Brand typicality impact on brand imitations evaluation and categorization

Abstract

Purpose This research aims to explore the impact of an overlooked variable, brand typicality, on brand evaluation and the categorization of counterfeits and imitations. Design/methodology/approach The research design is a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 mixed design with the first three variables as between-subjects variables and the last as a within-subjects variable on a convenience sample of 287 respondents split into eight experimental conditions. Data are analyzed using Linear Mixed Models. Findings Results show that brand typicality and brand name and product appearance manipulations impact brand evaluation and categorization. Regarding brand evaluation, under high typicality conditions, any manipulation of brand name and/or product appearance, from identical to different, results in a less favorable evaluation, whereas under low typicality conditions, only brand name manipulation negatively impacts brand evaluation. Concerning categorization, under high typicality conditions, any change in brand name and/or product appearance results in the item’s categorization as an imitation or a counterfeit, whereas under low typicality conditions, the item may be categorized as either genuine or as imitation or counterfeit. Originality/value This research demonstrates the impact of brand typicality on both the evaluation and categorization of changes in brand name and product appearance. It also suggests that brands and product classes are not equal vis-à-vis counterfeiting and imitation. High typicality brand seems less vulnerable to counterfeiting and imitation. Findings are discussed regarding brand vulnerability to imitation and counterfeiting, the importance of considering competitive context, brand management and brand strategy.

ERP evidence for consumer evaluation of copycat brands

“…Based on this perspective, the CN strategy, which activated associations with the memories of pleasant experience of the leading brand and its products, could encourage consumers to feel more fluent compared to other strategies. Thus, the positive evaluations associated with the leader brand are likely to be infused into the copycat brand [ 10 , 41 ], giving rise to the positive evaluations observed for the CN strategy.…”

“…Even for some products, a low-similarity copycat brand name was preferred over an identical brand name [ 9 ]. These copycat activities may result in confusion for consumers [ 10 ]. The underlying mechanism of this effect can be traced to consumer persuasion knowledge.…”

«Паразитичний Маркетинг»: Ризики Та Алгоритм Захисту Для Торговельних Марок.

“…Key words: «parasitic marketing», brand, trademark, protection of TM, counterfeit goods, antiparasitic actions. [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”

“…Цікавою є класифікація підробок, яку навів у своєму дослідженні французький економіст Андре Леруа [7]. Він визначає два типи подібності: буквальна схожість і семантична схожість.…”

“…Таблиця 2 Типологія форм та способів підробки та імітації за А. Леруа [7] З даних таблиці 4 бачимо, що буквальна і семантична схожість суттєво впливають на вибір споживача, а маніпуляції над ТМ та зовнішнім виглядом товарів були успішними. На підставі результатів оцінки респондентами можна зробити висновок, що в більшій мірі на складність ідентифікації підробленого товару від оригінального впливає семантична схожість.…”