Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes

Carpenter, Gregory S.; Glazer, Rashi; Nakamoto, Kent

doi:10.1177/002224379403100302

Cited by 255 publications

(196 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, research notes that both meaningful and meaningless product attributes are able to differentiate products and create value for the brand (Carpenter et al, 1994). Consumers thus consider many other attributes than those studied here, which can influence brand perceptions.…”

Section: ---Table 4 ---5 Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 92%

The impact of product innovation attributes on brand equity

Nørskov

Chrysochou

Milenkova

2015

Journal of Consumer Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – This paper aims to examine the impact of product innovation attributes (complexity, relative advantage, compatibility, trialability and observability) on brand equity, and whether these attributes exert a different effect on low- versus high-equity brands. The moderating role of consumer innovativeness in this relationship is investigated further. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on survey data from users of two brands of digital audio players of different brand equity levels. Findings – Overall, it was found that innovation attributes have an effect on brand equity, and this effect differs between low- and high-equity brands, with a low-equity brand being benefited more than a high-equity brand from perceptions towards a product’s innovation attributes. Additionally, it was found that the impact of complexity and relative advantage on brand equity increases when consumer innovativeness increases in the case of a high-equity brand. However, no significant difference was found between low- and high-equity brands regarding the proposed moderating effect of innovativeness. Research limitations/implications – The study only examines two brands belonging to one particular industry, which limits the findings’ generalizability. Thus, the use of more test brands from different industries should be the goal for future research. Practical implications – Managers should consider the firm’s current brand equity level and its competitive position to maximize the effect of product innovation attributes. Originality/value – The study makes an original contribution to the research on the relationship between product innovation and brand equity and provides theoretical and managerial implications in the field of innovation and brand management.

show abstract

Section: ---Table 4 ---5 Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 92%

The impact of product innovation attributes on brand equity

Nørskov

Chrysochou

Milenkova

2015

Journal of Consumer Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Carpenter and Nakamoto (1989) argue that greater similarity between brands hurts only the nondominant brand and not the dominant brand. In the context of pioneering advantages, they attribute an overall perceptual distinctiveness to dominant brands that allows them to overshadow similar, but smaller, competitors.…”

Section: The Influence Of Platform-level Multihoming On Platform Salesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Differentiation provides brands with greater resistance to competitive attacks (e.g., Aaker 1991;Carpenter, Glazer, and Nakamoto 1994). Thus, in two-sided markets, in which buyers and sellers endow each other with network benefits, a platform for which few applications are multihomed can achieve greater differentiation than a platform for which many applications are multihomed (Mantena, Sankaranarayanan, and Viswanathan 2007).…”

Section: The Influence Of Platform-level Multihoming On Platform Salesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, we control for the number of platforms that compete with one another. Competition may increase platform sales because it may benefit the growth of the industry (Agarwal and Bayus 2002), or it may decrease platform sales through platform switching (Carpenter and Lehmann 1985). Third, we control for the price of the platform, which we expect to negatively affect platform sales.…”

Section: The Influence Of Platform-level Multihoming On Platform Salesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multihoming in Two-Sided Markets: An Empirical Inquiry in the Video Game Console Industry

Landsman

Stremersch

2011

Journal of Marketing

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-sided markets are composed of platform owners and two distinct user networks that either buy or sell applications for the platform. The authors focus on multihoming-the choice of an agent in a user network to use more than one platform. In the context of the video game console industry, they examine the conditions affecting seller-level multihoming decisions on a given platform. Furthermore, they investigate how platform-level multihoming of applications affects the sales of the platform. The authors show that increased platform-level multihoming of applications hurts platform sales, a finding consistent with literature on brand differentiation, but they also show that this effect vanishes as platforms mature or gain market share. The authors find that platform-level multihoming of applications affects platform sales more strongly than the number of applications. Furthermore, among mature platforms, an increasing market share leads to more seller-level multihoming, while among nascent platforms, seller-level multihoming decreases as platform market share increases. These findings prompt scholars to look beyond network size in analyzing two-sided markets and provide guidance to both (application) sellers and platform owners.

show abstract

“…Customers' choice probability model start from 2 WiBro, and HSDPA services are facing burden from delaying of commercialization, development value added service, and contents, and far high capital investment, different from expectation. TU media shows less achievement on subscriber number, and faces less competitiveness after T-DMB emergence.…”

Section: Literature Survey: Customer Choice Probability To Identify Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Market Competitive Structure on Mobile Multimedia Services: Wibro, HSDPA, S-DMB, T-DMB

Jeon

Shin

Choi

2006

2006 International Conference on Hybrid Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studied on the future market competitive structure among mobile multimedia services that offer a variety of multimedia services and contents through wireless networks. In the past, forecasting methods based on market data would be used popularly in telecommunications industry. Now, methods are changed from market data based studies to customer preferences based ones. In this reason, paper use to forecast the market competitive structure and offer firm strategies and policies using a customer choice probability model.

show abstract

Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes

Cited by 255 publications

References 25 publications

The impact of product innovation attributes on brand equity

The impact of product innovation attributes on brand equity

Multihoming in Two-Sided Markets: An Empirical Inquiry in the Video Game Console Industry

Analysis of the Market Competitive Structure on Mobile Multimedia Services: Wibro, HSDPA, S-DMB, T-DMB

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About