For many consumer goods, the visual appearance is a vital determinant of market success. Although there is an emerging literature on how objective design characteristics drive consumer preferences, this literature has not yet taken into account that product design happens in the context of a brand’s equity. This research addresses the question of how to leverage brand equity when designing the visual appearance of a product. Specifically, it investigates the role of two key strategic visual design decisions: brand typicality (similarity within the brand’s range) and segment typicality (similarity to the competitive set). Drawing on fluency theory, the authors argue that high-equity brands benefit more from brand typicality but less from segment typicality than low-equity brands. Using data from the U.S. car market tracking market shares of 456 car models of 39 major brands operating in seven market segments across 13 years, the study provides empirical evidence for this conjecture and, thereby, implications for strategic product design and visual design theory.
AakerDavid A.JacobsonRobert (1994), “The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (2), 191–201.
2.
AakerDavid A.KellerKevin L. (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 27–41.
3.
AakerJennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–56.
4.
AlterAdam L.OppenheimerDaniel (2006), “Predicting Short-Term Stock Fluctuations by Using Processing Fluency,” PNAS, 103 (24), 9369–72.
5.
AndersonJohn R. (1991), “The Adaptive Nature of Human Categorization,” Psychological Review, 98 (3), 409–29.
6.
BaltagiBadi H. (2013), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
7.
BarMoshe (2003), “A Cortical Mechanism for Triggering Top-Down Facilitation in Visual Object Recognition,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15 (4), 600–609.
8.
BatraRajeevLehmannDonald R.SinghDipinder (1993), “The Brand Personality Component of Brand Goodwill: Some Antecedents and Consequences,” in Brand Equity and Advertising, AakerDavid A.BielAlexander, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83–96.
9.
BeverlandMichael B. (2005), “Managing the Design Innovation–Brand Marketing Interface: Resolving the Tension Between Artistic Creation and Commercial Imperatives,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2), 193–207.
10.
BlackfordJennifer U.BuckholtzJoshua W.AverySuzanne N.ZaldDavid H. (2010), “A Unique Role for the Human Amygdala in Novelty Detection,” NeuroImage, 50 (3), 1188–93.
11.
BottomleyPaul A.HoldenStephen J.S. (2001), “Do We Really Know How Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions: Empirical Generalizations Based on Secondary Analysis of Eight Studies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), 494–500.
12.
BroadbentSimon S. (1984), “Modeling with Adstock,” Journal of the Market Research Society, 26 (4), 295–312.
13.
CarrEvan W.HuberDavid E.PecherDianeZeelenbergRenéHalberstadtJaminWinkielmanPiotr (2017), “The Ugliness-in-Averageness Effect: Tempering the Warm Glow of Familiarity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112 (6), 787–812.
14.
ChassyPhilippeLindellTrym A.E.JonesJessica A.ParameiGalina V. (2015), “A Relationship Between Visual Complexity and Aesthetic Appraisal of Car Front Images: An Eye-Tracker Study,” Perception, 44 (8/9), 1085–97.
15.
ChitturiRavindraRaghunathanRajagopalMahajanVijay (2008), “Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (3), 48–63.
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.
18.
DisatnikDavidSivanLiron (2016), “The Multicollinearity Illusion in Moderated Regression Analysis,” Marketing Letters, 27 (2), 403–08.
19.
DohleSimoneMontoyaAmanda K. (2017), “The Dark Side of Fluency: Fluent Names Increase Drug Dosing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23 (3), 231–39.
20.
DolcosFlorinLaBarKevin S.CabezaRoberto (2004), “Interaction Between the Amygdala and the Medial Temporal Lobe Memory System Predicts Better Memory for Emotional Events,” Neuron, 42 (5), 855–63.
21.
DonderiDon C. (2006), “Visual Complexity: A Review,” Psychological Bulletin, 132 (1), 73–97.
22.
DotschRonHassinRan R.TodorovAlexander (2016), “Statistical Learning Shapes Face Evaluation,” Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (1), 1–6.
23.
FournierSusan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343–73.
24.
GemserGerdaLeendersMark A. (2001), “How Integrating Industrial Design in the Product Development Process Impacts on Company Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18 (1), 28–38.
25.
HalberstadtJamin (2006), “The Generality and Ultimate Origins of the Attractiveness of Prototypes,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2), 166–83.
26.
HalberstadtJaminPecherDianeZeelenbergRenéWaiLaurent I.WinkielmanPiotr (2013), “Two Faces of Attractiveness: Making Beauty in Averageness Appear and Reverse,” Psychological Science, 24 (11), 2343–46.
27.
HalberstadtJaminRhodesGillian (2003), “It’s Not Just Average Faces That Are Attractive: Computer-Manipulated Averageness Makes Birds, Fish, and Automobiles Attractive,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (1), 149–56.
28.
HamannStephan (2001), “Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms of Emotional Memory,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5 (9), 394–400.
29.
HuntJames M.KernanJerome B.BonfieldE.H. (1992), “Memory Structure in the Processing of Advertising Messages: How Is Unusual Information Represented?” Journal of Psychology, 126 (4), 343–56.
30.
JindalRupinder P.SarangeeKumar R.EchambadiRajLeeSangwon (2016), “Designed to Succeed: Dimensions of Product Design and Their Impact on Market Share,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (4), 72–89.
31.
KarjalainenToni-MattiSneldersDirk (2010), “Designing Visual Recognition for the Brand,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (1), 6–22.
32.
KellerKevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1–22.
33.
KellerKevin L. (2001), “Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands,” Report No. 01–107, Marketing Science Institute.
34.
KöhlerChristineMantralaMurali K.AlbersSönkeKanuriVamsi K. (2017), “A Meta-Analysis of Marketing Communication Carryover Effects,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (6), 990–1008.
35.
KreuzbauerRobertMalterAlan J. (2005), “Embodied Cognition and New Product Design: Changing Product Form to Influence Brand Categorization,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (2), 165–76.
LandwehrJan R.WentzelDanielHerrmannAndreas (2012), “The Tipping Point of Design: How Product Design and Brands Interact to Affect Consumer’s Preferences,” Psychology & Marketing, 29 (6), 422–33.
38.
LandwehrJan R.WentzelDanielHerrmannAndreas (2013), “Product Design for the Long Run: Consumer Responses to Typical and Atypical Designs at Different Stages of Exposure,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (5), 92–107.
39.
LangloisJudith H.RoggmanLori A. (1990), “Attractive Faces Are Only Average,” Psychological Science, 1 (2), 115–21.
40.
LightLeah L.Kayra-StuartFortuneeHollanderSteven (1979), “Recognition Memory for Typical and Unusual Faces,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5 (3), 212–28.
41.
LiuYanLiKrista J.ChenHaipeng (Allen)BalachanderSubramanian (2017), “The Effects of Products’ Aesthetic Design on Demand and Marketing-Mix Effectiveness: The Role of Segment Prototypicality and Brand Consistency,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (1), 83–102.
42.
LogothetisNikolas K.SheinbergDavid L. (1996), “Visual Object Recognition,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, 19 (1), 577–621.
43.
LovettMitchell J.PeresRenanaShacharRon (2013), “On Brands and Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 427–44.
44.
LuchsMichael G.SwanK.ScottCreusenMariëlle E.H. (2016), “Perspective: A Review of Marketing Research on Product Design with Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33 (3), 320–41.
MayerStefanLandwehrJan R. (2018), “Objective Measures of Design Typicality,” Design Studies, 54, 146–61.
47.
MervisCarolyn B.RoschEleanor (1981), “Categorization of Natural Objects,” Annual Review of Psychology, 32 (1), 89–115.
48.
MizikNatalieJacobsonRobert (2008), “The Financial Value Impact of Perceptual Brand Attributes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (1), 15–32.
49.
MoormanChristineSorescuAlinaTavassoliNader T. (2019), “How Brand Impacts Firm Profits Through Employee Pay, Retention, and Productivity,” working paper.
50.
MuggeRuthDahlDarren W. (2013), “Seeking the Ideal Level of Design Newness: Consumer Response to Radical and Incremental Product Design,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (1), 34–47.
PageChristineHerrPaul M. (2002), “An Investigation of the Processes by Which Product Design and Brand Strength Interact to Determine Initial Affect and Quality Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2), 133–47.
ParkSunghoGuptaSachin (2012), “Handling Endogenous Regressors by Joint Estimation Using Copulas,” Marketing Science, 31 (4), 567–86.
55.
ParkerJeffrey R.LehmannDonald R.KellerKevin L.SchleicherMartin G. (2018), “Building a Multi-Category Brand: When Should Distant Brand Extensions Be Introduced?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (2), 300–16.
56.
PietersRikWedelMichelBatraRajeev (2010), “The Stopping Power of Advertising: Measures and Effects of Visual Complexity,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 48–60.
57.
PocheptsovaAnastasiyaLabrooAparna A.DharRavi (2010), “Making Products Feel Special: When Metacognitive Difficulty Enhances Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1059–69.
58.
PreacherKristopher J.RuckerDerek D.HayesAndrew F. (2007), “Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42 (1), 185–227.
59.
ReberRolfSchwarzNorbertWinkielmanPiotr (2004), “Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver’s Processing Experience?” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (4), 364–82.
60.
RegoLopo L.BillettMatthew T.MorganNeil A. (2009), “Consumer-Based Brand Equity and Firm Risk,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 47–60.
SmithEliot R.CejkaMary AnnFazioRussell H. (1996), “Accessible Attitudes Influence Categorization of Multiply Categorizable Objects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (5), 888–98.
63.
SrinivasanShubaVanhueleMarcPauwelsKoen (2010), “Mind-Set Metrics in Market Response Models: An Integrative Approach,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (4), 672–84.
64.
StahlFlorianHeitmannMarkLehmannDonald R.NeslinScott A. (2012), “The Impact of Brand Equity on Customer Acquisition, Retention, and Profit Margin,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (4), 44–63.
65.
StantonSteven J.TownsendJanell D. (2016), “Aesthetic Responses to Prototypicality and Uniqueness of Product Design,” Marketing Letters, 27 (2), 235–46.
66.
TalkeKatrinMuellerSebastianWieringaJaap E. (2017), “A Matter of Perspective: Design Newness and Its Performance Effects,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34 (2), 399–413.
TuchAlexandre N.Bargas-AvilaJavier A.OpwisKlausWilhelmFrank H. (2009), “Visual Complexity of Websites: Effects on Users’ Experience, Physiology, Performance, and Memory,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67 (9), 703–15.
69.
WetzelHaukeHattulaStefanHammerschmidtMaikvan HeerdeHarald J. (2018), “Building and Leveraging Brand Equity: Evidence from 50 Years of German Professional Soccer,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (4), 591–661.
70.
WinkielmanPiotrCacioppoJohn T. (2001), “Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 989–1000.
71.
WinkielmanPiotrHalberstadtJaminFazendeiroTedraCattySteve (2006), “Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind,” Psychological Science, 17 (9), 799–806.
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.
