L7 Brands II Flashcards
The IKEA Effect Reading
Norton, Mochon and Ariely (2012)
- four studies in which consumers assembled IKEA boxes, folded origami, and built sets of Legos, participants demonstrated the IKEA effect—the increase in valuation of self-made products.
- Participants saw their amateurish creations as similar in value to experts’ creations, and expected others to share their opinions.
- We show that labor leads to love only when labor results in successful completion of tasks; when participants built and then destroyed their creations, or failed to complete them, the IKEA effect dissipated.
- Finally, we show that labor increases valuation for both “do-it-yourselfers” and novices. They were willing to pay more for the self made objects.
What makes us consume a particular brand?
We are aware of the brand ◦ brand awareness ◦ logos The brand satisfies our psychological needs ◦ self-definition, self-reflection, self-signalling ◦ uniqueness ◦ belonging ◦ effectance
What is Brand awareness?
familiarity with a brand
Consists of two components:
◦ recognising the brand
◦ correctly associating it with a particular product/service
Symbols (including logos) are powerful because:
1 represent an infinite number of concepts
2 we perceive them quickly and effortlessly
3. strong logo can be a double-edged sword (when you refresh the logo or change it and consumers don’t like it, they lose trust in the product, e.g. New Coke, consumers hoarded old coke)
4 They provide marketers with multiple routes to increasing brand awareness
◦ mere exposure effect
5 When used effectively, they give brands public visibility (Berger, 2013)
◦ provides social proof (social validation)
Thus, the brand advertises itself!
Brands and the Self
James (1890) highlighted the link between consumption and the self-concept by saying if someone’s possessions prosper he is happy and if they dwindle and die away, he feels cast down. A man’s wife gives him the same emotions as his horses, yacht and bank account.
Brands have symbolic meanings
• ◦ values/purpose
• ◦ personality
Brand Personality
- “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347)
- is relatively stable over time, but influenced by context (“malleable self”; Aaker, 1999)
- creates differentiation between brands, even when there are few objective differences
- ◦ E.g., Absolut vodka vs. Stoli
5-factor structure of brand personality (Aaker, 1997. Study 3, p. 352)
Sincerity - Maps onto human factor AGREEABLENESS - “Down-to-earth” - “Honest” - “Wholesome” - “cheerful” Excitement - Maps onto OPENNESS - “Daring” - “spirited” - “Imaginative” - “Up-to-date” Competence - Maps onto CONSCIENTIOUSNESS - “Reliable” - “Intelligent” - “Successful” Sophistication - “Upper-class” - “charming” Ruggedness - “Outdoorsy” - “tough”
This is not cross-cultural, there are cultural influences in brands.
• Hallmark has a sincere personality
• Virgin is exciting
• Mercedes is sophisticated
• Harley Davidsons are Rugged
• Can be a person (Richard branson) or a Mascot anthropomorphised e.g. Ghekko
Changing a brand’s Image
- Volvo drivers marketed as naughty, not just playing it safe.
- Were able to meet a wider target audience
- Stereotypically bad drivers, why they had to be safe cars
Symbolic quality of brands means that we can use them to:
◦ reflect the self (“I buy a Prius because I see myself as caring about the environment”)
◦ signal the self (“I buy a Prius to show others I care about the environment”)
◦ define the self (“I care about the environment because I bought a Prius”)
From age 12, children understand that brands can signal something about the self (Chaplin & Roedder John, 2005)
◦ 8 year-olds treated brands as informational and perceptual cues
They will say coke is a soft drink, rather than coke is fun
Different selves
Domains of the self (Higgins, 1987):
◦ actual self: the way we are (Dove Revolution Video)
◦ ought self: the way we think we should be
◦ ideal self: the way we aspire to be
Brands can influence, and are influenced by, these different selves
Define Self-brand connections
The extent to which a consumer has incorporated a brand into their self-concept (e.g., Escalas & Bettman, 2003)
- “this brand reflects who I am” ACTUAL
- “I think this brand helps me become the type of person I want to be” OUGHT
- “I use this brand to communicate who I am to other people”
Mac users show stronger associations with their brand than PC users (Brunel et al., 2004)
This reflects the findings that exist that say minority ethnic groups identify more strongly with their minority cultural identity
Are our brand preferences influenced by our sense of self?
Yes. We like brands whose personality is congruent with our own (Aaker, 1999)
◦ if you consider excitement to central to your self- definition, then you will like exciting brands (e.g., Virgin)
We avoid products or brands that represent undesired identities or groups
◦ Men avoided a “ladies cut” steak, but not a “chef’s cut” steak (White & Dahl, 2006)
◦ Canadians negatively evaluated products that symbolically represent Americans, but not Belgians (White & Dahl, 2007)
How do brands satisfy our need to belong?
Humans have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
We use brands as a way to achieve membership in a group
Brand communities, e.g.,
◦ Harley Davidson communities
◦ Nike communities
How do brands satisfy our need to be unique?
People also have a need to be unique
◦ Stronger in some cultures (collectivist cultures, not as strong)
We use brands to differentiate ourselves from other people
◦ People with a higher need for uniqueness prefer products that are more distinct
How do brands satisfy both needs for belonging and uniqueness?
Assimilate to ingroup on one dimension, but differentiate from ingroup on another dimension (Chan et al., 2011)
◦ If ingroup members typically drive BMW sportscars, what should you choose?
You can satisfy the need to belong and also be unique, you could buy a BMW SUV or a Mercedes sports car
How do brands satisfy the need for effectance?
People have a need for effectance – to successfully interact with the environment (White, 1959)
One way to satisfy this need is to exert control over objects and possessions (e.g., Ahuvia, 2005)
◦ instant cake mixes (it became too easy, so required egg)
The “IKEA effect” (Norton et al., 2012)
◦ We overvalue self-made products
Consumer involvement
◦ Kurt Lewin’s (1947) research with the US Department of Agriculture during WWII:
- Greater involvement increased housewives’ likelihood of being persuaded to eat offal
- Housewives in the lab either lectured about the nutrition and abundance of offal “variety meats”, and in the other group they were instructed to come up with ways to solve the food shortage problems and how to convince others to eat offal.
Co-creation - thread.com - design your own t shirt
The IKEA Effect reading Experiment 1
Participants (N = 52; 20 male, Mage = 19.9, SD = 1.4) at a university in the southeastern United States were paid $5. We randomly assigned some participants—builders—to assemble a plain black IKEA storage box
Other participants—our non-builders—were given a fully assembled box and were given the opportunity to inspect it.
They rated value to pay and how much they liked the box on a 7 point scale. The study found builders were willing to pay a 63% premium compared to those who were given the chance to buy an identical pre-assembled box. Builders also reported greater liking than non-builders.
The IKEA Effect reading Experiment 2
Experiment 2
The study randomly assigned one set of participants—builders—to make either an origami crane or an origami frog compared to a non-builder control condition.
Builders’ valuation of their origami (M = $0.23, SD = 0.25) was nearly five times higher than what non-builders were willing to pay for these creations
They were willing to pay nearly as much for their own creations as the additional set of non-builders were willing to pay for the well-crafted origami made by our experts
The IKEA Effect reading Experiment 3
In this experiment, participants in partners either built a helicopter, bird, dog, or duck with sets of Legos, or were provided with a pre-assembled set; or in the unbuild condition, participants built a set and then took that set apart.
All then place bids on both their and their partner’s set, and were told that the highest bidder for each would pay their own bid amount and take the set home.
Across all three conditions, participants were willing to pay more for the sets that they had been assignd. Bids overall were highest in the build condition than in the unbuild and prebuilt conditions. Only in the build condition, their bids for their own were twice as high as their bids for their partners’.
This negative effect of destroying one’s labor is particularly notable given that Lego sets are designed to be assembled and taken apart, and participants could have quickly and easily reassembled their set had they bid enough to own it.
The IKEA Effect reading Experiment 4
Builders were compared with incomplete builders. Incomplete builders were given the same unassembled box with the same instructions, but were asked to stop before completing the last two steps. As predicted, builders bid significantly more for their boxes than incomplete builders.
The question of whether the IKEA effect occurs for more expensive items is important both practically and theoretically.
