Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The unique effects of branding on variety perception

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Investigating the effects of brand and flavor variety on perceived variety (PV), we show, through two experiments, that because a brand is a perceptual attribute, sheer brand variety does not lead to PV; the brands need to be highly differentiated in the consumer's mind to create PV. Further, even highly differentiated brands create PV to a greater extent for promotion than for prevention-focused consumers, because a brand is a composite of several associations, and promotion-focused consumers use more criteria to group objects, are more holistic processors and can rely on less justifiable information. In contrast, flavor variety influences PV irrespective of the above conditions. Brand and store managers can use this research to influence brand and store choice and consumption quantity by determining which attribute to offer variety in to maximize PV in store shelves. Further, this research shows that firms should offer variety through line extensions, not brand variety, to maximize PV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J.L. and Lee, A.Y. (2001) ‘I’ seek pleasures and ‘we’ avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 28(1)): 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, R.I. and Uhl, K.P. (1964) Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception. Journal of Marketing Research 1(3)): 36–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, S.J., Oum, T.H. and Tigert, D.J. (1983) Determinant attributes in retail patronage: Seasonal, temporal, regional, and international comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research 20(000002)): 149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatwright, P. and Nunes, J.C. (2001) Reducing assortment: An attribute-based approach. Journal of Marketing 65(3)): 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S.M., Hoyer, W.D. and McAlister, L. (1998) Consumers’ perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category: The impact of item reduction. Journal of Marketing Research 35(2)): 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarti, A. and Janiszewski, C. (2004) The influence of generic advertising on brand preferences. Journal of Consumer Research 30(4)): 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. (2004) Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(1,2)): 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, C.S., Ghosh, A. and McLafferty, S. (1984) Models of the retail location process: A review. Journal of Retailing 60(1)): 5–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, E. and Higgins, E.T. (1997) Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 69(2)): 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R.S. and Forster, J. (2001) The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(6)): 1001–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiltinan, J.P. (1993) A strategic framework for assessing product line additions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 10(2)): 136–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, L. (1996) Observations: Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and effects. Journal of Advertising Research 36(4)): 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E.T. (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30: 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, S.J., Bradlow, E.T. and Wansink, B. (1999) The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science 18(4)): 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K.L. (2003) The marketing advantages of strong brands. Journal of Brand Management 10(6)): 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inman, J.J. (2001) The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research 28(1)): 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B.E. and Wansink, B. (2004) The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities. Journal of Consumer Research 30(4)): 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1)): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. (1998) Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. New Jersey: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. (2003) Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4)): 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006) Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science 25(6)): 740–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louro, M.J., Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2005) Negative returns on positive emotions: The influence of pride and self-regulatory goals on repurchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research 31(4)): 833–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J.J. and Gaeth, G.J. (1987) Decomposing the determinants of retail facility choice using the method of hierarchical information integration: A supermarket illustration. Journal of Retailing 63(1)): 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, W.J. (1984) Search for the self: Going beyond self-esteem and the reactive self. In: R.A. Zucker, J. Aronoff and A.I. Rabin (eds.) Personality and the Prediction of Behavior. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 73–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Gass, A. and Grace, D. (2004) Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13(4)): 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991) Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 18(2)): 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M.T. and Avnet, T. (2004) Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 30(4)): 503–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, M.T. and Higgins, E.T. (2005) Promotion and prevention in consumer decision making: State of the art and theoretical Propositions. In: S. Ratneshwar and D.G. Mick (eds.) Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitta, D.A. and Franzak, F.J. (2008) Foundations for building share of heart in global brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management 17(2)): 64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, M. and Bettman, J.R. (1989) The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers’ brand and category perceptions: Some insights from schema research. Journal of Marketing Research 26(4)): 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herpen, E. and Pieters, R. (2002) The variety of an assortment: An extension to the attribute-based approach. Marketing Science 21(3)): 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Trijp, J.C.M. (1995) Variety-seeking in Product Choice Behavior. In: A.A. Dijkhuizen (ed.). The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers.

  • Walvis, T.H. (2007) Three law of branding: Neuroscientific foundations of effective brand building. Journal of Brand Management 16(3)): 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, R. (Juliet) and Meyers-Levy, J. (2007) Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research 34(1)): 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The article is based on the doctoral dissertation of the first author. The authors thank Timothy Heath and Margaret Meloy for their many helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Farmer School of Business, Miami University of Ohio, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA

    Sanjay Puligadda

Authors
  1. Sanjay Puligadda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William T Ross Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A

Given below are statements followed by an agreement/disagreement scale. If you disagree completely with the statement, you can select number 1 on the scale; if you agree completely, you can select number 9. If you neither agree nor disagree, you can select number 5. You can also select any of the other numbers depending on which is closest to what you think about the statement.

  1. 1

    ‘This assortment of chips gives me sufficient variety’

  2. 2

    ‘With the available options, there were enough choices that I could consider buying’

  3. 3

    ‘The range of options offered was appropriate for me’

  4. 4

    ‘This assortment of chips provides a lot of variety for me to enjoy’

  5. 5

    ‘This assortment of chips offers more ways to enjoy it’

  6. 6

    ‘I do not think there was much variety among the options of chips provided’

  7. 7

    ‘There was considerable variety in this assortment of chips’

  8. 8

    ‘The range of options of chips offered was adequate’ In the statement below make a selection according to how much variety you perceived in the cards you just saw

  9. 9

    How much variety do you think there is in this assortment?

illustration

figure a

Appendix B

Each item (except item 4) was followed by a five-point scale anchored by 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. Item 4 asked participants to fill in a ranking.

  1. 1

    ‘The Image of _______ is the same as the other Ice Cream brands’ (r)

  2. 2

    ‘The Image of _______ represents what I would like to be’

  3. 3

    ‘I feel bad using this brand’ (r)

  4. 4

    ‘I would rank this brand as my ______ choice if I purchase Ice Cream’ (r)

  5. 5

    ‘I wouldn’t mind paying a higher price for this brand’

  6. 6

    ‘The quality of the brand is superior to other brands’

  7. 7

    ‘_______ is the most popular brand in the category’

Note: The name of the specific brand was placed in the blanks except in item 4 where the blank was left in for the participant to fill in a ranking. If the participant indicated that the focal brand was their ‘number one’ choice, it was coded as 1 and reverse coded to 7. Similarly, if the focal brand was their ‘number two’ choice, it was coded as 2 and reverse coded to 6.

The first five items and items 8 and 10 of the original scale (Ha, 1996) were retained as they were applicable in our context while items 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 were dropped as they were specific to apparel brands.

Appendix C

Basis for sorting

Please answer the following question:

How did you make your selection from the pile of cards we gave you?

  1. a

    I sorted them according to brand

  2. b

    I sorted them according to flavor

  1. a

    I did not do any sorting but randomly picked a card

  2. b

    I picked my favorite brand–flavor combination

  3. c

    Any other

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Puligadda, S., Ross, W. The unique effects of branding on variety perception. J Brand Manag 18, 134–149 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.26

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.26

Keywords

Search

Navigation