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.
AilawadiKusum L., LehmannDonald R., and NeslinScott A. (2003), “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Measure of Brand Equity,”Journal of Marketing, 67 (October), 1–17.
2.
AlbaJoseph W., and Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 411–54.
3.
AllenbyGreg M., BrazellJeff D., HowellJohn R., and RossiPeter E. (2014), “Economic Valuation of Product Features,”Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 12 (4), 421–56.
4.
AndersonMichael C., GreenCollin, and McCullochKathleen (2000), “Similarity and Inhibition in Long-Term Memory: Evidence for a Two-Factor Theory,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (5), 1141–59.
5.
AndrewsDonald W.K., and LuBiao (2001), “Consistent Model and Moment Selection Procedures for GMM Estimation with Application to Dynamic Panel Data Models,”Journal of Econometrics, 101 (1), 123–64.
BarsalouLawrence W. (1983), “Ad Hoc Categories,”Memory & Cognition, 11 (3), 211–27.
8.
BarsalouLawrence W. (1985), “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure Categories,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11 (4), 629–49.
9.
BarsalouLawrence W. (1992), Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
BerlyneDaniel E. (1970), “Novelty, Complexity, and Hedonic Value,”Perception & Psychophysics, 8 (5A), 279–86.
11.
BerrySteven, LevinsohnJames, and PakesAriel (1995), “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium,”Econometrica, 63 (4), 841–90.
12.
BlattbergRobert C., and WisniewskiKenneth J. (1989), “Price-Induced Patterns of Competition,”Marketing Science, 8 (4), 291–309.
13.
BlochPeter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,”Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16–29.
14.
BoushDavid M., and LokenBarbara (1991), “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February), 16–28.
15.
BroniarczykSusan M., and AlbaJoseph W. (1994), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 214–28.
16.
BurkeRaymond R., and SrullThomas K. (1988), “Competitive Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 55–68.
17.
ChintaguntaPradeep, ErdemTülin, RossiPeter E., and WedelMichel (2006), “Structural Modeling in Marketing: Review and Assessment,”Marketing Science, 25 (6), 604–16.
18.
CreusenMarielle E.H., and SchoormansJan P.L. (2005), “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22 (1), 63–81.
GrossmanGene M., and ShapiroCarl (1988), “Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103 (1), 79–100.
24.
HagtvedtHenrik, and PatrickVanessa M. (2009), “The Broad Embrace of Luxury: Hedonic Potential as a Driver of Brand Extendibility,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (4), 608–18.
25.
HanYoung Jee, NunesJoseph C., and DrezeXavier (2010), “Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence,”Journal of Marketing, 74 (July), 15–30.
26.
HauserJohn R., and SimmiePatricia (1981), “Profit Maximizing Perceptual Positions: An Integrated Theory for the Selection of Product Features and Price,”Management Science, 27 (1), 33–56.
27.
JanakiramanRamkumar, SismeiroCatarina, and DuttaShantanu (2009), “Perception Spillovers Across Competing Brands: A Disaggregate Model of How and When,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (August), 467–81.
KaulAnil, and WittinkDick R. (1995), “Empirical Generalizations About the Impact of Advertising on Price Sensitivity and Price,”Marketing Science, 14 (3Supplement), G151–60.
30.
KellerKevin Lane (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 4th ed.Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
31.
LandwehrJan R., LabrooAparna A., and HerrmannAndreas (2011), “Gut Liking for the Ordinary: Incorporating Design Fluency Improves Automobile Sales Forecasts,”Marketing Science, 30 (3), 416–29.
32.
LandwehrJan R., WentzelDaniel, and HerrmannAndreas (2013), “Product Design for the Long Run: Consumer Responses to Typical and Atypical Designs at Different Stages of Exposure,”Journal of Marketing, 77 (September), 92–107.
LiuYan, and ShankarVenkatesh (2015), “The Dynamic Impact of Product-Harm Crises on Brand Preference and Advertising Effectiveness: An Empirical Analysis of the Automobile Industry,”Management Science, 61 (10), 2514–35.
LokenBarbara, and WardJames (1987), “Measures of the Attribute Structure Underlying Product Typicality,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, WallendorfMelanie and AndersonPaul, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 22–26.
37.
LuanYe, and SudhirK. (2010), “Forecasting Marketing Mix Responsiveness for New Products,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (June), 444–57.
MandlerGeorge (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium, ClarkMargaret S. and FiskeSusan T., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–36.
MelaCarl F., GuptaSunil, and LehmannDonald R. (1997), “The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice,”Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 248–61.
42.
Meyers-LevyJoan, and TyboutAlice M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 39–54.
43.
NagleThomas T., and HoldenReed K. (2002), The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Profitable Decision Making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.
NedungadiPrakash, and Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1985), “The Prototypicality of Brands: Relationships with Brand Awareness, Preference, and Usage,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, HirschmanElizabeth C. and HolbrookMorris B., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 498–503.
45.
NevoAviv (2000), “A Practitioner's Guide to Estimation of Random-Coefficients Logit Models of Demand,”Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 9 (4), 513–48.
OrthUlrich R., and MalkewitzKeven (2008), “Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions,”Journal of Marketing, 72 (May), 64–81.
49.
ParkC. Whan, MilbergSandra, and LawsonRobert (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (2), 185–93.
PocheptsovaAnastasiya, LabrooAparna A., and DharRavi (2010), “Making Products Feel Special: When Metacognitive Difficulty Enhances Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (November), 1059–69.
52.
RandallTaylor, UlrichKarl, and ReibsteinDavid (1998), “Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent,”Marketing Science, 17 (4), 356–79.
53.
RanscombeCharlie, MullineuxGlen, HicksBen, and SinghBaljinder (2012), “Visually Decomposing Vehicle Images: Exploring the Influence of Different Aesthetic Features on Consumer Perception of Brand,”Design Studies, 33 (4), 319–41.
54.
RoschEleanor, MervisCarolyn B., GrayWayne D., JohnsonDavid M., and Boyes-BraemPenny (1976), “Basic Objects in Natural Categories,”Cognitive Psychology, 8 (3), 382–439.
55.
SawyerAlan G. (1973), “The Effects of Repetition of Refutational and Supportive Advertising Appeals,”Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 23–33.
56.
SchoormansJan P.L., and RobbenHenry S.J. (1977), “The Effect on New Package Design on Product Attention, Categorization, and Evaluation,”Journal of Economic Psychology, 18 (2/3), 271–87.
57.
SethuramanRaj, and TellisGerard J. (1991), “An Analysis of the Tradeoff Between Advertising and Pricing,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (May), 160–74.
58.
SnodgrassJoan G., and McCulloughBrian (1986), “The Role of Visual Similarity in Picture Categorization,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12 (1), 147–54.
SudhirK. (2001), “Competitive Pricing Behavior in the Auto Market: A Structural Analysis,”Marketing Science, 20 (1), 42–60.
62.
SujanMita (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,”Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (1), 31–46.
63.
TalkeKatrin, SalomoSoren, WieringaJaap E., and LutzAntje (2009), “What About Design Newness? Investigating the Relevance of a Neglected Dimension of Product Innovativeness,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (6), 601–15.
ValentineTim, DarlingStephen, and DonnellyMary (2004), “Why Are Average Faces Attractive? The Effect of View and Averageness on the Attractiveness of Female Faces,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11 (3), 482–87.
66.
VaughnMark (1999), “Platform Pal: Chevy's New Impala Struggles for Individuality Among GM Sedan Siblings,”AutoWeek (May 3), 18.
67.
VeryzerRobert W., and Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374–85.
68.
WeberJulian (2009), Automotive Development Process: Process for Successful Customer Oriented Vehicle Development. New York: Springer.
69.
WinkielmanPiotr, HalberstadtJamin, FazendeiroTedra, and CattySteve (2006), “Prototypes Are Attractive Because They Are Easy on the Mind,”Psychological Science, 17 (9), 799–806.
70.
WolfAlan (2004), “LG Combines Good Looks, Clever Design,”TWICE: This Week in Consumer Electronics, 19 (15), 47.
71.
ZajoncRobert B. (1968), “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2), 1–27.
72.
ZettelmeyerFlorian, MortonFiona Scott, and Silva-RissoJorge (2006), “How the Internet Lowers Prices: Evidence from Matched Survey and Automobile Transaction Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (May), 168–81.
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.
