IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v63y2010i11p1121-1128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Looking more or less alike: Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands

Author

Listed:
  • Miceli, Gaetano Nino
  • Pieters, Rik

Abstract

Copycat brands try to gain acceptance from consumers by imitating the trade dress of a leading, incumbent brand, and a crucial question thus is which conditions determine the perceived similarity between a copycat and a leading brand. Two experimental studies, across different product categories and countries, reveal that, as hypothesized, the copycat strategy (copying visual attributes versus themes) and the mindset of the consumer (featural versus relational focus) interact to determine perceived similarity. Consumers in a relational mindset perceive a theme-based copycat to be more similar to a leading brand than consumers in a featural mindset do. These findings have implications for similarity theory and branding practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Miceli, Gaetano Nino & Pieters, Rik, 2010. "Looking more or less alike: Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 1121-1128, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:63:y:2010:i:11:p:1121-1128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148-2963(09)00274-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rui (Juliet) Zhu & Joan Meyers-Levy, 2007. "Exploring the Cognitive Mechanism that Underlies Regulatory Focus Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(1), pages 89-96, April.
    2. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    3. Jean-Noël Kapferer, 1995. "Brand Confusion: Empirical Study of a Legal Concept," Post-Print hal-00784110, HAL.
    4. Gregan-Paxton, Jennifer & John, Deborah Roedder, 1997. "Consumer Learning by Analogy: A Model of Internal Knowledge Transfer," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(3), pages 266-284, December.
    5. Roehm, Michelle L & Sternthal, Brian, 2001. "The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(2), pages 257-272, September.
    6. Wilke, Ricky & Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne, 1999. "Brand imitation and its effects on innovation, competition, and brand equity," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 9-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nohe, Max, 2024. "Retail disruptions and their impact on suppliers in the grocery sector," Other publications TiSEM 2216cd14-a5de-4a9d-bd0d-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. van Horen, Femke & Pieters, Rik, 2012. "Consumer evaluation of copycat brands: The effect of imitation type," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 246-255.
    3. ter Braak, Anne & Deleersnyder, Barbara, 2018. "Innovation Cloning: The Introduction and Performance of Private Label Innovation Copycats," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 312-327.
    4. Zha, Yong & Guo, Xiaowei & Chen, Huaping & Ling, Liuyi, 2022. "How does Store Branded Lookalike Packaging Affect Competition in a Dyadic Supply Chain: A Consumer Confusion Perspective," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    5. Ezgi Oguz & Jamie Marsden, 2023. "Defending Against Copycat Packaging: The Role of Design from a Consumer’s Perspective," Athens Journal of Business & Economics, Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), vol. 9(1), pages 73-90, January.
    6. Suzuki, Mayu & Washida, Yuichi, 2021. "Measuring Negative Effects of Copycat Products in Emerging Consumer Markets," Hitotsubashi Journal of commerce and management, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 55(1), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Wang, Yingjia & Fan, Di & Fung, Yi-Ning & Luo, Suyuan, 2022. "Consumer-to-consumer product exchanges for original fashion brands in the sharing economy: Good or bad for fashion knockoffs?," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Anne-Sophie V. E. Radermecker, 2019. "Artworks without names: an insight into the market for anonymous paintings," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 43(3), pages 443-483, September.
    9. Anninou, Ioanna & Foxall, Gordon R., 2019. "The reinforcing and aversive consequences of customer experience. The role of consumer confusion," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 139-151.
    10. Melnyk, Valentyna & Giarratana, Marco & Torres, Anna, 2014. "Marking your trade: Cultural factors in the prolongation of trademarks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 478-485.
    11. Paul W. Dobson & Ratula Chakraborty, 2014. "How Do National Brands And Store Brands Compete?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2014-07, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    2. Swami, Viren & Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas & Furnham, Adrian, 2009. "Faking it: Personality and individual difference predictors of willingness to buy counterfeit goods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 820-825, October.
    3. van Horen, Femke & Pieters, Rik, 2012. "Consumer evaluation of copycat brands: The effect of imitation type," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 246-255.
    4. Luo, Yong (Eddie) & Wong, Veronica & Chou, Ting-Jui, 2016. "The role of product newness in activating consumer regulatory goals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 600-611.
    5. Van Horen, Femke & Pieters, Rik, 2013. "Preference reversal for copycat brands: Uncertainty makes imitation feel good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 54-64.
    6. Chu, Kyounghee & Lee, Do-Hee & Kim, Ji Yoon, 2019. "The effect of verbal brand personification on consumer evaluation in advertising: Internal and external personification," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 472-480.
    7. Vahid Rahmani, 2023. "Persuasion knowledge framework: Toward a comprehensive model of consumers’ persuasion knowledge," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 13(1), pages 12-33, June.
    8. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    9. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    11. Mark Groza & Mya Pronschinske & Matthew Walker, 2011. "Perceived Organizational Motives and Consumer Responses to Proactive and Reactive CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 639-652, September.
    12. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Brumbaugh, Anne M. & Grier, Sonya A., 2000. "Non-target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes," Research Papers 1578, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Ella Ward & Song Yang & Jenni Romaniuk & Virginia Beal, 2020. "Building a unique brand identity: measuring the relative ownership potential of brand identity element types," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(4), pages 393-407, July.
    15. Román, Sergio & Riquelme, Isabel P. & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2023. "Fake or credible? Antecedents and consequences of perceived credibility in exaggerated online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Dubey, Subodh & Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Cats, Oded & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 63-95.
    17. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    18. Ryan W. Buell & Michael I. Norton, 2011. "The Labor Illusion: How Operational Transparency Increases Perceived Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1564-1579, February.
    19. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    20. Catherine Viot & André Le Roux & Florence Kremer, 2014. "Attitude towards the purchase of counterfeits: Antecedents and effect on intention to purchase," Post-Print halshs-02530136, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:63:y:2010:i:11:p:1121-1128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.