IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zag/market/v31y2019i1p83-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incongruence in Brand Names and Its Effect on Consumer Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Ferdian Hendrasto

    (Universitas Gajayana, Faculty of Economics and Business)

  • Bagus Ibnu Utama

    (Universitas Gajayana, Faculty of Economics and Business)

Abstract

Purpose – Brand name is one of the determining factors of a brand’s success. Simple brand names capable of capturing consumers’ attention will make them easy to remember and get to perceive the brand. The significance of brand names has caused practitioners to have high consideration in determining brand names for products. With the sprouting up of new SME-based businesses in Indonesia, it is worth studying how these new businesses name their products. Specifically, we aim to analyze how different brand name designs affect consumer preference. Design/Methodology/Approach – This study employed a 3x2 experimental method where respondents were exposed to three types of fictional brand names that were congruent (e.g., Coffee Corner), incongruent (e.g., d’Coffee Corner) and highly incongruent (e.g., d’Koffee Korner), the respondents’ evaluation was observed through their preference against 3 types of brand name congruence and the use of Indonesian and English in the brands. The analysis technique utilized was a two-way ANOVA. Findings and Implications – The results indicated that congruent brand names had the highest effect on consumer preference in comparison to incongruent and highly incongruent brand names. The use of Indonesian and English in the brand names, however, showed no significant difference on consumer preference. Limitation – The main limitation of this study consists in localized research samples and objects. Consequently, the result may not be the same in a wider, more general environment. Originality – This research study contributes to the examination of brand designs by applying the theory of incongruence as a foundation for the analysis. It adds to the existing knowledge by investigating consumer preference on differently designed, new brand names.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferdian Hendrasto & Bagus Ibnu Utama, 2019. "Incongruence in Brand Names and Its Effect on Consumer Preference," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 31(1), pages 83-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:zag:market:v:31:y:2019:i:1:p:83-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/323067
    Download Restriction: None
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    2. Kevin Lane Keller & Donald R. Lehmann, 2006. "Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 740-759, 11-12.
    3. Vanitha Swaminathan & Zeynep Gürhan-Canli & Umut KubatVanitha Swaminathan & Ceren Hayran, 2015. "How, When, and Why Do Attribute-Complementary versus Attribute-Similar Cobrands Affect Brand Evaluations: A Concept Combination Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 42(1), pages 45-58.
    4. Wadim Strielkowski & Jing Wang & Stephen Platt, 2013. "Consumer preferences for cultural heritage and tourism e-sevices: A case study of three European cities," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 25(2), pages 161-176.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kevin Lane Keller, 2016. "Reflections on customer-based brand equity: perspectives, progress, and priorities," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Venkatesh Shankar & Pablo Azar & Matthew Fuller, 2008. "—: A Multicategory Brand Equity Model and Its Application at Allstate," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 567-584, 07-08.
    3. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Tohru Yoshioka-Kobayashi & Tomofumi Miyanoshita & Daisuke Kanama, 2020. "Revisiting incremental product innovations in the food-manufacturing industry: an empirical study on the effect of intellectual property rights," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    6. Kim, Sang-Joon & Bae, John & Oh, Hannah, 2019. "Financing strategically: The moderation effect of marketing activities on the bifurcated relationship between debt level and firm valuation of small and medium enterprises," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 663-681.
    7. Bae, John & Kim, Sang-Joon & Oh, Hannah, 2017. "Taming polysemous signals: The role of marketing intensity on the relationship between financial leverage and firm performance," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 29-40.
    8. Cristina Moreira & Ana Côrte-Real & Paulo Lencastre, 2010. "The image of Agriculture in Portugal," Working Papers de Gestão (Management Working Papers) 04, Católica Porto Business School, Universidade Católica Portuguesa.
    9. Stefan Buehler & Daniel Halbheer, 2011. "Selling when Brand Image Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(1), pages 102-118, March.
    10. Vlad I. Rosca & Cristina Veronica Partenie, 2018. "A theoretical overview on understanding customer-based brand equity," Journal of Community Positive Practices, Catalactica NGO, issue 4, pages 19-28.
    11. Adeoye, I.A. & Ayodele, O.E. & Adesuyi, I.O & Ayo, M.F, 2021. "Brand Association and Sales Growth: The Flour Milling Industry Experience," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(7), pages 727-731, July.
    12. Yoshida, Masayuki & James, Jeffrey D. & Cronin, J. Joseph, 2013. "Sport event innovativeness: Conceptualization, measurement, and its impact on consumer behavior," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 68-84.
    13. Li, Eric A.L., 2014. "Test for the real option in consumer behavior," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 70-83.
    14. Teresa Barros & Paula Rodrigues & Nelson Duarte & Xue-Feng Shao & F. V. Martins & H. Barandas-Karl & Xiao-Guang Yue, 2020. "The Impact of Brand Relationships on Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation—An Integrative Model," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, June.
    15. Deepa Chandrasekaran & Gerard J. Tellis, 2008. "Global Takeoff of New Products: Culture, Wealth, or Vanishing Differences?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 844-860, 09-10.
    16. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    17. Dean Karlan & Adam Osman & Nour Shammout, 2021. "Increasing Financial Inclusion in the Muslim World: Evidence from an Islamic Finance Marketing Experiment," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 376-397.
    18. Alban Verchere, 2022. "Is social polarization bad for the planet? A theoretical inquiry," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 427-456, April.
    19. Donald R. Lehmann, 2017. "Creating and writing effective research," Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 171-179, July.
    20. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.

    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:zag:market:v:31:y:2019:i:1:p:83-96. 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: Tanja Komarac (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fefzghr.html .

    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.