Visual marketing communications consist of two components: (1) semantic content (e.g., headings, images, copy) that communicates a brand's positioning, benefits, and personality and (2) visual design (e.g., font selection, image size, the organization of the content) that encourages inferences about brand claims. The authors investigate how visual design can be used to encourage inferences that support brand claims and improve brand performance. They find that brands with a utilitarian positioning perform better when the visual design of their marketing communications encourages structured perceptions, whereas brands with a hedonic positioning perform better when the visual design of their marketing communications encourages unstructured perceptions. In both cases, (un)structured perceptions encourage inferences that reinforce brand claims and, consequently, improve brand performance. This research offers actionable insights into how marketing communication specialists can coordinate logo design, product design, package design, visual merchandising, and retail environments to reinforce brand claims.
AndrewsJ. CraigShimpTerence A. (2018), Advertising, Promotion, and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications. Cengage.
2.
AttneaveFred (1971), “Multistability in Perception,” Scientific American, 225 (6), 62–71.
3.
BabinBarry J.DardenWilliam R.GriffinMitch (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), 644–56.
4.
BagozziRichard P.PhillipsLynn W. (1982), “Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3), 459–89.
5.
BajajAditiBondSamuel D. (2018), “Beyond Beauty: Design Symmetry and Brand Personality,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28 (1), 77–98.
6.
BettelsJannickWiedmannKlaus-Peter (2019), “Brand Logo Symmetry and Product Design: The Spillover Effects on Consumer Inferences,” Journal of Business Research, 97 (April), 1–9.
7.
BornsteinRobert F.D’AgostinoPaul R. (1994), “The Attribution and Discounting of Perceptual Fluency: Preliminary Tests of a Perceptual Fluency/Attributional Model of the Mere Exposure Effect,” Social Cognition, 12 (Summer), 103–28.
8.
BottiSimonaMcGillAnn L. (2011), “The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (6), 1065–78.
9.
BroniarczykSusan M.AlbaJoseph W. (1994), “The Role of Consumers’ Intuitions in Inference Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 393–407.
10.
ChaeBoyoun (Grace)LiXiupingZhuRui (Juliet) (2013), “Judging Product Effectiveness from Perceived Spatial Proximity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 317–35.
11.
CutrightKeisha M. (2012), “The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 775–90.
12.
DattaHannesAilawadiKusum L.van HeerdeHarald J. (2017), “How Well Does Consumer-Based Brand Equity Align with Sales-Based Brand Equity and Marketing Mix Response?” Journal of Marketing, 81 (3), 1–20.
13.
DickAlanChakravartiDipankarBiehalGabriel (1990), “Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 82–93.
14.
FajardoTatiana M.ZhangJiaoTsirosMichael (2016), “The Contingent Nature of the Symbolic Associations of Visual Design Elements: The Case of Brand Logo Frames,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (4), 549–66.
15.
FornellClaesLarckerDavid F. (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.
16.
HagtvedtHenrik (2011), “The Impact of Incomplete Typeface Logos on Perceptions of the Firm,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 86–93.
17.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.Guilford Press.
18.
HenselerJörgRingleChristian M.SarstedtMarko (2015), “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (1), 115–35.
19.
HirschmanElizabeth C.HolbrookMorris B. (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101.
KahnBarbara E.WansinkBrian (2004), “The Influence of Assortment Structure on Perceived Variety and Consumption Quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (4), 519–33.
22.
KhanUzmaDharRaviWertenbrochKlaus (2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, & Desires, RatneshwarS.MickDavid Glen, eds. Routledge, 144–65.
23.
KlingerMark R.GreenwaldAnthony G. (1994), “Preferences Need No Inferences: The Cognitive Basis of Unconscious Mere Exposure Effects,” in The Heart’s Eye: Emotional Influences in Perception and Attention, NiedenthalPaula M.KitayamaShinobu, eds. Academic Press, 67–85.
24.
KoffkaKurt (1935), Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Routledge.
25.
LeeAngela Y.LabrooAparna (2004), “Effects of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 151–65.
26.
LuffarelliJonathanStamatogiannakisAntoniosYangHaiyang (2019), “The Visual Asymmetry Effect: An Interplay of Logo Design and Brand Personality on Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (1), 89–103.
27.
MilneElizabethSzczerbinskiMarcin (2009), “Global and Local Perceptual Style, Field-Independence, and Central Coherence: An Attempt at Concept Validation,” Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5, 1–26.
28.
MizikNatalie (2014), “Assessing the Total Financial Performance Impact of Brand Equity with Limited Time-Series Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (6), 691–706.
29.
MizikNatalieJacobsonRobert (2008), “The Financial Value Impact of Perceptual Brand Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (1), 15–32.
30.
PalmerJonathan W. (2002), “Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics,” Information Systems Research, 13 (2), 151–67.
31.
PalmerStephen E. (1977), “Hierarchical Structure in Perceptual Representation,” Cognitive Psychology, 9 (4), 441–74.
32.
PettyRichard E.BriñolPabloTormalaZakary L.WegenerDuane T. (2007), “The Role of Metacognition in Social Judgment,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, KruglanskiArie W.HigginsE. Tory, eds. Guilford Press, 254–84.
33.
PomerantzJames R.PortilloMary C. (2011), “Grouping and Emergent Features in Vision: Toward a Theory of Basic Gestalts,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37 (5), 1331–49.
34.
SchwartzJean-LucGrimaultNicolasHupéJean-MichelMooreBrian C.J.PressnitzerDaniel (2012), “Multistability in Perception: Binding Sensory Modalities, an Overview,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 896–905.
35.
SchwarzNorbertJalbertMadelineNoahTomZhangLynn (2021), “Metacognitive Experiences as Information: Processing Fluency in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4 (1), 4–25.
36.
SevillaJulioTownsendClaudia (2016), “The Space-to-Product Ratio Effect: How Interstitial Space Influences Product Aesthetic Appeal, Store Perceptions, and Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 665–81.
37.
ShapiroStewart (1999), “When an Ad’s Influence Is Beyond Our Conscious Control: Perceptual and Conceptual Fluency Effects Caused by Incidental Ad Exposure,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 16–36.
38.
SrivastavaJoydeepMitraAnusree (1998), “Warranty as a Signal of Quality: The Moderating Effect of Consumer Knowledge on Quality Evaluations,” Marketing Letters, 9 (4), 327–36.
39.
TellisGerard J.GaethGary J. (1990), “Best Value, Price-Seeking, and Price Aversion: The Impact of Information and Learning on Consumer Choices,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 34–45.
40.
TreismanAnne M.GeladeGary (1980), “A Feature-Integration Theory of Attention,” Cognitive Psychology, 12 (1), 97–136.
41.
VanBergenNoahIrmakCaglarSevillaJulio (2020), “Product Entitativity: How the Presence of Product Replicates Increases Perceived and Actual Product Efficacy,” Journal of Consumer Research, 47 (August), 192–214.
42.
VossKevin E.SpangenbergEric R.GrohmanBianca (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (August), 310–20.
43.
WagemansJohanElderJames H.KubovyMichaelPalmerStephen E.PetersonMary A.SinghManishvon der HeydtRüdiger (2012), “A Century of Gestalt Psychology in Visual Perception: I. Perceptual Grouping and Figure-Ground Organization,” Psychological Bulletin, 138 (6), 1172–217.
44.
WagemansJohanFeldmanJacobGepshteinSergeiKimchiRuthPomerantzJames R.van der HelmPeter A.van LeeuwenCees (2012), “A Century of Gestalt Psychology in Visual Perception: II. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations,” Psychological Bulletin, 138 (6), 1218–52.
45.
WertheimerMax (1924), “Gestalt Theory: The General Theoretical Situation,” in A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, EllisWillis D., ed. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1–16.
46.
WhittleseaBruce W.A.WilliamsLisa D. (2000), “The Source of Feelings of Familiarity: The Discrepancy-Attribution Hypothesis,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (May), 547–65.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
