Brand Distinctiveness Vs. Brand Differentiation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Brand Distinctiveness Vs. Brand Differentiation a Consumer Perspective
Physical Description:
1 online resource (62 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Ju, Ilyoung
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.Adv.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Advertising, Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
Sutherland, John C
Committee Members:
Morton, Cynthia R
Morris, Jon D

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
brand -- differentiation -- distinctiveness
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Advertising thesis, M.Adv.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Brand distinctiveness becomes an important concept in brand studies, however, few studies exist. In this study, online survey was conducted to identify contributing factors to brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation. In addition, the relation between brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation was investigated. A sample of 228 university students was participated and two TV commercials were taken from Effie awards. The commercials were shown to the participants and they were asked to complete a questionnaire,including open-ended and close-ended questions. The result indicates that brand distinctiveness is frequently associated with executional variable (Colors and brand name), whereas brand differentiation is often associated with product features, functions and benefits, but the correlation analysis showed that brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation are correlated. Implication for advertising and marketing professional and suggestions for the future studies were discussed.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ilyoung Ju.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.Adv.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Sutherland, John C.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045964:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 BRAND DISTINCTIVENESS VS. BRAND DIFFERENTIATION: A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE By ILYOUNG JU A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN P ARTIAL FU LFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS F O R THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVERTISING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 201 3 Ilyoung Ju

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT S I would like to thank my chair, Dr. John C. Sutherland. Without his help and advice, I may not have completed this t hesis. His expertise and knowledge in adverting research helped me a lot during this process while giving me exceptional academic experience. I also would like to thank the staff and all members at the College of Journalism and Communications for their kin dness and assistance. Those good memories will remain forever Lastly, I also would like to express my appreciation to my family.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 11 Brand Differentiation ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 What makes Differentiation Important? ................................ ................................ ... 12 Unique Selling Proposition (USP) ................................ ................................ ..... 12 Brand Positioning ................................ ................................ ............................. 13 Competitive Advantage ................................ ................................ .................... 14 Overcome Market Barriers ................................ ................................ ............... 14 Benefits of Differentiation ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Less Competition ................................ ................................ .............................. 15 Reduce Price Sensitivity ................................ ................................ ................... 16 Brand Loyalty via Differentiation ................................ ................................ ....... 16 How to Differentiate a Brand ................................ ................................ ................... 17 Differentiation Strategies ................................ ................................ ......................... 17 Evidence s against Brand Differentiation ................................ ................................ 18 User Profile Seldom Differ ................................ ................................ ................ 18 Large or Small Brands ................................ ................................ ...................... 19 Not Different or Unique ................................ ................................ ..................... 19 Creative Publicity and Salie nce ................................ ................................ ........ 20 Brand Distinctiveness ................................ ................................ ............................. 21 Importance of Brand Distinctiveness ................................ ................................ 22 What Makes a Distinctive Brand? ................................ ................................ ..... 23 Distinctiveness vs. Differentiation ................................ ................................ ..... 24 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ................................ .................... 25 4 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27 Survey Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 27 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 27 Stimulus Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 Variables and Measurement ................................ ................................ ................... 28 Familiarity and Usage ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 Distinctiveness ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 Differentiation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 29

PAGE 6

6 Attitude toward Brand ................................ ................................ ....................... 29 Purchase Intention ................................ ................................ ........................... 29 Attitude toward Advertising ................................ ................................ ............... 29 Effectiveness of Advertis ing ................................ ................................ ............. 30 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 31 Data Cleaning ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 31 parodontax T oothpaste ................................ ................................ .................. 31 Nikon COOLPIX S8000 ................................ ................................ .................... 31 Sample Description ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 parodontax T oothpas te ................................ ................................ .................. 31 For Nikon COOLPIX S8000 ................................ ................................ .............. 32 Reliability Checks ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 32 Results o f the Research Questions and Hypotheses Test ................................ ...... 33 Coding Process ( parodontax Toothpaste ) ................................ ..................... 33 Coding Process (Nikon COOLPIX S8000 ) ................................ ....................... 35 Coding Process ( parodontax Toothpaste Commercial) ................................ 36 Coding Process (Nikon COOLPIX S8000 C ommercial) ................................ ... 37 Hypotheses Test Results ................................ ................................ .................. 38 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43 Answers for Research Questions ................................ ................................ ........... 43 Evaluation of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ....................... 45 Managerial Implications ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 7 LIMITATIONS AN D FUTURE RESEARCH ................................ ............................ 48 APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRES ................................ ................................ .......... 50 A. Brand: parodontax Toothpaste ................................ ................................ ........ 50 B. Brand: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 ................................ ................................ .......... 51 C. Commercial: parodontax Toothpaste ................................ ............................... 53 D. Commercial: Nikon C OOLPIX S8000 ................................ ................................ 54 E. Demographic Questions ................................ ................................ ..................... 55 B STIMULUS MATERIALS: TV ADS ................................ ................................ ......... 57 parodontax T oothpaste: ................................ ................................ ....................... 57 Nikon COOLPIX S8000: ................................ ................................ ......................... 57 LIST OF REFERENCE S ................................ ................................ ............................... 58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 62

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 5 1 Data c leaning for parodontax t oothpaste and Nikon COOLPIX S80 00 .............. 40 5 2 Demographic profile for g ender, a ge and m ajor ................................ ................... 40 5 3 Reliability a nalysis for i ndependent and d ependent m easures ............................ 41 5 4 Responses for parodontax t oothpaste ................................ ............................... 41 5 5 Responses for Nikon COOLPIX S8000 ................................ ................................ 41 5 6 Responses for parodontax t oothpaste c ommercial ................................ ............ 42 5 7 Responses for Nikon COOLPIX S8000 c ommercial ................................ ............ 42

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Advertising BRAND DISTINCTIVENESS VS. BRAND DIFFERENTIATION: A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE B y Ilyoung Ju August 2013 Chair: John C. Sutherland Major: Advertising Brand distinctiveness has bec ome an important concept in brand studies ; however, few studies exist. In this study, online survey was conducted to identify contributing factors to brand distinctiven ess and brand differentiation. In addition, the relation ship of brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation was investigated. A sample consisting of 228 university students was use d in the study. T wo TV commercials taken from Effie awards were employed as stimulus materials The commercials were shown to the participants to complete the survey questionnaire, which includ e open ended and close ended questions. The result indicates that brand distinctiveness is frequently associated with exec u tional varia ble ( c olors and brand name), whereas brand differentiation is often associated with product f eatures, functions and benefits However, t he correlation analysis showed that brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation are correlated. Implication for adve rtising and marketing professional and suggestions for the future studies were also discussed.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO N For many years, marketers and researchers have purported that brand differentiation contributes to the success of a brand (Aaker 1984; A aker 2004; Porter 1980; Porter 1985). If a brand is considered as a train, brand differentiation is regarded as the engine of the train: brand differentiation is an essential marketing strategy and without differentiation, brands will fail (Agris, 2001 as cited in Asker, 2004). Aaker (2004) suggested that if all brands in a similar category do not have their own unique or different selling points, consumers may not have a reason to purchase them. In other words, marketers should give their customers a reaso n to purchase products (Aaker, 2001; Kotler, 1994). Other researchers asserted that when different consumer s segments exist, marketers need to differentiate their brands in order to satisfy the different segments (Lancaster, 1984; Lancaster, 1979; Rosen, 1974, as cited in Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007). More recently, Romaniuk, Sharp and Ehrenberg (2007) have suggested that current differentiation theories are overstated. The effect of brand differentiation is less important than what has been suggeste d from two different perspectives. First, consumer profiles of brand users rarely differ (Kennedy & Ehrenberg, 2001; Uncles, Kennedy, Nencz Thiel, Singh & Kwok, 2012). Second, without unique or different persuasion, brands can succeed (Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy & Bloom, 2002). From these perspectives, brand distinctiveness has been offered as a more explanatory concept (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007). It is important, then, to identify differences between brand differentiation and brand distinctivenes s.

PAGE 10

10 There is limited research comparing brand differentiation and brand distinctiveness. Those two concepts seem somewhat similar yet different from each other. For that reason, this study will determine the similar and different points of those two concept s. Based on consumer s perception, factors contributing to differentiation and distinctiveness will be explored.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Brand D ifferentiation According to Porter (1985), brand differentiation is a marketing strategy seeking unique v alues that are important to consumers in each different segment. Differentiation strategy selects one or more product features that are meaningful to each buyer in the needs. Por ter (1985) claimed that differentiation can take diverse forms The product itself can be differentiation, differentiation can be based on delivery system, the marketing strategies can be differentiation and many other factors can be used for differentiati on (Porter, 1985). B rand differentiation can be used to meet demands from different demographic segments (Lancaster, 1984; Lancaster, 1979, Rosen, 1974, as cited in Romaniuk et al. 2007). Differentiating a brand is an essential marketing activity to meet needs from different demographic segments (Lancaster, 1984; Lancaster, 1979, Rosen, 1974, as cited in Romaniuk et al. 2007). When a brand is highly differentiated from other competitors, consumers keep buying the brand because other brands cannot satisf y their demands, so the brand becomes more attractive to buyers. (Nelson, 1974; Nelson, 1970; Stigler, 1961, as cited in Romaniuk et al., 2007). Brand differentiation can be established via positioning different or unique creating competitive advantage in a market (Porter, 1980). In other words, a brand that is easily substituted by other similar brands may not be attractive to buyers (Nelson, 1974; Nelson, 1970; Stigler, 1961, as cited in Romaniuk et al. 2007). For that reason, a marketer should keep a b rand difficult for competitors to imitate so

PAGE 12

12 that consumers will keep buying their products (Nelson, 1974; Nelson, 1970; Stigler, 1961, as cited in Romaniuk et al. 2007). In the advertising literature, differentiating messages were identified as a factor that increas es urchase intention (Stewart, 198 5 ; Stewart & Furse, 2000). Stewart and Furse (2000) claimed that e xisting differentiating messages in commercials level. This evidence was found via 10 59 commercials for 356 brands, containing 115 different product categories (Stewart & Furse, 2000). Furthermore, among executional factors contributing to differentiation, storyline was identified as a factor that ntent (Sutherland, Figueroa & Cook, 1986). What makes D ifferentiation I mportant? Brand differentiation is important for the following reasons: creating a U nique S elling P roposition (USP) positioning a brand, keeping a brand competitive for long term and o vercoming market barriers (Aaker, 2001; Kotler, 1994; Agres, 1995; Porter, 1980). Unique S elling P roposition (USP) Brand differentiation is important because it works with a unique selling proposition. Reeve (1961) emphasized that marketers or advertisers should provide a unique selling point in order to persuade people to buy their products, and if marketers fail to provide an appropriate or reasonable selling point, their brands will fail in markets (Reeves, 1961). Reeve (1961) proposed three important cl aims. First, advert is ing should present a specific benefit and the benefit has to be specific so that consumer will buy a product (Reeves, 1961). Second, the proposition has to be unique and difficult for competitors to copy and this proposition can be eit her a brand itself or a claim (Reeves,

PAGE 13

13 1961). Lastly, the proposition should have power that can influence consumers and possibly creat e new consumers (Reeves, 1961). Porter (1985) also claimed that a firm should look for unique or different points, and fi nd one or two attributes that are important for consumers and emphasize these attributes to convince consumers to maintain a sustainable advantage in markets. If brands have unique or different values or attributes that competitors do not have, the brands are more likely to be competitive (Porter, 1985). Brand P ositioning product to the mind of consumers. The researcher s emphasized that positioning has to work via what consumers ha ve in their mind rather than merely positioning what a product does for consumers. Positioning starts with a product, including product service, a firm and even a person (Ries & Trout, 1986). Arnott (1992) claimed that after defining the target dimension, positioning can be applied to the particular group of consumers via advertising and other marketing approaches. Popkwski Leszczyc and Rao (1989) investigated the supermarket industry and found that different positi o n in g strategies are applied to different market situations For local advertising, it is more promotional, price and short term oriented and for the national advertising, it is more oriented to building a brand image and differentiating a brand from competitors. Kaul and Wittink (1995) claimed th at two kinds of advertising positioning exist, one focusing on price and the other not. The researchers determined that when advertising focuses on price, it s the price sens itiv ity from consumers (Kaul & Wittink, 1995). Moreover, positioning influences consumers when they are in buying situations ; particularly, if all brand names

PAGE 14

14 are available, consumers tend to become less sensitive to the price of the brand that they have seen in the past, recalling differentiating me ssages in advertising (Mitra & Lynch, 1996). Brand positioning can also be based on a brand concept. Brand concep t management (Park, Jaworski & MacInnis 1986 ) showed three brand concepts ; functional, symbolic and e xperiential. Functional brand concept is oriented to as cited in Park et al 1986 ). Symb olic brand concept emphasizes that are related to self enhanceme nt, role position, group membership, or ego identification (Levy 1959; Martineau 1958; Sirgy 1982; Solomon 1983, as cited in Park et al ., 1986) Lastly, experiential needs and desires represent sensory pleasure, variety and cognitive stimulation (McAlister 1979, 1982; McAlister & Pessemier, 1982, as cited in Park et al ., 1986) Competitive A dvantage Brand differentiation is an important marketing strat egy for long term brand success ; i n markets, different segments exist; therefore, different differentiatio n strategies are r equired for different consumer groups (Aaker, 1984; Aaker 2004). If marketers conduct a differentiation strategy successfully, they can gen erate competitive advantage. Th is competitive advantage allow s a brand to consistently attract buye rs (Porter, 1980; Aaker, 1984; Aaker 2004). Therefore, brand success often depends on how well a brand is differentiated because differentiation is significant for obtaining long term sustainable brand power (Aaker, 1984; Aaker 2004; Porter, 1980). Overco me M arket B arriers Porter (1980) claimed that new entrants spend a considerable amount of money to overcome an existing market barrier. Established brands have already achieved their

PAGE 15

15 distinct identification and consumer loyalties because early brands have already spent considerable money on advertising, customer service or simply because the brands initially began business in the market (Porter, 1980). Thus, differentiation strategy can help a brand in an early stage to compete with brands already establish ed (Agres, 1995). The Brand Assent Valuator by Young & Rubicam (dimensions, differentiation, relevance esteem, and knowledge) showed that differentiation plays an important role for the success of new brands particularly, in the early stage of new brands (Aaker, 2004). In other words, differentiation works as an engine of a brand train, so without an engine, a brand cannot succeed in markets (Agris, 2001, as recited in Aaker, 2004). Benefits of D ifferentiation The positive effects of brand differentiation are: avoiding direct competition (Guiltinan & Paul, 1991; Kotler et al, 1996), reducing price sensitivity (Bradley, 1991; Dickson, 1997; Sharp& Dawes, 2001), and creating brand loyalties (Caves & Williamson, 1985; Porter, 1980). Less C ompetition Differen tiation benefits marketers in that it reduces direct competition in markets (Guiltinan & Paul, 1991). For example, highly differentiated brands in markets can avoid direct competition because they provide unique benefits and offers, which are different fro m other competitors (Guiltinan & Paul, 1991). A m arketer can emphasize benefits of products via differentiating brands (Guiltinan & Paul, 1991). Giving meaningful differences to consumers brings less competition because these meaningful differences motivat e consumers to buy products (Aaker, 2001; Kotler, 1994). If consumers perceive meaningful differences in products, a positive motivation is generated (Aaker, 2001;

PAGE 16

16 Kotler, 1994). Th is motivation is particularly significant because it gives a reason to buy a product (Aaker, 2001; Kotler, 1994). Reduce P rice S ensitivity Differentiated brands allow consumers to become less sensitive to brands (Bradley, 1991). If a brand has a unique aspect, a customer will become less sensitive to price and a product can be s old at a higher price (Sharp & Dawes, 2001). If consumers perceive a difference and they consider the difference is highly valued; when the demand is increased from buyers, a marke te r can sell a product at a higher price (Sharp & Dawes, 2001). In addition when a brand is differentiated, the brand can be easily identified by consumers (Dickson, 1997). Differentiation is based on providing one or more important benefits or brand images to consumers (Porter, 1985). If these benefits are given to the right s egments in a market, people will be less sensitive to price (Dickson, 1997). A firm can then sell its product at a high pri ce while generating more profit for the firm (Bradley, 1991). In addition, differentiating brands helps a product look desirable and attractive to consumers, allowing a marketer to sell more products, generating more profits (Sharp & Dawes, 2001). Consequently, a firm will be able to sell a product without lowering its price. Brand L oyalty via D ifferentiation Brand loyalty can be achi eved via differentiation (Caves & Williamson, 1985; Porter, 1980). Differentiation helps a firm keep its current consumers. Keeping current consumers is important because they are often vulnerable to a such as low price products (Cav es & Williamson, 1985). If a brand is highly differentiated and not substituted by other brands, customers will be less vulnerable to a

PAGE 17

17 & Williamson, 1985). Consequently, loyal consu mers can be created via differentiating a bra nd. Having loyal consumers benefits a firm. It can decrease the expenditure on the marketing since loyal consumers are already familiar it (Sharp & Dawes, 2001). Aaker (2004) asserted that without differentiation, it would b e almost impossible to create loyal consumers. How to D ifferentiate a B rand Brands are differentiated by diverse forms (Aaker 1984; Aaker, 2004; Porter, 1980; Porter 1985). First of all, a brand is differentiated with product quality, for instance, a Japa nese car is well known for its excellent quality and this quality contributes to differentiation (Aaker, 1984; Porter 1985). Product innovation can also contribute to differentiating brands from competitors; IT companies have been considered technological leaders in the market (Aaker, 1984; Porter 1985). A brand can be differentiated with p roduct features, for example, a tractor company differentiates its product based on its durability (1985, Porter). In addition, d ifferentiation c an be based on customer s ervice ; for example, the airline industry often differentiates a brand via service (Fulmer & Goodwin, 1988). Differentiation can also be based on brand name. Brand name is often associated with an important attribute or competence of br ands (Aaker, 1984; P orter 1985). Differentiation S trategies Aaker (2004) presented four branded differentiators (feature, ingredient, service, and program ) Branded feature shows consumer product features that are value d to consumers via a visual way (Aaker, 2004). B randed i ngredient (or component or technology) contributes to creat ing credibility via the explicit or implied claims (Aaker, 2004). B randed service is regarded as the way to differentiate a br and via providing

PAGE 18

18 extra service (Aaker, 2004). Lastly, b randed program provides consumers programs that inten sify enjoyment of product usage (Aaker, 2004) Keller (2002) described three type s of brand difference (brand performance, brand imag e ry and brand insight). Brand performance associations are related to actual product features or benefits, and this associate s with functional needs of consumers (Keller, 2002). Second, brand imagery associations are related to a experience such as getting a haircut or eating food (Keller, 2002). Lastly, brand insight associatio ns are related to an insight into consumer (Keller, 2002). Evidence s against B rand D ifferentiation Some researchers, however, claimed that brand differentiation is overstated. They claimed that user profiles for directly competing brands in mark ets are seldom different ; small or big brands exist in markets rather than different or unique brands ; having consumer bases of varying sizes and population ; and advertising does not need to provide differentiating messages in commercials, instead, adverti sing works as creative publicity rather than through differentiation (Ehrenberg, Barnard & Scriven, 1997; Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy & Bloom, 2002; Uncles, Kennedy, Nencz Thiel, Singh & Kwok, 2012). User P rofile S eldom D iffer Kennedy and Ehrenberg (2001) claimed that competing brands generally have similar consumers in terms of media usage, demographic and attitude. Accord ing to their finding, consumer segmentation rarely exists (Kennedy & Ehrenberg, 2001). Moreover, some recent studies indicate that the benefits of brand differentiation are overvalued (Romaniuk et al. 2007). The recent study examining 50 categories over 25 years has found that user profiles for directly competing brands in markets are seldom

PAGE 19

19 different (Uncles et al 2012). It is an inte resting finding because much advertising theory presumes that brand differentiation is vital for marketing success, giving reasons, and many other benefits for consumers to purchase brands differentiat ing brands different demographic segments ( Aaker, 2001; Kotler, 1994; Lancaster, 1984; Lancaster, 1979; Rosen, 1974, as cited in Romaniuk et al., 2007). Some other studies showed that brands in the same category are similar to each other and consumers do not perceiv e much difference among brands (Romaniuk et al 2007). Brand differentiation is important in markets; however brands do not have to be better or the best out of all brands in the same category, consumers buy a product when the product is just good enough for them (Ehrenberg et al 2002). Large or S mall B rands Ehrenberg, Barnard and Scriven (1997) claimed that there are large brands or small brands rather than differentiated brands. The different populations of customers lead to big or small brands in m arkets (Ehrenberg et al 1997). It is difficult for marketers to keep their brands unique or different consistently because innovative and highly differentiated brands can be copied by other competitors due to high technology (Ehrenberg et al 1997). In that context, Ehrenberg, Barnard and Scriven (1997) argued that salience becomes an important concept because it is not a single measure of brand performance, and covers broader ideas (Ehrenberg et al 1997). Not D ifferent or U nique Brands become similar and only minor functional differences exist among similar brand categories in the market (Ehrenberg et al 1997). As a result, it becomes more difficult for marketers to differentiate their brands from their competitors. Consumers do

PAGE 20

20 not perceive much d ifference when a brand is compared to other brands in the same category ( Ehrenberg et al 1997; Romaniuk et al 2007; Uncles, et al 2012). Different or unique brand image or values does not need to be present in order to appeal to consumers (Ehrenberg et al, 1997). Barwise and Meehan (2004) also claimed that marketers should focus on delivering information or messages that ma tter to consumers regardless of whether those are unique or not. A firm does not need to focus on seeking differentiators to convi nce consumers since consumers may think those differentiators are not significant to them (Barwise & Meehan, 2004). Without differentiating brands and not having any unique or different points, brands can be successful since people perceive brands to be si milar to each other (E hrenberg et al, 1997; Ehrenberg et al 2002; Romaniuk et al 2007). Creative P ublicity and S alience E hrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy and Bloom (2002) asserted that advertising works as creative publicity rather than through differentiat ion (Ehrenberg et al. 2002). This means that advertising does not need to deliver any unique or differentiating message to consumers (Ehrenberg et al 2002). Instead, advertising just serves to publicize the advertised brand ; and does not need to have a stron g persuasive message (Ehrenberg et al salience rather than brand differentiation. Brands need to be salient to consumers so that they can easily identify a certain brand in a purchasing situation (Ehrenberg et al 1997; Ehrenberg et al 2002). Publicizing a brand and mere exposure of a brand can help develop brand salience (Ehrenberg et al 2002). Romaniuk and Sharp (2002) have defined salience as the presence and richn ess of memory linked to certain brands that consumers can bring to purchasing situations.

PAGE 21

21 Salient brands can be easily identified and sta y in a consumer (Ehrenberg et al ., 2002 ). Brand salience can be achieved via creative publicity, no t providing any uni que or differentiating messages ; for example, la rg e an d po pu la r br an ds of t en do not provide strong persuasive messages to consumers, but consumers like those brands since the brands are salient and consumers are familiar with them (E hrenberg et al 2002). Since consumers do not see much difference among several brands in the same category and often tend to purchase brands that are salient and familiar to them, not taking much cognitive effort when they choose a brand the importance of brand salience is often underestimated (Barwise & Meehan, 2004). In fact, establishing distinctiveness can be an effective method to create successful publicity in advertising, showing brands creatively and in a memorable way (Ehrenberg et al 2002). C ompetitive brands are usually not significantly different or unique compared to other similar brands in the same category because if a certain brand tries some innovative things, other competitors can easily copy the innovation (Ehrenberg et al 2002). In addition, not many brands and advertisements in markets emphasize their diff erence or uniqueness (Ehrenberg et al 1997). Brand D istinctiveness Brand distinctiveness is achieved via refreshing and reminding brands into a emphasizing different or unique attributes or value of brands (Romaniuk et al 2007). P revious studies of distinctiveness may have been misdirected since many studies focused on a distinctive element that is well associated with a brand so that peop le ca n like the brand (Romaniuk et al 2007). For example, if consumers prefer blue to yellow, marketers choose blue for their brands; however, it has been claimed that regardless of the colors used in brands, effective marketing

PAGE 22

22 communications can be made wit h consistent distinctive comm unications (Romaniuk et al 2007) For example, distinctive brands can be established by using a single color eit her blue or yellow consistently T hen consumers will be able to easily identify the brand because the color is a ssociated with the brand (Ehrenberg et al 2002).Therefore, eventually, the color whatever it is will be able to replace the brand in some purchasing circumstances. This point of view gives new direction for brand distinctiveness study (Romaniuk et al 2007). The concept of distinctiveness can possibly account for brand success and dif ferent market shares (Ehrenberg et al 1997; E hrenberg et al 2002; Romaniuk et al 2007). Perceiving a difference among other similar brands is less important for cons umers to buy products (Romaniuk et al 2007). To explain brand success in markets, the concept of distinctiveness was proposed as an alternative that could explain brand success (Romaniuk et al 2007). Importance of B rand D istinctiveness Brand distincti veness is impo rtant for the following reasons: helping consumers to identify brands easily, providing an effective communication with consumers, and 2007). Brand distinctiveness is an important concep t in that it helps consumers to easily identify a certain brand among other brands (Romaniuk et al 2007). In addition, brand distinctiveness helps consumers to remember brands more easily since distinctive brands usually have strong and fresh elements th at help people to remember brands ; o nce consumers are exposed to distinctive elements within brands, the elements will help consumers at a later time to identify the brands easily (Romaniuk, et al 2007).

PAGE 23

23 Having distinctive elements allows marketers to h ave an effective communication with their consumers because highly distinctive brands can create clear messages (Romaniuk et al 2007). This helps customers to easily identify brands while reducing pos sible risk in message strategy ; b rand distinctiveness helps consumers to reduce possible confusion. If brands are distinctive, marketers will not lose potential consumers because the marketers can refresh and remind their brands to customers frequently (Romaniuk et al 2007). Researchers asserted that in gen eral, consumers do not consider much and think seriously about brands; what matters to consumers most is making their lives simple, taking minimized effort to decide brands when they are in purchasing situations (Barwise & Meehan, 2004). In this context, b rand distinctiveness benefits people in that a purchasing situation ; c onsumers will be able to have easier purchase situations, not thinking much about which brands to buy because they already have the brands they are familiar with and the familiarity of the brand will make a s li fe simpler and easier (Romaniuk et al 2007). What M akes a D istinctive B rand? Brand distinctiveness can be achieved with the following elements: brand name, color s, logos, taglines, symbols/characters, celebrities and advertising styles (Romaniuk et al 2007). Brand names can be distinctive elements since names of brands help consumers to distinguish brands easily from other similar brands in markets (Romaniuk et al 2007). Colors can be a di stinctive element; for example, a certain cola brand use s the red color and it helps consumers to easily recognize the product; l ogos of brands also

PAGE 24

24 can also be a distinctive element ; a shap e of logos such as circles, squares other shapes can be considered a distinctive element (Romaniuk et al 2007). Tagline can b e a nother distinctive element ; for example, a distinctive tagline is al 2007). Symbols or characters can be distinctive elements such a s animals and cartoon or animation characters (Romaniuk et al 2007). Celebrities can be a distinctive element person who is always associated with a certain brand i n ma rk et s (Romaniuk et al 2007). Lastly, advertising styles can cont ribute to distinctiveness (Romaniuk et al 2007). Distinctivenes s vs. D ifferentiation First, differentiation is based on being unique or different from other brands (Porter, 1985). H owever, distinctiveness is focused on refreshing and reminding brands to customers (Romaniuk et al 2007). Second differentiation focuses on meeting personal values or intrinsic consumer when they are in buying situations, helping consume rs to easily identify brands and l er (Romaniuk et al 2007).

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Brand differentiation and brand distinctiveness are regarded as two different concepts (Romaniuk et al 2007). For that reason, it becomes important to know whether consu mers perceive the two concept s as different and what factors contribute to differentiation and distinctiveness. Similarly, for commercials, it becomes important to identify the difference between c ommercial differentiation and commercial distinctiveness and what elements contribute to commercial differentiation and commercial distinctivenes s. Consequently, four research questions were developed. 1. Do the factors that contribute to brand differentiatio n differ from the factors that contribute to brand distinctiveness? 2. What factors contribute to brand differentiation and brand distinctiveness? 3. Do the factors that contribute to commercial differentiation differ from commercial distinctiveness? 4. What fac tors contribute to commercial differentiation and commercial distinctiveness? Consumers do not perceive much difference among similar brands in the same category (Romaniuk et al 2007). Brands need to be distinctive rather than different or unique to keep their consumers ; pursuing unique or different attributes is less effective to people since consumers do not perceive much difference among brands (Romaniuk et al, 2007). Distinctiveness helps consumers to find brands easily while reducing possible confusi on (Romaniuk et al 2007). Brand distinctiveness can positively influence consumers when they are in a purchase situation (Romaniuk et al 2007). This implies that brand differentiation can become less influential to consumers whey they are in a buying s ituation (Romaniuk et al 2007). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

PAGE 26

26 1. Differentiation of a brand is not related to distinctiveness of a brand. 2. Distinctiveness of a brand positively is related to brand attitude. 3. Differentiation of a brand is not related to brand attitude. 4. Distinctiveness of a brand is positively related to purchase intent. 5. Differentiation of a brand is not related to purchase intent. Similar to brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation, it is hypothesized that commercial distinctiven ess and commercial differentiation are not related, and distinctiveness of a commercial will influence consumers while differentiation of a commercial is less influential. Thus, it is hypothesized that: 6. Differentiation of a commercial is not related to d istinctiveness of a brand. 7. Distinctiveness of a commercial is positively related to commercial attitude. 8. Differentiation of a commercial is not related to commercial attitude. 9. Distinctiveness of a commercial is positively related to advertising effectivene ss. 10. Differentiation of a commercial is not related to advertising effectiveness.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY Survey Design An online survey, ideal for collecting data from a number of persons (Babbie, 1998) was conducted. Qualtrics survey software was used to develop questionnaires, including closed ended and open ended questions. Procedure Aft er obtaining approval from the I nstitutional Review Board (IRB), the researcher visited four different class rooms in the C ollege of Journalism and C ommunication s at th e University of Florida and asked students to participate Instructors for each class were informed of the visit in advance. After giv ing instruction s for this survey, 228 students voluntarily participated in the online survey. Extra credit was given for t he participation. During the survey, responden ts were shown two commercials, parodontax toothpaste and Nikon COOLPIX S8000 After each commercial, participants were asked to respond to the survey questions. When all questionnaires were completed the data were saved in the form of SPSS 17.0 via Qualtric survey software. All the complete surveys were ready for analysis in the form of SPSS 17.0. Stimulus Materials Two gold EFFIE a ward winning television commercials were selected for this study. The first re ason for this selection was the effectiveness of commercials. Th ose commercials have been prove n effective in markets. The second reason was brand involvement. Nikon COOLPIX S8000 camera (EURO EFFIES / EACA Euro Effies 2011: Gold, Consumer Goods) was selec ted for high involvement, whereas parodontax

PAGE 28

28 toothpaste (EURO EFFIES / EACA Euro Effie 2012: Gold (FMCG) was chosen for low involvement s profiles. Considering a ma jority of the survey participants were university students who are consumers of both cameras and toothpastes, those two brands were suitable. Lastly, the familiarity of brands and commercials was considered. The selected advertisements were only aired in European countries, so participants were expected to be not familiar with those brands and commercials. Variables and Measurement Familiarity and Usage B rand familiarity (Akay, 2001) was measured with a seven point Like rt type H X? ay, 2001) Distinctiveness Since there is no commonly used brand distinctiveness scale, two questions were developed based on the literature (Romaniuk et al. 2007). The first question was designed with a ten point Likert say it will be to second question was designed with an open makes it easy to recognize and remember in the future? Please type any w ords or sentences

PAGE 29

29 Differentiation Two questions were used to measure differentiation. The first question was taken from the literature (Romaniuk et al. 2007). A ten point Likert type measure was used for to what extent is the brand X different ended Attitu de t oward Brand The brand attitude scale (Rosenber, Pieters, & Wedel 1997) contains three items with five point semantic differentials. However, a seven point scale was used in this study to obtain mor T o me the brand X is f rom point 1 e t al. 1997). Purchase Intention The p urchase intention scale (Putrevu & Lord, 1994) contains three items with a seven point Likert likely that I will buy brand X will purchase brand X the next time I need a pr This scale has an alpha of .91 (Putrevu & Lord, 1994). Attitude toward Advertising At titude toward advertising scale contains three items with seven point bipolar adjectives (Muchling, 1987). For example, from p

PAGE 30

30 reported to have an alpha of .97 (Muchling, 1987). Effectiveness of Advertising The e ffectiveness of advertising (Moreau, Markman and Lehmann, 2001) has seven items with a seven point scale. However, only three items were taken from those e ss of the ad on the scale below on of the ad on the scale below from you think the ad would be in influencing consumers et al. 2001). The alpha reported for the scale was .80 (Moreau et al. 2001).

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Data C leaning Of the 228 respondent s, 6 respondents did not complete all questions, so those data were excluded from this analysis. The total number of respondents was reduced to 222. To assure the sample included sub ject s who were not familiar with brands and commercials, all respondents w ho were familiar with brands or commercials were eliminated Table 5 1 shows the number of respondents who were familiar either with brands or commer cials (Nikon COOLPIX S8000 and parodontax toothpaste). parodontax T oothpaste In product familiarity 6 people were familiar with the brand and 216 people were not In product usage, 4 respondents ha d used the product and 218 people ha d not In advertising familiarity 6 people were familiar with the commercial and 216 respondents were not. Overall, 212 resp onses were usable. Nikon COOLPIX S8000 In product familiarity, 94 participants were familiar with the brand and 128 people were not In product usage, 46 respondents ha d used the product and 174 people had not Lastly, in advertising familiarity 127 peop le were familiar with the commercial and 95 respondents were not. Consequently, 71 respon ses were usable. Sample Description parodontax Toothpaste By gender, 17 1 were female (78.4%) and 41 were male (18.8%), (Table 5 2 ). The age range was from 18 to 32 a nd 8 respondents were 18 (3.7%) 21 were 19

PAGE 32

32 (12.8%) 60 were 20 (27.5%) 60 were 21 (27.5%) and 56 were 22 and up (25.8%), (Table 5 2 ). By major, the majority of respondents were advertising and public relations majors. For example, 95 students were advert ising majors (43.6%) 62 were public relations majors (28.4%) 29 were journalism majors (13.3%) 10 were business majors (4.6%), 4 were telecommunication majors (1.8%) and 12 were in other majors (5.5%), (Table 5 2 ). For Nikon COOLPIX S8000 The total nu mber of participants for the Nikon COOLPIX S8000 in this study is 71. Out of the total sample, 49 participants were female (69%) and 22 (31%) were male (Table 5 2 ). The ages of the respondents ranged from 18 to 22 and up. Out of the total sampl e, 2 respond ents were 18 (2.8%) 7 were 19 (9.9%) 19 were 20 (26.8%) 2 2 were 21 (31%) and 2 1 were 22 and up (29.5%), (Table 5 2 ). A majority of respondents were advertising or public relations majors. For instance, 29 students were advertising majors (40.8%) 22 were public relations majors (31%) 14 were journalism majors (19.7%) 4 were business majors (5.6%) and 2 were in other majors (2.8%), (Table 5 2 ). Reliability Checks T able 5 3 shows reliability analysis of the items used for measuring independent and dep endent variables in this study. The results of the analyisis for parodontax showed that the scales were reliable. brand was 0 .93 and for purchase intent was 0 .94. In th e measure for the commercial, 0 .93, and for advertising effectiveness was 0 .93 (Table 5 3 ).

PAGE 33

33 Similarly, the results showed that the scales were reliable for Nikon COOLPIX S8000. Particularly, in the scal toward brand was 0 .94, and for purchase intent was 0 .89 In t he measure for the 0 95, and for advertising effectiveness was 0 .91 (Table 5 3 ). Result s of the Research Questions and Hypotheses Test W hat about the brand X makes it easy to recognize and remember in the future? W hat about the brand X makes it different or unique compared to other similar bra nds? were analyzed and ca tegorized into groups (Table 5 4 ). Coding Process ( parodontax Toothpaste ) Blood and Colors T he red is associated with the spittin g of the and C and by this verbatim quote ; ames were For example T he name is very unique Respon ses coded red t people who spit blood I t was a typical of response example a typical response.

PAGE 34

34 Responses code d Lastly, r esponses cod ed ample, Five was chosen at the minimum based up the 90% confidence inte rval for the set of responses (n=262). The most frequently mentioned responses for distinctiveness of parodontax w and C and ion of parodontax was and F and data ( T able 5 4 ) were collapsed into more than 5 mentions for brand parodontax with a 90% confidence interval. Table 5 4 shows that the distribution of responses for Distinctiveness and Differentiation for parodontax were different ( Distinctiveness was more associated with executional variables ( c olors in the ad, brand name and slogan). Brand differentiatio n was more associated with the traditional product usage, features and benefits. In other word s distinctiveness was associated with executional variables. Brand differentiation was associated with the product.

PAGE 35

35 Coding Process (Nikon COOLPIX S8000 ) All resp onses were ca tegorized into groups (Table 5 5 ). Responses coded Brand N Brand N ame d different from other cameras like this one. Usage and Functions E n a credibility. For example, Nikon is a popular brand us ed by a number of professionals Nine was chosen at the minimum b ased up the 90% confidence interval for the set of responses (n=81). The most frequently mentioned responses for distinctiveness of Nikon were Brand N and and (29.7%). The data ( T able 5 5 ) were collapsed into more than 9 mentions for brand parodontax with a 90% confidence interval. Table 5 5 sho ws that the distribution of responses for Distinctiveness and Differentiation for Nikon were different ( Distinctiveness was associated with both executional variables and product features ( B rand N ame, B rand E ndors ement and U sage and Functions). Majority of response shows Nikon is

PAGE 36

36 not different from other similar brands, but differentiation was still associated with the traditional product usage, features and benefits. Coding Process ( parodontax Toothpaste Comme rcial) Similar to coding process of brands, responses for the commercial were also ca tegorized into groups (Table 5 6 and Blood and d For example, It is blunt and and product featur T o stop d N levant to mentioning the brand name in the commercial. For were relevant to repeating statements in the commercial. a typical response. Five was chosen at the minimum based up the 90% confidence interval for the set of responses (n=284). The most frequently mentioned responses for commer cial distinctiveness of parodontax Blood and Colors (18.0%). Commercial differentiation of parodontax and

PAGE 37

37 and fun (T able 5 6 ) were collapsed into more than 5 mentions for commercial parodontax with a 90% confidence interval. Table 5 6 shows that the distribution of responses for Distinctiveness and Differentiation for parodontax commercial were different Chi square analysis ( = Distinctiveness of the commercial was associat ed with executional variables ( c olors and p erson in ad). Commercial differentiation was associated with both product features and colors used in the commercial. Codin g Process (Nikon COOLPIX S8000 C ommercial ) Res ponses for the Nikon commercial were ca tegorized into groups (Table 5 7 ). the advertisement talks about how related between camera and human Responses code d tinctive/ Not For Nine was chosen at the minimum based up th e 90% confidence interval for the set of responses (n=80). The most frequently mentioned responses for commercial distinctiveness of

PAGE 38

38 Commercial differentiation of Nikon was as T able 5 7 ) were collapsed into more than 9 mentions for the Nikon commercial with a 90% confidence interval. Table 5 7 shows that the distribution of responses for distinctiveness and differentiation for Nikon commercial were different ( Commercial distinctiveness was associated with executional variables (storyline and emotional appeal). Commercial differentiation, however, w as not associated with neither executional variable nor product features in that the Hypotheses Test Results Hypothesis 1 : differentiation of a brand is not relate d to distinctiveness of a brand The hypothesis 1 is not supported in that the results of both low ( r = 0.482 p < .01) and high ( r = 0.593 p < .01 ) are related. Hypothesis 2 1 : distinctiveness of a brand is positively related to brand attitude. The finding supported hypothesis 2 that both low ( r = 0.452 p < .01) and high ( r = 0.711 p < .01) Hypothesis 2 2 : differentiation of a bra nd is not related to brand attitude. T he hy pothesis was not supported parodontax ( r = 484 p < .01) and Nikon ( r = 0.400 p < .01). Hypothesis 3 1 : distinctiveness of a brand is positively related to purchase inten t. The hypothesis was supported parodon tax ( r = 0.286 p < .01) and Nikon ( r = 0.467 p < .01).

PAGE 39

39 Hypothesis 3 2 : differentiation of a brand is not related to purchase intent. Thi s hypothesis was not supported parodontax ( r = 0.192 p < .01) and Nikon ( r = 0.296 p < .01 ). Hypothesis 4 : differ entiation of an advertisement is not related to distinctiveness of an advertisement T he hypothesis was not supported parodontax Ad ( r = 0.671 p < .01) and Nikon Ad ( r = 0.571 p < .01). Hypothesis 5 1 : distinctiveness of an advertisement is positively related to attitude toward the advertisement. The hypothesis was supported parodontax Ad ( r = 0.208 p < .01) and Nikon Ad ( r = 0.600 p < .01). Hypothesis 5 2 : differentiation of an advertisement is not related to atti tude toward advertisement. Th e hy pothesis was supported for parodontax Ad ( r = 0.133 p > .0 5 ) bu t no t for Nikon Ad ( r = 0.510 p < .01). Hypothesis 6 1 : distinctiveness of a commercial is positively related to advertising effectiveness. This hypothesis was supported. parodontax Ad ( r = 0.462 p < .01) and Nikon Ad ( r = 0.682 p < .01). Hypothesis 6 2 : differentiation of commercial is not related to advertising effectiveness. The hypothesis was not supported parodontax Ad ( r = 0.420 p < .01) and Nikon Ad ( r = 0.607 p < .01).

PAGE 40

40 Table 5 1 D ata c leaning for parodontax toothpaste and Nikon COOLPIX S8000 parodontax toothpaste Nikon COOLPIX S8000 Product familiarity Yes (# 1 2 3) 6 94 No (# 4 5 6 7) 216 128 Used products Yes 4 46 No 218 174 AD Familiarity Yes 6 127 No 216 95 R espondent Not usable 10 151 Usable 212 71 Table 5 2 Demographic profile for parodontax toothpaste and Nikon COOLPIX S8000 parodontax toothpaste Nikon COOLPIX S8000 Gender (n = 212) # % Gender (n = 71) # % Female 171 78.4 Female 49 69 Male 41 18.8 M ale 22 31 Age # % Age # % 18 8 3.7 18 2 2.8 19 28 12.8 19 7 9.9 20 60 27.5 20 19 26.8 21 60 27.5 21 22 31.0 22 Plus 56 25.8 22 Plus 21 29.5 Major # % Major # % Advertising 95 43.6 Advertising 29 40.8 Journalism 29 13.3 Journalism 14 19.7 Public Relations 62 28.4 Public Relations 22 31.0 Telecommunication 4 1.8 Telecommunication 0 0 Business 10 4.6 Business 4 5.6 Other 12 5.5 Other 2 2.8

PAGE 41

41 Table 5 3 Reliability a nalysis for i ndependent and d ependent m easures Measures Items # parodontax toothpaste (n=212) Brand a ttitude 3 0.93 Purchase intent 3 0.94 Attitude toward Ad 3 0.93 Advertising effectiveness 3 0.93 Nikon COOLPIX S 8000 (n=71) Brand a ttitude 3 0.94 Purchase intent 2 0.89 Attitude toward Ad 3 0.95 Adv ertising effectiveness 3 0.91 Table 5 4 Responses for parodontax t oothpaste Distinctiveness Differentiation # % # % Blood and Colors 75 28.6 24 10.2 Usage and Functions 42 16.0 122 52.1 Brand name 38 14.5 13 5.6 Slogan 26 9.9 3 1.3 Person i n ad 20 7.6 4 1.7 Negative reaction 13 5.0 9 3.8 Package 12 4.6 5 2.1 Text 8 3.1 1 0 Health information 6 2.3 15 6.4 All other 22 8.3 38 15.8 Total 262 100 234 100 Chi square analysis ( Table 5 5 Responses for Nikon COOLPIX S8000 Distinctiveness Differentiation # % # % Brand name 10 12.3 1 1.4 Not distinctive/ Not different 10 12.3 27 36.5 Usage and functions 9 11.1 22 29.7 Brand endorsement 9 11.1 3 4.0 All other 43 53.2 21 28.3 Total 81 100 74 100 Chi square analysis (

PAGE 42

42 Table 5 7 Responses for Nikon COOLPIX S8000 c ommercial Distinctiveness Differentiation # % # % Storyline 18 22.5 11 14.7 Emotional appeal 11 13.8 8 10.7 Not distinctive /Not different 10 12.5 30 40.0 Other 41 51.7 26 34.6 Total 80 100 75 100 Chi square analysis ( Table 5 6 Responses for parodontax t oothpaste c ommercial Distinctiveness Differentiation # % # % Blood and Colors 102 35.9 64 24 Person in ad 51 18.0 26 9.7 Negative reaction 25 8.8 19 7.1 Usage and functions 24 8.5 54 20.2 Narrator voice 20 7.0 15 5.6 Brand name 16 5.6 4 1.5 Slogan 14 4.9 4 1.5 Other 32 9.7 81 16.7 Total 284 100 267 100 Chi square analysis ( = 63.426

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION The goal of this study was to determine whether factors contributing to brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation differ. Several factors associated with brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation were identified via open ended questions. The study further examined elements associated with commercial distinctiveness and commercial differentiation. Unlike distributions of factors associated with di stinctiveness and differe ntiation were i dentified. The following paragraphs discuss the result s related to the research questions. Answers for Research Questions Research question 1 asked whether the factors contributing to brand differentiation differ fro m those of brand distinctiveness. The result indicates that the distribution of responses for brand distinctiveness and brand differentiation were different. The distributions of responses in parodontax ( were sta tistically different between brand distinctiveness and differentiation. The distributions of responses in Nikon ( different between brand differentiation and brand distinctiveness. Research quest ion 2 asked which factors contribute to brand differentiation and brand distinctiveness. In parodontax (low involvement), executional va riables (60.6%) and associated with brand distinctiven and (52.1%) were primary factors contributing to brand differentiation. In Nikon (High followed and Functions (1

PAGE 44

44 and sociated with differentiation for Nikon. A m ajority of people perceive a Nikon camera is not different from other brands. These find ings suggest that by usin g executional variables (Blood and Colors, Brand name, Slogan and Person in ad), marketers could establish brand distinctiveness. Research question 3 asked whether the factors contributing to commercial differentiation differ fro m those of commercial distinctiveness. The distribution of responses for commercial distinctiveness and commercial differentiation were unlike. The distributions of responses in the parodontax commercial ( .000) were sta tistically different between commercial distinctiveness and commercial differentiation. The distributions of responses in the Nikon commercial ( = 15.376, df = rcial distinctiveness. Research question 4 asked what factors contribute to commercial differentiation and commercial distinctiveness Unlike distributions of response were identified. In the parodontax and Colors tors most frequently and Colors and (13.8%) were most frequently associated with commercial commercial differentiation.

PAGE 45

45 Evaluation of Hypotheses The result of h ypothesis 1 showed that d ifferentiation of a brand is related to distinctiveness of a brand for both low and high involvement brands This indicate s that brand differentiation and brand distinctiveness are related. These findings may be due to similarity of brand differentiation a nd brand distinctiveness. The result of h ypothesis 2 1 indicated that distinctiveness of a brand is positively related to brand attitude. High involvement brand (Nikon) shows high corr e la t ion than that of low involvement brand ( parodontax ). The result of h ypothesis 2 2 showed that b rand differentiation and attitude toward brand are related in both parodontax and Nikon The result of h ypothesis 3 1 showed that distinctiveness of a brand is positively related to purchase inten t for both parodontax and Ni kon The result of h ypothesis 3 2 showed that differentiation of a brand is related to purchase intent. There were correlations between brand differentiation and purchase intention. The result of h ypothesis 4 indicated that differe ntiation of an advertise ment is related to distinctiveness of an advertisement in both cases of parodontax a d vertising and Nikon a d vertising. These findings may be due to similarity of commercial differentiation and commercial distinctiveness and the concept of distinctiveness may have not be en familiar to respondents The result of h ypothesis 5 1 showed that distinctiveness of an advertisement is positively related to attitude toward the advertisemen t in both case of t he Nikon commercial and the parodontax commercial The res ult of h ypothesis 5 2 indicated that differentiation of an advertisement is related to attitude toward advertisement for low involvement brand but not for high involvement brand

PAGE 46

46 The result of h ypothesis 6 1 showed that distinctiveness of a commercial is positively related to advertising effectiveness for both t he parodontax commercial and the Nikon commercial. The result of h ypothesis 6 2 indicated that differentiation of commercial is relate d to advertising effectiveness in both cases of parodontax ad v ertising and Nikon ad vertising Managerial Implications From a business practice view the main contribution of the present study is that different marketing strategies may need to be applied for different marketing goals. For example, developing effective executional varia bles (Blood and Colors and Brand N ame) may increase distinctiveness level of a brand and a commercial via marketing activities while focusing on product usage, features and benefits may be able to contribute to brand differentiation and commercial differentiation. Moreover, distinctiveness is often associate C olors and B rand N that can easily be seen via advertising. This implies people perceive distinctiveness via what they just saw instinct ivel y. On the other hand, it seems that perceiving differentiation requires more cognitive process. When people perceived differentiation, they frequently mentioned not what they just saw, but what they understood. For example, the typical response of differe ntiation was It positions itself as toothpaste that will help prevent bleeding gums se indicates people try to find the particular features and functions of difference when they perceive differentiation (Reeves, 1961). This requires more co gnitive effort. The finding supports (Romaniuk et al 2007). Although brand distinctiveness and brand differentiat ion were related in this study a ccording to the data, the r s quares were fair ly small. This implies that

PAGE 47

47 distinctiveness and differentiation are related, but not the same. Thu s, there may be other differences between distinctiveness and differentiation More advanced statistical analysis could inde ntify more meaningful differences between distinctiveness and differentiation. Lastly, this study implies that more factors related to distinctiveness may exist because only two commercial were used for this study. Since current distinctiveness study is not sufficient more distinctive stu dies could contribute to brand study (Romaniuk et al 2007).

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 7 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Several limitations were found in the present study. The f irst limitation is the sample distribution. The majority of subjects were advertising major s Since participants had m ore knowledge about advertising they may have give n more attention to advertis ement than typical consumers in markets. Also, there were more female s than male s This unbalanced gender distribution could have influenced the result A more diverse and randomly selected sample could represent the general population better. The s econd limitation is the online survey. Since this study was conducted online, the research had only low control power for the survey and participants watched commercials and conducted the survey via their personal laptops or computers in different locations and different internet speed s Those factors could possibly have affected the result s of the survey. T he t hird limitation is different brand and commercia l familiarity. Initially, the researcher tried to select brands and commercials that are not familiar to participants; however, the majority of participants were familiar with Nikon brand (68%) but only a few people were familiar with parodontax brand (5% ). All participants who were familiar with the brands were removed. Consequently, only 71 (32%) participants were used for the present study, but 212 (95%) responses were used for the analysis. Those different sample sizes may have influenced the result s i n the present study. Lastly, there is a limitation in the statistical analysis. Although a difference was found between distinctiveness and differentiation, the correlation analysis shows distinctiveness and differentiation are related This indicates that in future studies, more

PAGE 49

49 advanced statistical methods are suggested to explore and identify the relation of distinctiveness and differentiation. Also, the present study did not show much implication about the relation of distinctiveness and purchase intens ion F uture study may need to examine the relation between distinctiveness and purchase intention.

PAGE 50

50 APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF QUESTIONNAIRES A. Brand: parodontax Toothpaste The Question for Familiarity: parodontax toothpaste 1. How familiar are you with pa rodontax toothpaste? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely familiar 2. Have you ever used/owned parodontax toothpaste? Yes No 3. Have you ever seen an advertisement/commercial for parodontax toothpaste? Yes No The Question for Brand Distinctiv eness: parodontax toothpaste 1 1. How easy would you say it will be to recognize and remember the brand ( parodontax toothpaste) compared to other similar brands of toothpaste in the future? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 1 2. What about the brand ( parodontax toothpaste) makes it easy to recognize and remember in the future? Please type any words or sentences. _____________________________________________________________________ The Question for Brand Differentiation: parodon tax toothpaste 2 1. Compared to other similar brands of toothpastes, to what extent is the brand ( parodontax toothpaste) different or unique from other similar brands? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 2 2. What about the brand ( parodontax toothpaste) makes it different or unique compared to other similar brands? Please type any words or sentences. _____________________________________________________________________

PAGE 51

51 The Question for Brand Attitude: parodontax toothpaste 3. To me, the brand ( parodontax toothpaste) is: Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good No value for money 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Value for money Low quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High quality The Question for Purchase Intent: parodontax toothpaste 4 1. It is very likely that I will buy the brand ( parodontax toothpaste). Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree 4 2. I will purchase the brand ( parodontax toothaste) the next time I need toothpaste. Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree 4 3. I will definitely try the bra nd ( parodontax toothpaste). Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree B. Brand: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 The Question for Familiarity: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 1. How familiar are you with Nikon COOLPIX S8000? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely familiar 2. Have you ever used/owned Nikon COOLPIX S8000? Yes No 3. Have you ever seen an advertisement/commercial for Nikon COOLPIX S8000? Yes No

PAGE 52

52 The Question for Brand Distinctiveness: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 1 1. How easy would you say it will be to recogn ize and remember the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) compared to other similar brands of toothpaste in the future? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 1 2. What about the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) makes it easy to recognize and remember in the future? Please type any words or sentences. _____________________________________________________________________ The Question for Brand Differentiation: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 2 1. Compared to other similar brands of toothpastes, to what extent is the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) different or unique from other similar brands? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 2 2. What about the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) makes it different or unique compared to other similar brands? Pleas e type any words or sentences. ______________________________________________________________________ The Question for Brand Attitude: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 3. To me, the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) is: Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good No value for money 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Value for money Low quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High quality The Question for Purchase Intent: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 4 1. It is very likely that I will buy the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000). Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree

PAGE 53

53 4 2. I will purc hase the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) the next time I need toothpaste. Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree 4 3. I will definitely try the brand (Nikon COOLPIX S8000). Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree C. Commercial: parodontax Toothpaste The Question for Commercial Distinctiveness: parodontax Toothpaste 1 1. How easy would you say it will be to recognize and remember the commercial ( parodontax toothpaste) compared to other similar commercials for toothpaste in the future? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 1 2. What about the commercial ( parodontax toothpaste) makes it easy to recognize and remember in the future? Please type any words or sentences. _______________________________________________________________ ______ The Question for Commercial Differentiation: parodontax toothpaste 2 1. Compared to other similar commercial for toothpastes, to what extent is the commercial ( parodontax toothpaste) different or unique from other similar brands? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 2 2. What about the commercial ( parodontax toothpaste) makes it different or unique compared to other similar commercials? Please type any words or sentences. __________________________________________________ ___________________ The Question for Attitude toward Advertising: parodontax toothpaste 3. What do you think about the commercial ( parodontax toothpaste)? Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive

PAGE 54

54 Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable The Question for Advertising effectiveness: parodontax toothpaste 4 1. Please rate the overall effectiveness of the ad on the scale below ( parodontax toothpaste): Not at all effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 4 2. Please provide your overall ev aluation of the ad the scale below ( parodontax toothpaste): Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good 4 intentions ( parodontax toothpaste)? Not at all effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective D. Commercial: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 The Question for Commercial Distinctiveness: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 1 1. How easy would you say it will be to recognize and remember the commercial (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) compared to other similar commercials for toothpa ste in the future? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar 1 2. What about the commercial (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) makes it easy to recognize and remember in the future? Please type any words or sentences. ___________________________________ __________________________________ The Question for Commercial Differentiation: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 2 1. Compared to other similar commercial for toothpastes, to what extent is the commercial (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) different or unique from other simila r brands? Not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely familiar

PAGE 55

55 2 2. What about the commercial (Nikon COOLPIX S8000) makes it different or unique compared to other similar commercials? Please type any words or sentences. _______________________________ ______________________________________ The Question for Attitude toward Advertising: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 3. What do you think about the commercial (Nikon COOLPIX S8000)? Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive Unfavorable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable The Question for Advertising effectiveness: Nikon COOLPIX S8000 4 1. Please rate the overall effectiveness of the ad on the scale below (Nikon COOLPIX S8000): Not at all effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effective 4 2. Please provide your overall evaluation of the ad the scale below (Nikon COOLPIX S8000): Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good 4 intentions (Nikon COOLPIX S8000)? Not at all effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very effec tive E. Demographic Questions 1. What is your Gender? Male Female 2. What is your age?______________

PAGE 56

56 3. What years are you? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Master Ph. D 4. What is your major? Advertising Journalism Public Relations Teleco mmunication Business Other

PAGE 57

57 APPENDIX B STIMULUS MATERIALS: TV ADS Two TV commercials were taken from the official Euro Effie website. parodontax toothpaste: ht tp://www.adforum.com/euro effie/2012/#/campaign_6714731/difference Nikon COOLPIX S8000: http://www.adforum.com/euro effie/2011/#/campaign_6709068/i am nikon

PAGE 58

58 LIST OF REFERENCE S Aaker, D.A. (1984) Strategic market management New York Wiley, c1984. Aaker, D.A. (2001) Strategic Market Management (Sixth ed). John Wiley & Sons, New York. Aaker, D.A. (2004) Brand Portfolio Strategy. Free Press and colophon are tradem arks of simon & Schuster, Inc. Agris, S (2001) Presentation to Stanford University, March 2001. Agre, S. S. (1 995) Leading and Lagging Indicators of Brand Health. In Brand Equity and the Marketing Mix: Creating Customer Vahw, S. Sood, ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Akay, E (2001). The effects of executional elements of advertisements on the perception of brand personality, Master s thesis, University of Florida. Babbie, E (1998) The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Compa ny, 8th Edition. Westford, MA B arwise, P. & Meehan, S. (2004) Simply Better: Winning and keeping customers by delivering what matters most. Harvard Business School. Press, Boston. Bradley, F. (1991) International Marketing Strategy ( Second ed ) London: Prentice Hall. Cave s, R.E., Williamson P.J. (1985) What is Product Differentiation, Really?. Journal of Industrial Economics 34 (2), 113 132. Dickson, P. R. (1997) Marketing Management ( Second ed) Florida: The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publi shers. Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (2000) Repe ti tive advertising and the Consumer. Journal of Advertising Research 14 ( 2 ) (1974): 25 34. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Bar nard, N.R. & Scriven, J. (1997) Differentiation or Salience. Journal of Advertising Research 37 (6), 7 14 Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Barnard, N.R., Kennedy, R. & Bloom, H. (2002) Brand advertising as creative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research 42 (4), 7 18. Ehrenberg. A.S.C. & Goodhardt, G.J. (2001) New Brands: Near Instant Loyalty. Jou rn al of Targeting, M easurement and Analysis for Marketing 10 ( 1 ) (2001): 9 16. Fennell, G. G (1978) Perceptions of the product In Use situation Journal of Marketing 42 (4), 39 47.

PAGE 59

59 Fulmer, W.E & Goodwin, J. (1988) Differentiation: Begin with the Consumer. Business Horizons ( 9 10 ), 55 63. Guilt inan, J. P. & Paul, G.W. (1991) Corporate Strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33 ( 2), pp. 233 258. Kaul, A & Wittink D.R (1995) Empirical Generalizations about the Impact of Advertising o n Price Sensitivity and Price. Marketing Science, 14 (3), 151 60. Keller, K.L. & Sternthal, B. Tybout, A. (2002) Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand. Harvard Business Review 80 (9), 80 86. Ke nnedy, R & Ehrenberg, A. (2001) Competing Retailers Generally Have the Same Sorts of Shoppers. Journal of Marketing Communications & (Special Retail Edition), 1 8. Kennedy, R., E hrenberg, A. & Long, S., (2000) Profiles Hardly Differ. In: Market Research Society Conference Proceedi ngs Brighton England. Kotler, P. (1994) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Cpntrol (Eighth ed.). Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Kotler, P., Ang, S.H, Leong, S.M.& Tan, C.T. (1996) Marketing Management An Asian Perspective. Prentice Hall, Singapore. Lancaster, K. (1984) Brand Advertising Competition and Industry Demand. Journal of Advertising 13 19 30 Lancaster, K. (1979) Variety, Equity, and Efficiency. Columbia University Press New York. Levy, S.J. (1959) Symbol for Sale. Harvard Business Review 37 (6 8), 117 24. Martineau, P. (1958) Social Class and Spending Behavior Journal of Marketing, 22 (10), 121 30. McAlister, L. (1979) Choosing Multiple Items from a Product Class. Journal of Con sumer Research 6 (12), 213 24. McAl ister, L & Pessemier, E. (1982) Variety Seeking: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (12), 311 22. Mitra, A & Lynch, J. G (1995) Toward a Reconciliation of Market Power and Information Theories of Advertising Effects on Price Elasticity. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (3), 644 59.

PAGE 60

60 Moreau, P.C. Markman, A.B & Lehm ann, D.R. (2004) What Is It? Categorization J ournal of C onsumer R esearch 2 7 (4), 489 498. Muehling, D.D (1987) An Investigation of Factors Underlying Attitude Toward Advertising General, J ournal of A dvertising 16 (1), 32 40. Nelson, P.E. (1974) Advertising as Information Journal of Political Economy 81 ( 7 ), 729 745. Nelson, P. E. (1970) Information and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Political Economy 78 311 329. Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986) Strategic brand concept image Management. Journal of Marketing 50 (10). 135 45. Popkowsk i, Leszczyc & Rao, R.C. ( 1989) An Empirical Analysis of National and Local Advertising Effect no Price Elasticity. Marketing Letters 1 (6), 149 60. Porter, M.E (1980) Competitive Strategy. New York, NY: The Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage New York: The Free Press. Putrevu, S. & Lord, K.R. (1994) Comparative and Noncomparative advertising attitudinal Effects Under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions. J ournal of A dvertising 23 (6), 77 90 Reeves, R. (1961) Reality in Advertising. Knopf, Alfred A Inc, New York. Ries, A. & Trout, J. (1986) Positioning: The Battle For Your Mind. McGraw Hill Inc. New York. Romaniuk, J., Sharp,B & Ehrenberg, A. (2007) Evidence concerning the importance of perceived brand differentiation. Austral asian Marketing Jo urnal 15 (2). Rosen, S. (1974) Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy 82 ( 1 2 ), 34 55. Rosbergen, E Pieters, R. & Wedel, M (1997) Visual Attention to Advertising: A Segment Level Anal ysis. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (12), 305 14. Sharp, B. & Dawes, J.G. (2001) What is Differentiation and How Does it work?. Journal of Marketing Management 17 739 759. Sirgy, J.M (1982). Self Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journa l of Consumer Research 9 (12), 287 300. Solomon M.R(1983). The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective Journal of Consumer Research 10 (12), 319 29.

PAGE 61

61 Stewart, W. D. (1986) The moderating role of recall, comprehension and brand differentiation on the persuasiveness of television advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (6), 23 26. Stewart, W. D., & Furse, H. D. (198 5 ) Effective television advertising: a study of 1000 commercials. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. Stewar t, W. D., & Furse, H. D. (2000) Analysis of the Impact of Executional factors on advertising performance. Journal of Advertising Research 40 (11 12) 85 88 Sutherland, J.C., Figueroa, R., & Cook, W. (1986) The relationship between commerci al executional variables and brand & commercial differentiation. Uncles, M., Kenndy, R., Nenycz thie l., Singh, J. & Kwok, S. (2012) In 25 years, Across 50 Categories, User Profiles for Directly Competing Brands Seldom Differ. Journal of Advertising Resea rch 2 (6), 252 261.

PAGE 62

62 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ilyoung Ju was born in December, 1984 at Uir yeong, Kyungnam, So uth Korea. He went to Uiryeong M iddle S chool an d Uir yeong H igh S chool, spending most of his childhood ther e. He graduated from Uir yeong H igh S chool i n 2003 and h e earned his Bachelor of A dvertising from Kookmin University in 2011 He received his Master of A dvertising from the University of Florida in the summer of 201 3.