Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference

Abstract

This study examines whether appearance of corporate, product and dual brand names (or a combination of brand names used together) on packaging influence consumer purchase preference. The face-to-face survey consists of consumers rating their purchase preference on a 7-point scale sixteen random brand names, and combinations of brand names on packaging along with three different prices, each for two product categories: chocolate and cereals -a total of 4032 observations are examined. Hypotheses are tested using multiple linear regression models. The findings show corporate, product and dual brand names have little impact on purchase preference per se, instead brand category dominance influence consumer choice, and corporate names do not add value as previously thought. The study suggests trends and contexts in which, a corporate name and a product brand name may be extended to optimise consumer brand associations and influence purchase, as well as strategies for extending in remote product categories. Future research needs focusing on international consumers' response on brand linkages in the international arena, and the issues of brand building and brand equity maintenance in international markets. The study makes contribution to brand extension, brand portfolio management and strategic brand management research.

Exploring branding strategies of FMCG, services and durables brands: evidence from India

“…Other researchers have defined branding strategies at the company level by taking the entire portfolio of brands of the company as a unit of analysis which is discussed further. Corporate-dominant strategy is defined as the strategy in which only corporate brand name is used in all communications of the company (Gray and Smeltzer, 1985;Murphy, 1987;Laforet andSaunders, 1994, 2005). Olins (1989) has given it the name of Monolithic strategy whereas Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), and Rajagopal and Sanchez (2004) name it Branded House Strategy while Berens et al (2002) call it corporate branding strategy.…”

“…Olins (1989) has given it the name of Monolithic strategy whereas Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), and Rajagopal and Sanchez (2004) name it Branded House Strategy while Berens et al (2002) call it corporate branding strategy. Here, corporate brand symbolizes conglomerate name, company name and house/subsidiary name (Laforet andSaunders, 1994, 2005;Keller, 2008). Gray and Smeltzer (1985) also state that when a company, essentially operating in only one product line, uses its company brand only, it is called single entity branding strategy.…”

“…Assuming individual characteristics to be constant and consumers to be a homogenous group, we define the three sectors in the broader sense. The products under the scope of FMCG are mostly those that are frequently purchased and are characterised by low involvement, low purchase transaction amount and low risk (East, 1997;Kotler, 2000), like food and beverages such as candies, chocolates, ice-creams, cereals, milk, butter, juices, soft drinks (Vaughn, 1980;Saunders and Guoqun, 1996;Silayoi and Speece, 2004;Hamiln and Wilson, 2004;Wei et al, 2009;Laforet, 2011), personal care products such as soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, deodorants (Vaughn, 1980), household care products such as detergents, insect repellents (Vaughn, 1980;Knox and Walker, 2001), and personal stationery (Zikmund and Scott, 1974) etc. On the other hand, a service is any activity or benefit offered for sale that is essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of anything, such as air travel, hairdressing, legal services etc.…”

High Status Brands in Low Status Stores, and Vice Versa: Which Status Object Drives Price Premium?

“…Previous research on branding has distinguished between different types of brands, for example Individual brands, Dual Brands and Corporate brands. In her study on chocolate and cereals, Laforet (2011) found that the purchase preferences were not influences by the type of brand, implying that it made no difference whether a brand was individual, dual or corporate. In fact, she found that both supermarkets' own labels and individual brands had a negative effect in the studied product categories.…”

Consumers’ Satisfaction with 7up Packaging: an empirical Analysis

“…I have previously also pointed out that some early works on the promotional role of packaging outside Nigeria include [4], [5], [6], [7]. Recent works and writings on the promotional role of packaging include [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [1, and 2]. [1,2] considered and empirically tested the packaging theory by [4], one of the outstanding theoretical works in the literature in assessing the effects of packaging on consumers.…”