How willing are consumers to accept new products from a brand if those new products don’t closely fit with previous offerings? Previous research has indicated that consumers don’t react well to brand extensions they see as fitting poorly with an existing brand -- even if the brand itself is strong.
But according to three researchers, it depends on the consumers’ state of mind: If consumers are thinking abstractly when considering a product -- a hypothetical offering -- they will react differently than if they are thinking concretely about an actual product. Further, they argue, these mind-sets are fluid.
One of the researchers, Tom Meyvis of New York University, explains the difference between abstract and concrete mind-sets: “If you are in an abstract mind-set, you focus on theories or lay beliefs. ... What [you] are really answering is not, ‘Will I buy this?’ but rather, ‘Is it a good idea for this brand to do this?’ However, the reality is, when you are shopping in a store, you are going to be in a more concrete mind-set. You are not wondering, ‘Is it a good idea for [ice-cream maker] Häagen-Dazs to introduce cottage cheese?’... Rather, you are figuring out which one to buy. You are relying on concrete benefits, rather than on abstract principles.”
Meyvis and his coauthors, Kelly Goldsmith, a doctoral student, and Ravi Dhar, a professor, both of Yale, conducted eight studies that examined how mind-sets affect potential consumers’ evaluations.
In one study, 427 individuals evaluated how much they “liked” or “disliked” 16 hypothetical brand extensions. The hypothetical brand extensions included facial moisturizers produced by Crest, known for its oral hygiene products, and by Wal-Mart, and cottage cheeses offered by Häagen-Dazs, which sells frozen desserts, and by ShopRite. The researchers showed some participants generic pictures of the products and didn’t show them to others. Sure enough, those who saw the pictures were more likely to prefer the name-brand extensions over the comparable store-brand products. Visual cues made a difference, rendering the products more concrete and therefore more vivid.
The researchers also found that putting products in context -- and then asking consumers to make choices -- also made consumers consider the products more concretely. In another study the researchers showed some participants brand extensions as pairs, so that they would compare the two categorically similar products, while they showed others brand extensions in isolation. Consumers demonstrated dramatically different preferences, depending on the context in which they saw the products. Sixty-four percent of those who viewed product pairs preferred Crest moisturizer over Wal-Mart moisturizer, while only 42% preferred the Crest moisturizer when they saw it isolated from the other product. Further, 83% of those viewing product pairs preferred Häagen-Dazs cottage cheese over ShopRite cottage cheese, compared with just 34% of those viewing the Häagen-Dazs cottage cheese in isolation.
These results suggest that marketers considering extending their brands should create concrete mind-sets among their focus groups, because it more closely mimics how shoppers will be thinking when they make actual purchases. The research also indicates that when consumers make actual purchases, they are more concerned with the quality of the brand than with the presumed fit of the brand extension.
To be sure, the research shows many consumers still prefer the store brands. Brand fit will always matter to some buyers. And the researchers chose hypothetical brand extensions with some logic behind them; Crest facial moisturizer is not as incongruous as, say, a Starbucks minivan or a Mercedes latte. “We say, fit matters less,” says Meyvis. “But we don’t look at crazy extensions.”
For more information on this topic is available at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2008/summer/04/