Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity

Kent, Robert J.; Allen, Chris T.

doi:10.1177/002224299405800307

Cited by 461 publications

(323 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

304

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to obtain the results and based on previous researchers (Kent & Allen, 1994;Wedel & Pieters, 2000;Chandon, 2002;Hoeffler & Keller, 2003), the following hypotheses have been verified in this research:…”

Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Neuromarketing and its implications for operations management: an experiment with two brands of beer

Oliveira

Giraldi

2019

Gest. Prod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuromarketing and neurophysiology of consumer behavior and sensory experiences are growing in research results and importance to the operations activities due to the possibility of designing products and processes that are more suitable to the consumers’ needs. In addition, there is a wide range of applications on the shop floor, such as safety design, man-machine design and other applications related with cognitive processing and its impact on human behavior. This article discusses the impact of advertising of recognized brands on the visual selective attention of young adults in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The discussion considered the model of dual cognitive processing, in which prolonged effects of exposure to brands with strong positive associations would result in increased selective attention and commitment to strong brands. An experiment with two brands of beer using an eye-tracking equipment to identify the patterns of visual attention was carried out. The results showed that there are considerable differences in young adults for visual attention, with greater attention to strong brands. The study may help to develop more effective marketing campaigns and products, providing the consumers a better experience. Furthermore, it also allows for a better comprehension on attention at the workplace, providing important insights in several areas of production, such as work safety, repetitive processes, equipment handling among others.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Neuromarketing and its implications for operations management: an experiment with two brands of beer

Oliveira

Giraldi

2019

Gest. Prod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been noted in past research that in a competitive ad context, the recall of a target brand's ad claims may be decreased by exposure to other brands in the same product category (Burke & Srull, 1988; Keller, 1987; Kent, 1997; Kent & Allen, 1994). Research further suggests that the highly cluttered and competitive nature of ads can be detrimental to message recall and effectiveness.…”

Section: Summary and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in this study, only two levels of competitive ad context were manipulated: zero versus two competing ads. This decision was made by following protocols from previous studies (Kent & Allen, 1994; Malaviya, Meyers‐Levy, & Sternthal, 1999). Some studies employing varying levels of competing ads, however, suggest that increasing the level of competition could be detrimental to memory and evaluation of the target brand (Burke & Srull, 1988; Keller, 1987).…”

Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of product knowledge on consumer product memory and evaluation in the competitive ad context: The item‐specific‐relational perspective

Lee

2011

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research evidence to date suggests that the combined presence of item-specific and relational processing is necessary to induce higher memory performance of the target ad and proper evaluation of the target brand. This elaborative processing, however, requires cognitive capacity. In this paper, an item-specific-relational processing framework was employed to explain the roles of consumer product knowledge in the competitive and non-competitive ad contexts. Findings from an experimental study suggest that high-and low-knowledge consumers differed in product memory and evaluation in competitive and non-competitive ad contexts. Such differences could be explained by consumers' engaging in item-specific and/or relational processing depending on whether target brand information was presented with or without information on competing brands. It appears Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 28(4) For product information in ads to be stored in and retrieved from memory by consumers, the information should receive sufficient processing at the time of encoding. Research evidence to date suggests that the combined presence of relational and item-specific encoding is necessary to induce higher memory performance and favorable evaluation of advertising claims (Kent & Machleit, 1990;Meyers-Levy, 1991). Item-specific processing focuses on elaboration on information specifically described for an object, whereas relational processing involves emphasizing similarities or commonalities among pieces of information associated with the product category. Both types of processing appear to make a distinct contribution to consumer learning in terms of ad memory and product judgments. What is more important is that only when people are engaged in both types of processing will they be able to judge, with reasonable certitude, how good a target product's favorable features are in relation to competing brands in the same category (Einstein & Hunt, 1980).:Although item-specific and relational processing should enhance product memory and evaluations, conditions under which the two types of elaboration are operative have not yet been well delineated. The elaborative processing during encoding seems to be manifested differently with the level of product knowledge (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987;Brucks, 1985). For instance, when exposed to a new laptop ad with technological jargon, high-knowledge consumers may be able to understand those attributes (item-specific processing) and evaluate the item's quality in relation to competing brands (relational processing), while lowknowledge consumers may not understand the attributes properly or evaluate the brand due to their lack of knowledge about laptops. However, prior research has not examined the potential role of consumer knowledge in moderating the effects of item-specific and relational processing on product memory and evaluations. Therefore, to understand memory performance and product evaluations more precisely, the role of product knowledge should be incorporated in a combined item-specific-relational ...

show abstract

“…All other aspects which may possibly induce confounding reactions were carefully treated in the same way among the groups. After reading the scenarios, participants completed their perceived brand familiarity on a three‐item scale for the purpose of manipulation check (Kent & Allen, ). The items were as follows: (a) “I feel very familiar with brand GAP [DressUp],” (b) “I feel very experienced with brand GAP [DressUp],” and (c) “I know the products of brand GAP [DressUp]” (1 = unfamiliar/inexperienced/not knowledgeable , 9 = familiar/experienced/knowledgeable ; α = 0.98).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Familiar brands build a stronger and accessible knowledge structure which makes consumers exert less effort in processing information about the brands (Campbell & Keller, ). That is, the information regarding familiar brands is more easily retrieved and stored (Kent & Allen, ), for example, consumers familiar with a brand tend to use their well‐established internal price standards when assessing the merchant‐supplied reference price (Herr, ). On the contrary, unfamiliar brands elicit a weaker and limited knowledge structure, which makes consumers participate in more extensive processing (Campbell & Keller, ).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Retail is detail! Give consumers a gift rather than a bundle”: Promotion framing and consumer product returns

Lee

2018

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retailers often use the promotion strategy of offering supplementary products (e.g., free gift, bundle) to attract consumers and increase sales. Despite the growing literature on the promotions that are differently framed but offer economically identical values, little research has examined the link between promotion framing and consumer product returns. The current article sheds light on this relationship, hypothesizing that a free gift promotion would be superior to a bundle promotion in reducing consumer product returns. The findings suggest that a gift-framed promotion leads to a lower product return intention than an economically equivalent bundle promotion, because consumers tend to perceive more loss from giving up the gift-framed (vs. bundle-framed) deal. Further, this study examines a moderating role of brand familiarity (familiar vs. unfamiliar) and shows that the merits of free gift framing on product return intention via perceived loss are amplified (attenuated) when the promoted brand is familiar (unfamiliar). Overall, the investigations of this study imply that it is better to frame a promotion as a "free gift" than a "bundle" to increase perceived loss in returning the purchase and thus to decrease consumer product returns. This strategic intervention works especially when the gift is offered by familiar brands. K E Y W O R D Sbrand familiarity, bundle, free gift, perceived loss, product returns, promotion framing

show abstract

Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand Familiarity

Cited by 461 publications

References 21 publications

Neuromarketing and its implications for operations management: an experiment with two brands of beer

Neuromarketing and its implications for operations management: an experiment with two brands of beer

The impact of product knowledge on consumer product memory and evaluation in the competitive ad context: The item‐specific‐relational perspective

“Retail is detail! Give consumers a gift rather than a bundle”: Promotion framing and consumer product returns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About