Citation
(2014), "Executive summary of "Beyond ‘halo’: the identification and implications of differential brand effects across global markets", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2014-0889
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Executive summary of “Beyond ‘halo’: the identification and implications of differential brand effects across global markets
Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 31, Issue 2
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.In todays marketplace a multitude of options exist within most product categories. It is typical for consumers to seek ways of simplifying the selection process. Extant literature reveals how brands are widely used for this purpose. The marketing fraternity is aware of how brands can encapsulate such as performance, quality and reliability.
Researchers use the term “halo effect to describe the wide-ranging impact that brands often enjoy. This might reach far beyond product categories to such as brand extensions, corporate social responsibility and country-of-origin effects.
But growing evidence suggests that consumer evaluations and decisions are not determined by brands and their halo effects alone. Overall knowledge and perceptions held about a brand based on such as its market position, advertising and personal experience will be deployed in certain situations. It is argued that other contexts might be better suited to an appraisal using detailed information about specific brand or product attributes. Raggio et al. coin the phrase “informational buckets to describe these two “mental sources used by consumers.
The idea is that people will draw from both buckets to a necessary degree according to the “brand benefit that is being evaluated. This question is aptly illustrated with reference to the Volvo car brand. Volvo is traditionally associated with safety, so it is feasible to assume that most consumers might evaluate a proposed safety-related benefit purely on brand name alone. Since Volvo serves as the benchmark for safety, people could make positive assumptions even if they have had no direct experience with the brand. On the other hand, judging a similar benefit offered by another car brand not specifically renowned for safety would be likelier to result in a review of attribute-specific information relating to factors like airbags and the size and speed of the model. In other words, it would appear that brand name is subject to having differential effects depending on the type of benefit being evaluated. The process is also determined by consumer belief about whether and to what extent a branded product offers a particular benefit.
Evaluation of brand-benefits involves consumers retrieving from memory details about the brand. How easily such information can be accessed influences which bucket is used most. When retrieval is swift and less effort-intensive, brand effect occurs and knowledge is transferred to the benefit or object under scrutiny. A similar outcome often prevails when both the brand and benefit are regarded as “typical of the product category. However, consideration at attribute level becomes necessary when it is difficult to categorize the object. Certain academics explain this in terms of the extent of “fit perceived at brand level.
Being aware of the benefits most impacted by overall brand knowledge can help managers develop appropriate marketing strategies. To this end, the authors develop a model that aims to serve this purpose. To illustrate the propose, they cite an instance of a laundry detergent and whether consumers consistently use the brand name to evaluate both whitening and softening or if a consideration of ingredients or other attributes would be more apt for one or both benefits. They point out how brands and attributes differ in the respect that brands are unique entities whereas individual attributes might be associated with different product benefits. That the engine size of an automobile can relate to different aspects like acceleration and sportiness is used as an example.
In the current work, Raggio et al. use consumer data supplied by a large consumer packaged goods (CPG) firm relating to 55 brands across nine markets within Germany, the USA, China and the UK. Skin care, oral care and two types of paper products were the four product categories used. The authors focused on the ten most important performance benefits and the stages involved in the application of the model are described sequentially.
The data indicates that:
Brand effects are subject to differ regardless of whether the overall brand effects are higher or lower than attribute effects.
Level of brand effect has no relationship with whether the type of effect is equal or differential.
Attribute effects connected with all brands studied are all differential. This is ascribed to the likelihood that consumer knowledge of product and category attributes linked to the benefits will probably vary across the brands and benefits considered.
Using brand effects will typically only impact on benefits closely related to the brands positioning. There is no universal effect that extends to all benefits.
Brand effects are prone to differ across product categories, brand benefits and markets.
Brand effects can be used to strengthen a family of brands by creating a consistent image across all products involved and one which differentiates it from other family brands.
Regular users of a brand tend to rely more on the brand bucket, while those who do not use the brand are likelier to depend on the attribute bucket when evaluating benefits.
Use of attribute information could be driven by a need for knowledge about ingredients when evaluating a brand. Skin care products is cited as an example where consumer choice might be determined by a brands suitability for particular allergies or skin types.
Age can determine whether a product benefit is evaluated by brand or attribute information.
The findings here challenge presumptions of a constant halo effect generated by brand information. It is possible to compare use of brand and attribute sources and this knowledge can help identify different market segments and significantly enhance how the brand is positioned and communicated. The authors make the point about differentiating a brand based on the unique benefit that it offers. If evidence shows that no other brand currently “owns a particular benefit, opportunity may exist to exploit that benefit for positioning purposes. They additionally claim that competing on a benefit is most effective through an emphasis on “low-level attributes, ingredients or features when they are responsible for that benefit. In such circumstances, attempting to link the benefit to brand level would be unwise.
Careful consideration of what brands and benefits are incorporated into any future market research activities is urged. At least four brands should be considered, although including all brands within the category will produce more complete results. Researchers are also advised to be aware of possible complications when attributes are connected with different benefits in different markets. The significance of benefits can be subject to country-level variation.
Raggio et al. believe that their model has the ability to measure and compare consumer use of brand and attribute information over time. Producing longitudinal data might enable managers to better ascertain the effectiveness of various brand-building activities.
To read the full article, enter 10.1108/JCM-06-2013-0592 into your search engine.(A précis of the article “Beyond ‘halo’: the identification and implications of differential brand effects across global markets. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)