The Effects of Products' Aesthetic Design on Demand and Marketing-Mix Effectiveness: The Role of Segment Prototypicality and Brand Consistency

被引:93
作者
Liu, Yan [1 ]
Li, Krista J. [2 ]
Chen, Haipeng [1 ]
Balachander, Subramanian [3 ]
机构
[1] Texas A&M Univ, Mays Business Sch, Mkt, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Kelley Sch Business, Mkt, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
[3] Univ Calif Riverside, Sch Business Adm, Mkt, Riverside, CA 92521 USA
关键词
product design; segment prototypicality; brand consistency; categorization; marketing-mix effects; PRICE; CATEGORIES; SIMILARITY; IMPACT; PREFERENCE; EXTENSION; RESPONSES; SELECTION; EXPOSURE; FEATURES;
D O I
10.1509/jm.15.0315
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
A product's physical appearance is difficult to quantify, and the impact of product appearance on demand has rarely been studied using market data. The authors adopt a recently developed morphing technique to measure a product's aesthetic design and investigate its effect on consumer preference. Drawing upon categorization theory, the authors consider the effects of three dimensions of aesthetic design-segment prototypicality (SP), brand consistency (BC), and cross-segment mimicry (CSM)-and their moderating effects on marketing mix effectiveness in a unified framework. The empirical analysis uses a unique, large data set consisting of 202 car models from 33 brands sold in the United States from 2003 to 2010. The authors find that consumer preference peaks at moderate levels of SP and BC and that economy-segment products benefit from CSM of luxury products. Moreover, SP intensifies price sensitivity, and BC muffles price sensitivity while increasing advertising effectiveness. Two what-if studies illustrate how managers can use the empirical model to evaluate alternative aesthetic design choices.
引用
收藏
页码:83 / 102
页数:20
相关论文
共 70 条
[41]   SCHEMA CONGRUITY AS A BASIS FOR PRODUCT EVALUATION [J].
MEYERSLEVY, J ;
TYBOUT, AM .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1989, 16 (01) :39-54
[42]  
Nagle Thomas., 2002, STRATEGY TACTICS PRI, VThird
[43]  
NEDUNGADI P, 1985, ADV CONSUM RES, V12, P498
[44]  
Nevo A, 2000, J ECON MANAGE STRAT, V9, P513, DOI 10.1111/j.1430-9134.2000.00513.x
[45]  
Nielsen, 2013, MOB CONS
[46]   Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions [J].
Orth, Ulrich R. ;
Malkewitz, Keven .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 2008, 72 (03) :64-81
[47]   EVALUATION OF BRAND EXTENSIONS - THE ROLE OF PRODUCT FEATURE SIMILARITY AND BRAND CONCEPT CONSISTENCY [J].
PARK, CW ;
MILBERG, S ;
LAWSON, R .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1991, 18 (02) :185-193
[48]  
PESENDORFER W, 1995, AM ECON REV, V85, P771
[49]   Making Products Feel Special: When Metacognitive Difficulty Enhances Evaluation [J].
Pocheptsova, Anastasiya ;
Labroo, Aparna A. ;
Dhar, Ravi .
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, 2010, 47 (06) :1059-1069
[50]   Brand equity and vertical product line extent [J].
Randall, T ;
Ulrich, K ;
Reibstein, D .
MARKETING SCIENCE, 1998, 17 (04) :356-379