Consumer Evaluation of Copycat Brands: The Effect of Imitation Type

Copycat brands imitate the trade dress of a leader brand to free ride on the latter's equity. Copycats can imitate the distinctive perceptual features of the leader brand, such as the lilac color of the Milka chocolate brand, or they can imitate the underlying meaning or theme of the leader brand, such as the “freshness of Alpine milk” theme in Milka. Marketing research and trademark law has focused primarily on the effects of feature imitation. In three studies, the authors demonstrate the success of theme imitation: Consumers consider feature imitation to be unacceptable and unfair, which causes reactance toward the copycat brand. Yet, even though consumers are aware of the use of theme imitation, it is perceived to be more acceptable and less unfair, which helps copycat evaluation.

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

[2]  Gregory S. Carpenter,et al.  Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage , 1989 .

[3]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. , 1983 .

[4]  John T. Gourville,et al.  Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires , 2005 .

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

[6]  Ralf van der Lans,et al.  Research Note - Competitive Brand Salience , 2008, Mark. Sci..

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

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

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

[10]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  11. The role of metacognition in social judgment , 2007 .

[11]  George Miaoulis,et al.  Consumer Confusion & Trademark Infringement , 1978 .

[12]  L. L. Martin,et al.  Set/reset: use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[14]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Thomas Mussweiler,et al.  The Effects of Thin and Heavy Media Images on Overweight and Underweight Consumers: Social Comparison Processes and Behavioral Implications , 2010 .

[16]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[17]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[18]  Jean-Noël Kapferer,et al.  Brand Confusion: Empirical Study of a Legal Concept , 1995 .

[19]  V. Bruce Visual and semantic effects in a serial word classification task , 1981 .

[20]  Andrew C. Finch When Imitation Is the Sincerest Form of Flattery: Private Label Products and the Role of Intention in Determining Trade Dress Infringement , 1996 .

[21]  George Miaoulis,et al.  Consumer Confusion & Trademark Infringement , 1978 .

[22]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Constructing reality and its alternatives: an inclusion/ exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment , 1992 .

[23]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent , 2000 .

[24]  R. Petty,et al.  The Role of MetaCognition in Social Judgment , 2006 .

[25]  Jagmohan S. Raju,et al.  Positioning of Store Brands , 2002 .

[26]  E. Higgins Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[27]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

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

[29]  Aradhna Krishna,et al.  The Skeptical Shopper: A Metacognitive Account for the Effects of Default Options on Choice , 2004 .

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

[31]  R. Pieters,et al.  Looking more or less alike: Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands , 2010 .

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

[33]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Becoming Famous Overnight : Limits on the Ability to Avoid Unconscious Influences of the Past , 2004 .

[34]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Flexible correction processes in social judgment: the role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  J. Forgas Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[36]  R. Tian The Psychology behind Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting , 2008 .

[37]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Competitive Brand Salience , 2009 .

[38]  Florian Zettelmeyer,et al.  The Strategic Positioning of Store Brands in Retailer–Manufacturer Negotiations , 2004 .

[39]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[40]  T. Mussweiler Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. , 2003, Psychological review.

[41]  Shi Zhang,et al.  Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction , 2001 .

[42]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Structural comparison and consumer choice , 2010 .

[43]  R Job,et al.  The picture superiority effect in categorization: visual or semantic? , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[44]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change , 1981 .