Low involvement brands: is the brand manager to blame?

Abstract

States that poor brand management has been held responsible for brands with which consumers have low levels of involvement, that is, consumers do not consider them important in decision‐making terms, and in consequence appear unthinking and even uncaring about their choices. Argues that if this is the case, then arguably the vast amounts of effort and expenditure invested in brands within many grocery and fast‐moving consumer goods is potentially misplaced. Discusses the nature of high and low level involvement decision making for brands. Presents research which shows that the level of involvement is largely determined at the category level not the brand level. It is therefore beyond the scope of brand management to alter these involvement perceptions, unless they are able to create new categories or sub‐categories for their brands. Argues that this is the real challenge of brand management.

Product involvement in organic food consumption: Does ideology meet practice?

“…In other words, behavioral learning has shaped low-involvement food shopping as habitual behavior, which does not include the cognitive processing of beliefs and attitudes (see Rothschild & Gaidis, 1981). McWilliam (1997) has suggested that poor brand performance is not necessarily a consequence of poor brand management, but may result from low involvement in the product category in general. Thus: H5: The more a consumer perceives the product category as non-involving, the less his/her positive attitudes toward buying organic food products will increase his/her purchasing frequency in that particular category.…”

Branding strategies for high-technology products: The effects of consumer and product innovativeness

“…With FMCG purchases, consumers typically do not search extensively for information about brands, evaluate their characteristics, or make time consuming decisions on which brand to buy (Kotler and Armstrong, 2016). The lack of uncertainty usually entails less alternative evaluation and thus an inability to identify key differences between leading FMCG brands (McWilliam, 1997;Silayoi and Speece, 2004). However, HT products may involve features that are complex and prone to rapid change with a shorter product life-cycle (Temporal and Lee, 2000;Winkler, 1999;Zajas and Crowley, 1995).…”

Influence of product life cycle stage on consideration set size: the case of 'think products'

“…As shown in Table 1, numerous studies have confirmed the efficacy of the FCB grid, and it is noteworthy that the think and feel dimensions are applicable to product classification (Claeys et al 1995;McWilliam 1997;Mortimer 2002;Ratchford 1987;Smit et al 2006;Spotts et al 1997;Teng et al 2009). According to these studies, think products can be defined as products that are bought primarily for utilitarian, cognitive reasons and involve attention to functional performance, costs/benefits, and tangible, objective product qualities (Claeys et al 1995).…”