Consumers might enjoy using a nickname to refer to your store or product. This does not mean you should use that nickname in your marketing to prospective customers. A team of researchers from Western University, Stockton University, and University of Massachusetts warns that if, for example, Bloomingdale’s were to refer to themselves as Bloomie’s in their ads, the customer-conceived moniker could compromise Bloomingdale’s ability to charge premium prices.
The researchers show that when a brand blatantly co-opts a nickname created by its customers, the brand yields some authority over the consumer, and this dilutes the power of the brand in the eyes of consumers. In the studies, participants were less receptive to a price premium when Beemer was used for a BMW, expressed less interest in purchasing a Rolex when the nickname Rollie was used, and moved toward other luxury brands when Loubi was used in place of Christian Louboutin.
This effect held for non-luxury brands, too. Use of Chevy rather than Chevrolet reduced social media marketing likes and shares. Tarzhay got fewer click-throughs than Target. Purchase intentions were lower for Wally World than for Walmart.
I’ll add to the researchers’ argument the idea that brand authority is compromised when, as is common, nicknames conceived by consumers are cute modifications of the actual name. The diminutives can imply the consumer’s dealing with a child who lacks the power of a mature adult.
Exceptions to the diminutive formatting are nicknames conceived by consumers to ridicule the brand, and there’s little need for a marketer to be cautioned against co-opting those. Starbucks is unlikely to refer to themselves as Fourbucks or Neiman Marcus to advertise “Just call us Needless Markup.”
Because the cautions are based on the value of a brand’s portrayal of power, the researchers hypothesized that the cautions would hold less strongly when the brand succeeds by emphasizing warmth over competence or when the marketing campaign touts how the brand’s doing a social good. These hypotheses were validated in a study using the name versus nickname of a fictitious charity and in a study using the marketing message “[Starbucks/Starbies] supports the disability community. It is an inclusive space at [Starbucks/Starbies].”
The most important add-on to the general finding, though, is that nicknames for brands and items created by consumers are good for business when being used by the consumers.
Image at top of post based on photo by Nathan Dumlao from Unsplash
The researchers show that when a brand blatantly co-opts a nickname created by its customers, the brand yields some authority over the consumer, and this dilutes the power of the brand in the eyes of consumers. In the studies, participants were less receptive to a price premium when Beemer was used for a BMW, expressed less interest in purchasing a Rolex when the nickname Rollie was used, and moved toward other luxury brands when Loubi was used in place of Christian Louboutin.
This effect held for non-luxury brands, too. Use of Chevy rather than Chevrolet reduced social media marketing likes and shares. Tarzhay got fewer click-throughs than Target. Purchase intentions were lower for Wally World than for Walmart.
I’ll add to the researchers’ argument the idea that brand authority is compromised when, as is common, nicknames conceived by consumers are cute modifications of the actual name. The diminutives can imply the consumer’s dealing with a child who lacks the power of a mature adult.
Exceptions to the diminutive formatting are nicknames conceived by consumers to ridicule the brand, and there’s little need for a marketer to be cautioned against co-opting those. Starbucks is unlikely to refer to themselves as Fourbucks or Neiman Marcus to advertise “Just call us Needless Markup.”
Because the cautions are based on the value of a brand’s portrayal of power, the researchers hypothesized that the cautions would hold less strongly when the brand succeeds by emphasizing warmth over competence or when the marketing campaign touts how the brand’s doing a social good. These hypotheses were validated in a study using the name versus nickname of a fictitious charity and in a study using the marketing message “[Starbucks/Starbies] supports the disability community. It is an inclusive space at [Starbucks/Starbies].”
The most important add-on to the general finding, though, is that nicknames for brands and items created by consumers are good for business when being used by the consumers.
Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.
Click for more…
Combine Competence with Warmth
Image at top of post based on photo by Nathan Dumlao from Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment