Intra-Brand Image Confusion
Script error: No such module "Draft topics".
Script error: No such module "AfC topic".
Intra-brand image confusion describes a mental state that of customer's that is consciously perceived arises through the similarity, ambiguity, and implausibility of a brand's assortment.[1] Thereby differences within a brand and potential sub-brands are the trigger of this confusional state. As a consequence of an intra-brand image confusion, the central functions of sub-branded products can no longer be grasped by customers, meaning the core functions of a brand are dysfunctional. The concept is related to the concept of consumer confusion.
Background[edit]
The common assumption positing that consumers generally benefit from wider assortments is widespread in brand management. In fact, classical economic theories postulate that larger assortments should always be beneficial for consumers, because wider product ranges are more able to provide a higher potential for a sufficient fit between consumer preferences and product attributes than narrow assortments.[2]
Over the time (nearly all) markets have become increasingly opaque for customers due to broader product ranges and more (and new) suppliers. This applies for a wide range of tangible product categories, e.g., the automotive or smartphones, and intangible services, e.g. hotel accommodation or webhosting. In these categories, the vendors increased the number of brands, sub-brands and product variants to meet the needs of particular segments to choose from increased more and more over time.
Companies run the risk to forfeit their value and crucial consumer-related functions (e.g., information function, symbolic function, trust function).
Dimensions[edit]
Ambiguity[edit]
With regard to ambiguity, a confusion may arise on the basis of inconsistencies within a brand, occurring if (newly added) products of the brand are not compatible with a customer's view of the brand. Ambiguity can be described by the use of schema theory[3], consistency theory[4], interference theory[5], and cognitive unclarity.[6]
Similarity[edit]
Similarity refers to a lack of distinguishability between performances under one brand umbrella. Additionally, newly added products may blur the overall brand image. Brand similarity be explained by referring to schema theory[3] and learning theory.[7]
Implausibility[edit]
The dimension of implausibility describes a negative process whereby consumers develop confusion concerning a brand's reliability and integrity. A brand's (or its subordinate element's) lack of consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness may strongly provoke a perceived implausibility. Implausibility may heighten the perceived risk to customers. The dimension can be explained by attribution theory[8] and (causal) schema theory.[9]
Effects[edit]
Research has shown that an intra-brand image confusion could be empirically be proven and has partly crucial effects. Thereby, it was shown that an intra-brand image confusion especially decreases the sympathy for a brand and the customers identification with a brand. Both factors are crucial for purchase decisions. Moreover, and intra-brand image confusion has a crucial effect on the net promoter score, meaning if such confusion exists, the net promoter score decreases substantially. Additionally, an existing intra-brand image confusion leads to an increased usage of heuristics during the evaluation of a brand assortment, delayed purchases and an increased opinion that single products are superfluous (in terms of neglectable).[1]
References[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Grimm, M. S.; Wagner, R. (2021). "Intra-brand image confusion: effects of assortment width on brand image perception". Journal of Brand Management. 28 (4): 446–463. doi:10.1057/s41262-020-00225-3. Unknown parameter
|s2cid=ignored (help) - ↑ Chernev, A (2003). "When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice". Journal of Consumer Research. 30 (2): 170–183. doi:10.1086/376808.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Search this book on
- ↑ Abelson, R. P.; Aronson, E.; McGuire, W. J.; Newcomb, T. M.; Rosenberg, M. J.; Tannenbaum, P. H. (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: a sourcebook. Theories of cognitive consistency: a sourcebook. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Search this book on
- ↑ Underwood, B. J. (1957). "Interference and forgetting". Psychological Review. 64 (1): 49–60. doi:10.1037/h0044616. PMID 13408394.
- ↑ Cox, D. F. "Risk handling in consumer behavior: An intensive study of two cases". Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior: 34–81.
- ↑ Guthrie, E. R. (1935). Psychology of Learning. Oxford: Harper. Search this book on
- ↑ Kelley, H. H. (1967). "Attribution theory in social psychology". Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15: 192–238.
- ↑ Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution. Perceiving the causes of behavior in Attribution. in Perceiving the causes of behavior (Jones, E.E.). Morristown: General Learning Press. pp. 151–174. Search this book on
This article "Intra-Brand Image Confusion" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Intra-Brand Image Confusion. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
