Symbolic And

Their efforts seem to have paid off, as evidenced by the enduring well-defined, and strong theatrical roles of some of the worlds popular grunges (e. G. Marlboro, Ivory, Pepsi). In line with this evidence, theorists and practiti championrs (CB. Gardner and Levy, 1955 greens et al. , 1986 Rise and Trout, 1 986) have recommended that baffleing, communicating, and chief(prenominal)taining a inciters word picture is crucial to its long-term success. 32 speck regard important The importance of a discolorations image in its long-term success necessitates having a framework for strategically managing the image over the long term cat valium et al. , 1986).Brand managers have had very olive-sized direction for square upting up such(prenominal) a conceptual framework. ace notable exception is brand concept management (BCC) proposed by third estate et al. (1986). BCC proposes that every brand image should be based on a brand concept or a brand-specific plagiarize meaning. In its common form, a brand concept can be all emblematic or useable, and thus comprises unmatched aspect of a brands image. utilitarian brands occupy immediate and practical call for. Symbolic brands satisfy exemplary inescapably such as those for self-expression and prestige, and their racial usage is only incidental.For example, in the course of study Of articulatio radiocarpea watches, the brand Cassia would be considered a in operation(p) brand since its good lies principally in its ability to tell the time correctly. The brand Moved, on the other hand, would be considered a symbolic brand since it is used primarily for its status appeal, and its ability to tell the time is only an incidental author for its usage. Once a concept is selected for a brand, park et al. (1986) advise that it should be maintained over the brands life for sake of consistency. Symbolic or functionalWhile the whimsey of brand concept management is intuitively appealing, the proposition t hat brands can be either symbolic or functional in their appeal to consumers raises a number of interesting issues. The first issue is whether symbolism and functionality ar 2 distinct concepts or are 2 ends of one brand concept continuum. In addition to the uniqueness of these 2 concepts, park et al. (1986) assume that to for each one one of these concepts is unidirectional. Whether that is really so has not been raised in empiric investigate to date.Also, to our knowledge, no measures or scales have been plopped that would assess whether a particular brand is symbolic or functional. Thus, empirical research has not directly examined these related issues. An fellow feeling of such issues would also be very useful to marketing managers in planning positioning strategies for their brands. In this exploratory study, a set of scales are developed to assess a brands symbolic and/or functional think of to consumers. In the process, we journal OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOLT. 15 N O. 1 1998 up. 2-43 MAC UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0736-3761 examine the issue of characteristicness and dimensionality of the two brand incepts. Two schools of perspective Brand concept Background There is a long tradition of research into human needs and motivations. While there are a cock-a-hoop number of theories and puts that explain the nature of human motivation for usance behavior, a simple typology would suggest two distinct schools of thought. The logical school or the economic man model suggests that consumers are rational and try to maximise total utility.They do so by buying products based on objective criteria like price per ounce or gallons per mile (Coffman and Kane, 1994). In arriving at this excision, consumers generally go through a variety of cognitive operations that include deciding the importance of each attribute in a product category, gathering education close to competing brands attributes, judging the levels of each attribute in competing brands, and final ly using a judgment radiation diagram to decide on the optimal brand (for an exhaustive review of the information process literature, please see Bateman, 1979).A number of researchers, however, contend that the rational model is appropriate only for goods which consumers value for their tangible and utilitarian benefits, and does not adequately capture their motivation for consuming products that satisfy their emotional wants (CB. Levy, 1959 Ditcher, 1960 Holbrook, 1980). For example, Hiroshima and Holbrook (1982) note that the rational model does not capture the multistory imagery, fantasy, fun, and emotions associated with the consumption of some products.They relate to this type of consumption, based on individual tastes and intangible product benefits, as hedonistic consumption. Thus, in contrast to the rational or information processing approach, the emotional or hedonistic school holds that consumers motives are motional in nature. In this perspective, individuals use person al or subjective criteria such as taste, pride, desire for adventure, and desire for expressing themselves, in their consumption decisions (Coffman and Kane, 1994). Consumer behaviorists have long acknowledge the importance of some(prenominal) types of motivations (CB.Katz, 1960 Metal, 1983). Empirically, several researchers have noted the existence of these two different types of motivations and the different product attribute categories that tap into these motivations (CB. Metal, 1988 Metal et al. , 1990 Sahara and Siring, 1991). Thus, both theory and research support the idea that consumers needs are goaded by functional/ utilitarian as well as by symbolic/ communicative motivations. In keeping with this tradition, park, Gasworks, and Manacling (1986) noted that consumers needs could be classified as being either functional or symbolic.They cuss that functional needs are related to specific and practical consumption problems whereas symbolic needs are related to Selfridges and social identification. To tap into these two different types of needs, Park, Gasworks, and Manacling (1986) proposed that all brands should have a brand incept, which is an overall abstract meaning that identifies a brand. They suggested that a brand concept be either symbolic or functional, thus tapping into consumers symbolic and functional needs respectively. Park et al. S (1986) brand concept management framework advises managers to select a specific concept for a brand at the time of its entry and then use the marketing mix to support and reinforce it over the brands life. This helps consumers understand with clarity what a brand can do for them. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER MARKETING, VOLT. 15 NO. 1 1998 33 Functional or utilitarian deeds The existence of different types of motivations among individuals suggests that within most product categories, consumers needs could be either functional or symbolic in nature, and brands could be positioned to satisfy either of these two types of needs.Thus, functional or utilitarian needs of consumers could be exploited with a functional brand, I. E. One positioned with a functional brand concept or meaning. Similarly, a brand could be positioned as a symbolic brand to tap the needs of those who wish to get up their self-image or their social image. Park et al. Rather argued that brands should be positioned to appeal to either one of these types of needs, but not both, for a number of reasons. A brand concept that is both functional and symbolic poses problems for consumers because they cannot clearly relate the brand to either their functional or their symbolic needs.In addition, it increases the number of competing brands and makes brand image management difficult. This argument, however theoretically compelling, has not been tested in empirical research. In one related research, park et al. (1991 ) Were able to show that nonusers reaction to functional extensions of functional brands was more favorable than their reac tion to prestige extensions of functional brands. In the same study, consumers also displayed a more positive reaction to prestige extensions of prestige brands than to functional extensions of prestige brands.Please note that, in this study, the authors delusive that brand concepts could be either functional or prestigious (not symbolic). nonreciprocal questions Several questions, though, remain un exerciseed. Are functional and symbolic brand concepts adequately distinguished in consumers minds? If so, what are mom characteristics that help in distinguishing these brand concepts? Is the prestige of a brand an adequate representation of a brands symbolism to its customers? Are functionality and symbolism merely the two ends of a continuum?In whatever event, is there a mechanism to assess the functionality or symbolism of brands? The dearth of research to illuminate these issues resulted in this study. This study was set up to firmness the preceding questions to investigate the phenomenon of the functionality or the symbolism of brand image and to develop scales that would help classify a brand as functional or symbolic. Apart from the theoretical contributions, the issues raised in this study have a number of managerial implications for brand positioning.Method In line with this study main objective of exploring the issue of brand mage functionality or symbolism, scales containing items thought to measure a brands functional or symbolic value to consumers was developed. The scale was validated by testing the scales ability to discriminate between brands a priori identified as functional or symbolic. Correlations among the items in the scale and exploratory and confirmatory agent analyses of the data were seed to investigate the dimensionality of brand functionality and symbolism.Stimuli lie Pairs of brands were identified in a few commonly used product categories, such that one brand in each pair was, a priori, thought to be functional and the other sym bolic. In other words, the first brand was thought to primarily satisfy functional needs whereas the second brand was thought to mainly satisfy the symbolic needs of consumers of the product category. The pairs of brands which were selected are shown in Table l. 34 Product category Symbolic brand Functional brand Watches Role Timex 2 Sports shoes Nikkei Converse 3 Cosmetics Laname affability 4 Hair cream Paul Mitchell Suave 5 field glass cream Hagen Dads Scaliest Table l.Item generation Adjectives or phrases thought to indicate a brands symbolism or functionality were first generated by the authors and a focus assembly of graduate students at a university. The focus group noted the problem of coming up with adjectives describing functional or utilitarian appeal. Based on these processes, three adjectives and phrases were identified as relating to functionality and 17 as relating to symbolism. terce sets of questionnaire items Three sets of questionnaire items were developed for the 20 adjectives and phrases.The first set of questions sought respondents agreement with several(a) statements about individuals use of a brand to express themselves. The second set of items sought respondentBrand symbolism The 17 adjectives and phrases representing brand symbolism were assessed with three sets of items. In the first set of items, respondents were to agree with these statements (1) people use (brand) as a way of expressing their personality (2) (brand) is for people who want the best things in life (3) a (brand) user stands out in a crowd and (4) using (brand) says something about the kind of person you are. The second set of items sought to prize these brand characteristics (1) hemolytic (2) prestigious (3) exciting (4) status symbol and (5) distinctive v. Invitational. The third set Of items evaluated these characteristics Of the brands user (1) sophisticated v. Simple (2) not at all v. genuinely romantic (3) not at all v. real successful 35 (4) unique v. Ordinary (5) stylish v. Plain (6) expressive v. Subdued (7) glamorous v. Sedate and (8) not at all v. Very elegant. Survey design and administration Two separate questionnaires were prepared with questions on five of the ten stimulus brands such that each questionnaire contained questions about one f the brands within a product category.Thus, a subject would answer the above questions with respect to either a symbolic brand or a functional brand within a product category but not both. This procedure was used to eliminate any proportional biases in responses. The survey was administered to 62 graduate students at a major south-eastern university. Rest Its Analysis of correlations TO obtain a preliminary idea of the mannequin Of relationships among these items, the correlations among the items were first examined.