Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why Are Explicit Comparisons Effective?

Ziamou, Paschalina (Lilia); Ratneshwar, S.

doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.49.18606

Cited by 78 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the debate in Ziamou and Ratneshwar (2003), Nam and Sternthal (2008), along with evidence presented by Martin et al (1990), Stapel et al (1998), Levin and Levin (2000), and Cooke et al (2002), we examine the effects of two contextual factors, (a) valence of the known brand ally and, (b) amount of information provided for the target brand/product or service resulting from the brand alliance. The relevance of valence, in the form of quality of past experiences with brand alliances, is confirmed by Gammoh and Voss (2013) while the influence of information in B2B branding is established by Lynch and de Chernatony (2007) and Brown et al (2011).…”

Section: Insert Figure 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

Context effects in the evaluation of business-to-business brand alliances

Kalafatis

Riley

Singh

2014

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Highlights We examine the managerial evaluation processes of B2B brand alliances using assimilation and contrast effects.  Positive valence of the known brand ally results in higher evaluations of the brand alliance.  Higher evaluations of brand alliances are the result of detailed information.  Detailed information benchmarking tangible attributes of the alliance against other comparable offerings are more credible.  Quality-related messages about an alliance's attributes that are difficult to be independently evaluated should be avoided. 4 CONTEXT EFFECTS IN THE EVALUATION OF BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS BRAND ALLIANCES ABSTRACTBrand alliances in the business-to-business domain are becoming increasingly popular. This study investigates the impact of context-related effects on the formation of evaluation perceptions in B2B brand alliances. Assimilation and contrast effects represent the conceptual framework. Employing an experimental design we test the influence of two contextual factors on a range of product attributes: quality perceptions of the known brand ally (valence), and amount of information provided for the brand alliance. Using data collected from a cross section sample of large B2B UK companies we report assimilation effects across different product attributes of the alliance. Positive valence of the known brand ally results in higher evaluations of the brand alliance. In terms of provision of information, we find that, (a) unlike consumer markets, in the B2B domain higher evaluations are the result of detailed information, and (b) the impact of detailed information is significant only for tangible product attributes. Further, we find that valence of the known brand ally and amount of information provided are independent factors. The results add significantly to the knowledge on context effects in B2B brand alliances and lead to a number of managerial recommendations on partner selection and marketing communication of new brand alliances. KEYWORDS:context effects, brand alliances, assimilation, valence, information, experiment 5 INTRODUCTIONAn increasing emphasis on branding activities is evident in B2B markets. Papers in the recent IMM special issue on branding (IMM, 2011) articulate the importance of branding in the B2B domain and provide commentaries on the benefits, implementation, and role of branding in B2B markets. The contributors to the IMM special issue concur in their assessment that, (a) much of the B2B literature is grounded on theories developed in B2C, (b) despite recently expanded academic interest, the field remains under-researched (especially compared to B2C branding), and (c) the related literature lacks systematic treatment, thus resulting in a fragmented body of knowledge.Despite evidence of its application in a wide range of commercial activities, an area of B2Bbranding that remains under-researched is brand alliances, also referred to as co-branding.Brand alliances range from initiatives that present several brands in a single advertisement (e.g., Sony Ericsson and ...

show abstract

Section: Insert Figure 1 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

Context effects in the evaluation of business-to-business brand alliances

Kalafatis

Riley

Singh

2014

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Functionality refers to the opportunity of action afforded by a product (Ziamou and Ratneshwar 2003). A particular functionality is associated with a particular product category (Markman 2001).…”

Section: Conceptual Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of prime importance in this regard are the consumer categorization of multifunctional (MF) products and the motivational resources consumers invest in the adoption process. Hightech products in general, and multifunctional innovations (MFIs) in particular, increase consumer confusion (Mick and Fournier 1998), frustration (Wood and Moreau 2006), and indecision regarding the product's main functionality (Ziamou and Ratneshwar 2003) in the adoption process. The dual-functionality innovation (DFI) examples shown in Table 1 demonstrate the gap between firm-level positioning and market-level interpretation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing multifunctional innovation adoption via an integrative model

Sääksjärvi

Samiee

2010

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes and tests an integrative model that incorporates the mental resources framework (MOA: motivation, opportunity, and ability) alongside traditional innovation adoption predictors for assessing the adoption of dual-functionality innovations (DFI), a special case of multifunctional innovations (MFI). The multifunctional nature of an increasing number of new products demands the use of mental resources in evaluating new offers, as the comprehension of MFIs is more demanding (i.e., requires more mental resources) than singlefunctionality (SF) products. The proposed model also recognizes the role of MFI categorization as a critical link in the process, because an MFI, and within the context of our study a DFI, helps consumers achieve multiple goals if they realize its dual functionality. Our model demonstrates that mental resources play a significant role in consumers' adoption decisions and should be included in studies of MFI adoption. Further, our integrative model offers a significant improvement over rival alternatives that use only traditional innovation adoption predictors. Thus, the model offers a new approach for estimating MFI adoption with a superior predictive power and facilitates the development of appropriate marketing strategies for such products.

show abstract

“…The experimental stimuli were identical to those used in study one, with an important exception. While the focal brand (CrackerBread) was positioned against a specific competitor (e.g., Triscuit crackers or Dannon yogurt) in the earlier study, the ads employed here compared the focal brand against an entire product category (Ziamou and Ratneshwar 2003). Thus, CrackerBread was positioned as having 25% less fat than any other brand of low-fat snack crackers in the withincategory condition.…”

Section: Study Twomentioning

confidence: 99%

Norm violations and the role of marketplace comparisons in positioning brands

Jewell

Barone

2007

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates how consumer norms regarding the use of marketplace comparisons can influence the effectiveness of positioning strategies. Using an experimental method and student samples, we provide evidence across a set of three studies that comparing a focal brand to an offering from the same product category (i.e., a within-category comparison) represents an expected marketplace tactic, while comparing a brand to a rival from a different category (i.e., a between-category comparison) constitutes a deviation from the norm. Studies one and two utilize an experimental design that manipulates comparison type to demonstrate the effect of norm violations on positioning outcomes. Consistent with the proposed theoretical framework, within-category comparisons were perceived as a more appropriate tactic and were thus more effective in positioning the focal brand than were betweencategory comparisons. Study three employs a two-factor experimental design to demonstrate the moderating effects of attribute claims. Specifically, the results from this study indicate that the general effect of comparison type established by studies one and two are contingent upon the size of the superiority being claimed in the comparison. Keywords Marketplace comparisons . Norms . Appropriate marketing tacticsIn a recent television commercial for Chrysler minivans, a patient being prepared for surgery overhears the doctor commenting that a minivan gets better gas mileage than a SUV. In response, the patient indicates that he drives a SUV, to which the nurse controlling the anesthetic replies "sleepy time" as she puts the patient under (Ball 2003). This commercial exemplifies a between-category comparison that compares a product to an offering outside of its immediate product category (SUVs) rather than a direct competitor (another minivan). The ad is also suggestive of the potential for a brand to create a competitive advantage in the absence of any superiority over rivals in its immediate product category or class.An important issue in such promotions concerns the efficacy of drawing comparisons with offerings that differ in their similarity to the focal brand. For example, assume that one comparison depicts a sports drink brand as outperforming a competitor within its own category (e.g., "replenishes fluids 25% faster than All Sport") while another positions the focal brand against an offering from outside the category (e.g., "replenishes fluids 25% faster than bottled water"). Though identical in terms of the level of superiority claimed (25%), are the two comparison types equivalent with regard to brand positioning outcomes such as the development of favorable focal brand attitudes? As a means of addressing this question, we next present a theoretical framework suggesting that (1) the two approaches may differ in their impact on focal brand attitudes, (2) these attitudinal effects will be mediated by perceptions associated with the degree to which each comparison type complies with norms governing acceptable marketplace behavior...

show abstract

Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why Are Explicit Comparisons Effective?

Cited by 78 publications

References 36 publications

Context effects in the evaluation of business-to-business brand alliances

Context effects in the evaluation of business-to-business brand alliances

Assessing multifunctional innovation adoption via an integrative model

Norm violations and the role of marketplace comparisons in positioning brands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About