Brand related information as context: the impact of brand name characteristics on memory and choice

Abstract

Consumer exposure to new brand names can occur in contexts with or without brand information being present. Whereas previous research has examined the effects of brand name characteristics (association set size and word frequency) on memory in the presence of brand information, this paper also assesses brand name effects in contexts without brand related information and extends it to brand consideration and choice. Two different processes are found to be operating as consumers retrieve brands and make a choice. Recall seems to benefit from a distinctiveness based route, which also guides consideration and choice. In contrast, implicit memory is influenced by familiarity, with corresponding consideration and choice effects. The implications are that firms' choice of brand names and media needs to consider the combination of brand name characteristics that will lead to desired outcomes vis-à-vis distinctiveness or familiarity based processes.

Managing sub-branding affect transfer: the role of consideration set size and brand loyalty

“…Further research could empirically test associative and propositional processes as a mediator to verify the sub-brand attitude formation processes that underline affect transfer. Related to that, recent research has suggested an alternative mechanism that explains affect transfer based upon the concepts of diagnosticity and implicit memory (Samu and Krishnan 2010). Future research may examine the diagnostic effect of family brand name on sub-brand evaluation and consideration set.…”

Seeing the Big Picture: Multitasking and Perceptual Processing Influences on Ad Recognition

“…Because the different recognition measures are thought to reflect unrelated underlying mechanisms they are often considered to be qualitatively different and not considered to be part of a hierarchy or continuum of recognition (Gardiner and Parkin 1990;Yonelinas 2002). While recent advertising studies appear to predominantly utilize measures of familiarity recognition (i.e., Peters and Leshner 2013;Lee et al 2013;Walsh et al 2013;Liu et al 2013), this may not always be the best measure for what ads actually do for brands: create brand associations (e.g., Samu and Krishnan 2010). Going forward, work utilizing recognition memory should be considerate of this distinction and how different characteristics of recognition memory may interact with audience-level (e.g., the media activity SEEING THE BIG PICTURE 181 or knowledge/traits) and ad-level variables (e.g., ad context or features) in separate ways.…”

Managing the reputation of the banking industry after the global financial crisis: Implications of public anger, processing depth and retroactive memory interference for public recall of events

“…Leiser and Drori 2005;Samu and Krishnan 2010). Moreover, media coverage is known to be an important determinant of the public's attitudes towards the causes of damaging economic events (Carroll and McCoombs 2003;Leiser and Drori 2005).…”