5 Neuromarketing Insights You Might Have Missed in 2020Relevant topics Research, Archive, Strategy, Advertising
Here at New Neuro Marketing we review new research papers weekly to provide you with the latest insights on Neuromarketing. These are 5 insights that were not yet published in an article but we still want you to know about them so you don’t miss a thing!
1. When umbrella branding might hurt sales
Keller, K. O., Geyskens, I., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2020). Opening the Umbrella: The Effects of Rebranding Multiple Category-Specific Private-Label Brands to One Umbrella Brand. Journal of Marketing Research, 0022243720922853.
When launching a product, companies have to spend time and money to create awareness. Time and effort can, however, be significantly reduced by using the name of a product that is already well known. Think of Microsoft products like Word and Xbox, or Apple products like iMac, MacBook, iPhone, and iPad.
Apart from saving costs to gain product awareness, retailers normally expect two positive consequences as a result of unifying different products under a common brand name: An increased intrinsic brand strength and improved marketing-mix effectiveness.
Research shows us that while intrinsic brand strength did increase under umbrella branding, the effectiveness of both Price-Promoting and Assortment size as marketing tools dropped after unifying their category-specific products under an umbrella brand. Meaning that increasing your assortment size to increase option attractiveness or actively putting items on sale might not be as effective as it was before unifying your brand.
Use this information to consider trade-offs when unifying products under an umbrella brand and think carefully about which marketing tools are important to your company and brand.
2. Trust and emotions between robots and man
Schniter, E., Shields, T. W., & Sznycer, D. (2020). Trust in humans and robots: Economically similar but emotionally different. Journal of Economic Psychology, 102253.
As time goes by and technology is advancing at high speed, we see more and more robots in the market- and workplace. But... do you trust them? We know much about social interactions and trust among humans, but the extent to which we trust robots has been given considerably less attention.
In a recent paper, trust-based investments and emotions between humans and robots have been investigated and compared using an economic trust game. It seems that we are equally willing to take risks to engage in trust-based interactions with robots compared to such interactions with fellow humans. However, our emotional reactions during those interactions, such as anger, pride, guilt, and gratitude, do differ depending on whether robots are involved or not.
Interactions with robots alone elicit less intense emotions compared to interactions with only humans or both humans and robots. The presence of a fellow human seems to affect our emotions more strongly, as choices that are being made in the game may deprive or benefit another human being. When there is no human partner, we experience negative emotions less strongly (guilt and anger), but the same applies to positive emotions (gratitude and pride).
These differences have important managerial implications as productive partnerships with either human or automated partners are affected by them. The authors suggest that robots may be more effective in consolidating a stable partnership when inconsistent partners are in play because they are less likely to experience anger in such partnerships. This means that when we engage in a partnership in which we are unsure about what we bring in, a robot might be better suited to deal with such a situation. They will not get frustrated or angry by changing needs or longings. However, when consistent partners are in play, fellow humans will be more successful in establishing strong partnerships, as they will elicit more gratitude compared to robots. When both sides of the partnership know what to expect and what to bring in, the increased gratitude and positive emotion we can feel towards humans can result in a stronger partnership.
In short, although our trust in robots is economically similar to our trust in humans, we shouldn’t forget about the emotional differences that occur when we interact with them. And all the implications that follow these emotional differences.
3. Should you stand out from the crowd?
Heitmann, M., Landwehr, J. R., Schreiner, T. F., & van Heerde, H. J. (2020). Leveraging Brand Equity for Effective Visual Product Design. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(2), 257-277.
Every year, car manufacturers spend loads of money to come up with new appealing designs for their latest models. But why do some inventive new designs flourish while others fail? This can partly be explained by considering the brand equity components relevant stature (RS) and energized differentiation (ED). These are components that separate a brand from the pack.
Brands that score high on relevant stature and energized differentiation are brands that have strong unique typicality, they are known for their brand design and ability to differentiate from competitors while being able to meet changing consumer needs.
This study analyzed 13 years of car sales data and found that car design should be conducted in the context of brand equity. The main take-aways were that when a car brand scores low on RS and ED, it should emphasize segment typicality when creating a new design. While brands that score high on RS and ED can afford a larger deviation from the segment prototype. They have the ability to emphasize an iconic brand element and use it to increase their sales.
The psychological reasoning behind this is that brands with high RS and ED have, throughout the years, managed to create strong and unique brand associations in customers’ memory. These associations make them feel pleasant and highly familiar. Product designs that are more in line with the prototypical segment standard can be aesthetically preferred because they are seen more often, making them easier to process.
Next time you are considering design choices make sure you take into consideration your brand equity so you can choose a strategy that fits your brands' assets!
4. How to promote your brand on TV?
Bruce, N. I., Becker, M., & Reinartz, W. (2020). Communicating Brands in Television Advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(2), 236-256.
Every year, billions of dollars are spent on advertising, with television remaining one of the most important channels. But how do you effectively advertise your brand? Which messages and cues are best to deploy and in what way?
We already know that ad spending can have a positive impact on sales, but will brand salience in an ad increase it’s effectiveness? And which salience cues are effective? Should your ad focus on brand attributes or benefits, how should they be conveyed and how to use this information to improve your sales?
In this study, 177 TV advertisements, sales, and ad spending from 62 different brands were analyzed. It was found that the duration and frequency of visual salience cues such as the brand logo and product increased ad effectiveness. Benefit and attribute messages also moderated ad effectiveness. It was also found that cues were more effective when explicitly conveyed, rather than implicitly.
You can use these insights to set guidelines along which your ads can be produced. Making sure your brand and product are well represented in your ads so consumers are given enough opportunity to imprint them in their memories. Also consider that when you implicitly convey the benefits and attributes of your brand or product, a consumer might not always be able to grasp the information you are trying to present. By explicitly stating attributes and benefits you can make sure the information is successfully transferred.
5. Use the forecast to increase your sales
Govind, R., Garg, N., Mittal, V. (2020). Weather, Affect, and Preference for Hedonic Products: The Moderating Role of Gender. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(4), 717-738
When it’s a hot summer's day, you’re probably more likely to be craving ice cream than when it’s a cold December afternoon. This is an obvious example of weather influencing sales of a product. But weather can have effects on sales more frequently than you might think. Think of hair products when humidity causes frizzled hair? Or tea consumption when it’s cold outside. Are these effects directly related to the changing weather, or is it the feeling people get because of weather conditions?
This study proposed that the effect of weather on the consumption of hedonic products is mediated by affect. By using a mix of secondary data, lab experiments, and national surveys it was shown that the effect of weather on the consumption of hedonic products is indeed mediated by affect. It was also shown that this effect is stronger for women than it is for men.
Specifically: Unpleasant weather conditions increase negative affect, which in turn increases hedonic consumption. The reverse effect was found for the effects of pleasant weather. It seems that when people are feeling down because of the weather, they try to compensate for their mood by an increase of hedonic consumption. And because females have been found to be somewhat more susceptible to weather-related influences on mood, this effect is stronger for them.
You can use this information to increase your sales of hedonic products when the weather is bad during the cold fall and winter months. By emphasizing the hedonic benefits and attributes of your brand and your products in times of bad weather. While these findings apply to both women and men, the effect is stronger for women. Something to take into consideration the next time you start planning your end-of-year marketing strategy!