Out-of-Category Brand Imitation: Product Categorization Determines Copycat Evaluation

Copycat brands imitate the trade dress of other brands, such as their brand name, logo, and packaging design. Copycats typically operate in the core product category of the imitated brand under the assumption that such “in-category imitation” is most effective. In contrast, four experiments demonstrate the benefits of “out-of-category imitation” for copycats, and the harmful effect on the imitated brand. Copycats are evaluated more positively in a related category, because consumers appraise the similarity between copycat and imitated brand more positively than in the core category, independent of the perceived similarity itself. This is due to a reduced salience of norms regarding imitation in the related category. Moreover, the results show a damaging backlash effect of out-of-category imitation on the general evaluation of the imitated brand and on its key perceived product attributes. The findings replicate across student, MTurk, and representative consumer samples; multiple product categories; and forms of brand imitation. This research demonstrates that out-of-category brand imitation helps copycat brands and hurts national leading brands much more than has so far been considered, which has managerial and public policy implications.

[1]  Robert D. Jewell,et al.  How category advertising norms and consumer counter-conformity influence comparative advertising effectiveness , 2012 .

[2]  P. Herr,et al.  Handbook of Consumer Psychology , 2018 .

[3]  Maureen Morrin,et al.  Trademark Dilution: Empirical Measures for an Elusive Concept , 2000 .

[4]  Charles E. Gengler,et al.  The Effects of Brand Name Similarity on Brand Source Confusion: Implications for Trademark Infringement , 2000 .

[5]  M. Landau,et al.  Copycatting as a Threat to Public Identity , 2012 .

[6]  B. Hannover,et al.  Importance of personal goals in people with independent and interdependent selves , 2008 .

[7]  A. Markman,et al.  Inference using categories. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  E. Higgins,et al.  Handbook of motivation and cognition : foundations of social behavior , 1991 .

[9]  Rik Pieters,et al.  When High-Similarity Copycats Lose and Moderate-Similarity Copycats Gain: The Impact of Comparative Evaluation , 2012 .

[10]  Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp,et al.  Manufacturer and Retailer Strategies to Impact Store Brand Share: Global Integration, Local Adaptation, and Worldwide Learning , 2014, Mark. Sci..

[11]  Joseph W. Alba,et al.  Sincere Flattery: Trade-Dress Imitation and Consumer Choice , 2004 .

[12]  R. Fazio How do attitudes guide behavior , 1986 .

[13]  E M SteenkampJan-Benedict,et al.  Manufacturer and Retailer Strategies to Impact Store Brand Share , 2014 .

[14]  Neeraj Arora,et al.  Private Label Imitation of a National Brand: Implications for Consumer Choice and Law , 2014 .

[15]  Linda Court Salisbury,et al.  The Formation of Market-Level Expectations and Its Covariates , 2003 .

[16]  Richard L. Moreland,et al.  Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction , 1982 .

[17]  Rik Pieters,et al.  Consumer Evaluation of Copycat Brands: The Effect of Imitation Type , 2012 .

[18]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact? , 1993 .

[19]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Sales Effects of Attention to Feature Advertisements: A Bayesian Mediation Analysis , 2009 .

[20]  Jolanda Jetten,et al.  Not being what you claim to be: impostors as sources of group threat , 2003 .

[21]  Ellen R. Foxman,et al.  Consumer brand confusion: A conceptual framework , 1992 .

[22]  R. Pieters,et al.  Preference reversal for copycat brands: Uncertainty makes imitation feel good , 2013 .

[23]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge , 2022 .

[24]  F. Van Horen,et al.  Breaking the mould on copycats: What makes product imitation strategies successful? , 2010 .

[25]  Kevin Lane Keller Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity , 1993 .

[26]  R. Pieters,et al.  Copy Alert: A Method and Metric to Detect Visual Copycat Brands , 2014 .

[27]  D. Aaker Managing brand equity : capitalizing on the value of a brand name , 1992 .

[28]  J. Crusius,et al.  Why process matters: A social cognition perspective on economic behavior , 2012 .

[29]  B. Loken,et al.  Consumer “Confusion” of Origin and Brand Similarity Perceptions , 1986 .

[30]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[31]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Rating the similarity of simple perceptual stimuli: asymmetries induced by manipulating exposure frequency , 2002, Cognition.

[32]  National brand responses to brand imitation: retailers versus other manufacturers , 1999 .

[33]  Christian Unkelbach,et al.  The Learned Interpretation of Cognitive Fluency , 2006, Psychological science.

[34]  Jonathan Lee,et al.  Determinants of Trademark Dilution , 2006 .

[35]  A. d’Astous,et al.  Consumer evaluations of brand imitations , 2001 .

[36]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  The Psychology of Evaluation : Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion , 2003 .

[37]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Making Products Feel Special: When Metacognitive Difficulty Enhances Evaluation , 2010 .

[38]  A critique of legal measures of brand confusion , 2002 .

[39]  R. Petty,et al.  The Malleable Meaning of Subjective Ease , 2006, Psychological science.

[40]  Xiang Fang,et al.  An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect , 2007 .