Anchoring theory (e) Spillover effects (f) Signalling theory
Classical Conditioning
Based on the social learning theory of classical conditioning, the theory is used to explain and support the theory of mimicry (Zinn et al., 2008). The use of this theory in marketing has been supported by a growing number of studies (e.g. Allen and Janiszewski, 1989; Bierley et al., 1985; Shimp et al., 1991; Till and Priluck, 2000; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005) when examining conditioned attitudes and responses between brands. Founded by Pavlov (1927), the essence of the classical conditioning theory lies in the association of two stimuli, a unconditioned stimulus (US) and a conditioned stimulus (CS). Through the use of association, one of the stimuli will come to evoke a similar response as the other stimulus. This theory has been applied to marketing context and as an explanatory framework in conditioning behaviour (e.g. Allen and Madden, 1985). Emerging studies have also utilized this theory in explaining the generalization of attitudes in a branding context (e.g. Till and Priluck, 2000).
For example, studies have used the theory in understanding the extent a conditioned stimulus will transfer a similar effect to another similar stimuli.
Stimulus generalization
Anchored in Pavlov’s (1927) theory of classical conditioning, the process of stimulus generalization facilitates the transfer of knowledge, affect, intentions, and associations between similar brands (Martin and Stewart, 2001). The theory refers to the degree to which a response conditioned to a particular stimulus is also evoked by similar stimuli (Till and Priluck, 2000; Zaichkowsky and Simpson, 1996). The theory also explains the transferability and generalization of negative reactions or past experiences that share similar physical attributes (Miaoulis and D’Amato, 1978; Rozin et al., 1986). The process of generalization
93 postulates that when consumers have learnt to react to a stimulus in a consistent way (Corman 1967; Shimp 1991), in the presence of the mimic or any look-alike to the original brand, it will evoke the same reaction and response because of the associative similarity between the original and the “copy” (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). However, because of the subjective perception of similarity, similarity judgments would be dependent on individual experience, knowledge, motives, and personalities (Walsh and Mitchell, 2005). This therefore suggests that a stimulus can be perceived very differently by different consumers.
Past studies have looked at generalization in human conditioning (Razran, 1949; Till and Priluck, 2000). It was found that the strength of the conditioned reaction can vary depending on the stimulus. For example some subjects generalized stronger responses to words that sounded similar but had different meanings, while other subjects generalized stronger responses to words that had similar meanings but that sounded different. Furthermore, Rozin et al. (1986) found that if one has negative feelings towards an object, that negative feeling can be transferred to a similar object, which was defined as the “law of similarity”.
There are marketing examples which utilizes stimulus generalization to its benefit. For example, private label brands use the concept of stimulus generalization to its advantage by
“looking like” a national brand in order to compete against them (Hoch and Banerji, 1993).
They mimic the packaging through colour, fonts and other superficial characteristics (Kanner, 1995) and can confuse consumers under circumstances of brief viewing times (Kapfarer, 1995). Mostly, this is seen as a form of exploitation whereby private label brands piggy back off the good will of successful national brands. Commonly mimic brands imitate through style and design using colours and shapes, thereby affecting the evaluation of attributes of products (Zaichkowsky and Simpson, 1996). In addition, the use of similar brands can generalize similar brand origin (Kerby, 1967). Some of the examples within the luxury brand and fashion industry are shown in Diagram 3.9.
Diagram 3.9: Examples of cases of brand mimics
Source: Zucker, 2009 (left: New Balance (model brand) right: Louis Vuitton (mimic brand)
Vitamin Water owned by Coca Cola Amatil (model brand)
V Water owned by Pepsi Co. (mimic brand)
Cue Utilization Theory
This theory suggests that through the use of extrinsic and intrinsic cues, products can communicate different views to consumers (Cox, 1967). The theory postulates that it is not necessary to copy the established product’s presentation, merely to ensure that the cue pattern the consumer perceives when glancing along the aisle is similar enough to evoke the imagery created by the mimic (Davies, 1998). Mimic brands often imitate through evaluative (descriptive elements i.e. themes) or descriptive (i.e. colours) attributes. It is more commonly seen that mimic brands copy visual appearances that relates to favourable consumer associations and positive evaluations as a form of association to the original brand
(Collins-95 Literature dictates that consumers rely on cues such as price, brand name, packaging, colour to help make quality judgments (Richardson et al., 1994; Leavitt, 1954; Allison and Uhl, 1964). According to Olson (1976) brand names are important to help convey composite information about the attributes of a brand. Brand impressions can also be formed based on associations through price, size, shape and performance (McDaniel and Baker, 1977;
Wheatley et al., 1981; Peterson, 1977).
More commonly discussed in the literature is the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic cues. Extrinsic cues are described as product related attributes such as price, brand name and packaging which are not a part of the physical product. In contrast, intrinsic cues (i.e.
ingredient quality) cannot be manipulated without altering the physical properties of the product. These cues are almost impossible to be determined by the average consumer.
Assessments need to be made by manufacturers, government agencies, and other experts with necessary equipment and skills (Olson, 1972).
In addition there are surrogate or indirect indicators which consumers use to base their judgments upon. Surrogate measures such as brand name, can be used to infer either product quality or ingredient quality). These product related cues can be interpreted, evaluated and assessed easily when considering various brand alternatives (Dick et al., 1997). According to Underwood and Klein (2002), extrinsic cues serve as surrogate indicators of product quality.
Categorization Theory
Based on this theory, product categories are organized in the minds of consumers as structures in which products range from prototypical (typical) members within a category to unclear cases to clear non-members (Mervis and Rosch, 1981; Barsalou, 1982). Consumers regularly use category information in forming judgments about a new product category or category member (Loken, 2006). For example, consumers infer similarities based on brand or by attributes (Loken et al., 2002; Meyvis and Janiszewski, 2004). Furthermore, when there is accessible information about the brand category or a similar brand (such as brand extensions), it increases the perception of similarity the two brands. Therefore, category inferences will be more likely to occur as a result of the information (Loken, 2006). This in turn supports the notion that with greater perceived familiarity between the brands, can increase the acceptance
of the similar brand because of product category similarity or brand specific associations (Barone et al., 2000; Bottomley and Hoden, 2001; Klink and Smith, 2001).
There are advantages that model brands hold that are superior over mimic brands. Consumers tend to prefer the attributes of model brands to those of the mimics brands (which are seen as differentiated followers). Through exposure and experience, consumers learn to like the attributes of the model brands. Model brands are often stronger and better perceived in their product positions than mimics, and tend to be more preferred even though there are close similarities between the model and the mimic brand (Carpenter and Nakamoto, 1989). This holds even if the mimic is at a lower price. In addition, the theory posits that beliefs about an object or attitudes can vary based on how the object is categorized (Sujan and Bettman, 1989;
Rajagopal and Burnkrant, 2009). For example, a mimic brand with a similar brand name as the original brand name will be categorized to be from the same family of brands (Boush, 1997). Therefore, the perception and evaluation of the mimic brand would be highly different.
Anchoring Theory
The process of updating evaluations of a stimulus is influenced by a memory or stimulus based perceptual construct called the reference point (Meyer and Johnson, 1995). The reference point acts as an anchor against which the target stimulus is judged which in turn influences the update of information. Supported by Tversky and Kahneman (1974), they described the process of anchoring and adjustment as people making estimates by starting from the initial point, which is adjusting subsequently to arrive at the final answer. However, anchoring has been found to lead to judgments of stimuli that are biased in the direction of the anchor. The adjustment biases have been consistent. These include predictions as to how consumers make purchase quantity decisions, evaluate product bundles, and evaluate the preference of others (Wansink et al., 1998). In addition, Esch et al. (2009) suggested that every time an individual forms an image based on a stimulus while being exposed to another stimulus, this image may be subjected to anchoring effects.
Furthermore, the creation of value perceptions is a psychological movement towards a leader or an exemplar brand (van Auken and Adams 2005). In addition, this is based on the idea that stimuli are judged based on differences between a referent and stimuli (Helson, 1964). The initial design will serve as an anchor for the consumer when making evaluations of products
97 in subsequent periods once the category definition has changed. It is also found that the most prototypical products in a product category will be ingrained in consumers’ mental
representation and more likely to subject to anchoring than less typical brands (Carson et al., 2007).
Furthermore, it serves as a process by which new knowledge, ideas, and opinions are proven by a social group if they fit into a pre-existing categorization scheme (Penz and Stottinger, 2008). In the case of mimic brands, consumers may anchor the mimic brand with pirated brands or counterfeits as the initial perception, or it may be anchored with an original or parent brand, which they will associate the product design with. The consumer will use the ingrained perceptions as a referent point when making judgments and evaluation of the mimic brand (Carson et al., 2007).
Spillover Effects
The theory suggests that key properties or information of a product will spill over to the product in which it is perceived to be associated (Simonin and Ruth, 1998; Baumgarth, 2004;
Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2008). More commonly, the spillover effects concerns specific content (physical attributes, designs, concepts, brand) of the product or general connotations (what it represents and the symbolic value). The theory has been used to explain various investigations in other domain such as studies on cobranding/brand alliances (e.g. Simonin and Ruth, 1998; Votolato and Unnava, 2006; Helmig et al., 2008), art (e.g. Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2008) and music (e.g. Gorn, 1982). For instance, music was found to have an effect on consumers’ assessment of unrelated products through the transfer of affect (Hagtvedt and Patrick, 2008). In addition, Gorn (1982) also found that product preference can be affected when listening to liked or disliked music. Other studies include the influence of odour on consumer perceptions (Spangenberg et al., 1996).
Hagtvedt and Patrick (2008) also analysed two aspects of spillover effects. In attempting to understand the spillover effects of art onto consumer products, they examined the content-dependent influence of art, and the generalized content-content-dependent influence of art. The content-dependent influence dictates that the specific content of artwork and what it depicts will spillover, whereas the generalized content-dependent influence addresses the general connotations (thematic) aspects of what art represents. This suggests that if the specific
attributes of a product is to spillover to the similar product, this would not be a generalizable effect. However, the generalized connotations would involve the overall perception and attribute of the brand.
Signalling Theory
The signalling theory have been used many numerous past researchers as theories to explain consumer-based brand evaluations and consumer brand choice (Erdem and Swait 1998, 2004;
Aaker, 1991). The theory is founded in information economics that suggests that imperfect and asymmetric information characterizes a market. Brands can utilize these signals (through manipulation of attributes or activities) to convey information about their brand characteristics (Spence, 1974). Based on Erdem and Swait (1998), when consumers are uncertain about product attributes, brands tend to use its brand image or attributes to inform consumers about the product and its position. It is therefore important to understand that if a brand positions itself as a high quality and prestigious brand, it is important that these perceptions signal the brand position.
Due to the informational aspects of a marketplace, companies are encouraged to use brands as signals. A brand becomes a signal when it encapsulates and symbolizes a company’s past and current marketing activities and strategies (Erdem and Swait, 1998). When this happens, a brand can convey information about a product attribute from physical (ingredients), to functional (useful properties) to perceptual, symbolic (popularity, prestige) attributes.
Therefore, the information conveyed by the brand’s associated marketing activities and strategies depends on the design of the brand’s marketing mix and brand elements (e.g. high quality information associated with high price) (Akerlof, 1970; Darby and Karni, 1973; Ross, 1988; Rao and Monroe, 1989).
A signal has two characteristics, which are namely clarity and consistency. Clarity of a brand refers to the absence of ambiguity in the information by the brand’s past and present marketing strategies and activities (Shannon and Weaver, 1949; Jervis, 1970). In addition, consistency is another factor that influences clarity. Consistency refers to the degree to which each mix component or decision reflects the whole brand (Heil and Robertson, 1991).
Consistency may contain more than one element of the marketing mix (e.g. expensive retailer
99 and exquisite packaging for high end brands) or to the components of each marketing element (e.g. copy and style of advertising, such as Absolut Vodka).
However, the most important aspect of a brand signal is its credibility. Tirole (1990) suggested that signal credibility determines if a market signal conveys information effectively.
Hence, the information about a brand’s position that is communicated to the consumer should be seen as truthful and dependable. A clear and credible brand signal creates value to consumers by decreasing the information cost and risks perceived by consumers, thus increasing consumer-expected utility (Erdem and Swait, 1998). Because of the credibility and clarity of the brand signal, it may increase perceived quality by creating favourable attribute perceptions. According to Park and Srivivasan (1994), the favourable attribute perceptions may be a result of the symbolic attributes that are perceived. With similar products, consumers often have preconceived perceptions of the model brands. Therefore, with products that look similar, the preconceived judgments towards the original will be activated when the copy share similar attributes or appearance to the original. In this case, the signals that the copy exudes will connect and communicate the identity of the original brand.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT FOR H1 – H4