Alles für die Marke? Produktdesign im Konflikt zwischen einer markenkonformen und einer eigenständigen Produktliniengestaltung

ZusammenfassungEine starke Marke ist in vielen Märkten unerlässlich, um das von den Kunden gewünschte Nutzenversprechen zu erfüllen. Überall dort, wo die physikalischchemisch-technische Beschaffenheit eines Erzeugnisses für die Differenzierung im Markt nicht mehr ausreicht und emotional-ästhetische Leistungsdimensionen zählen, kommt es auf eine starke Marke an. Insofern sind Unternehmen bemüht, insbesondere das Design von Produkten so zu gestalten, dass alle Erzeugnisse auf die Marke einzahlen. Bei einem als vergleichbar erlebten Leistungsspektrum und technischen Unterschieden, die von den Kunden gar nicht mehr wahrgenommen werden können, tritt die Schwierigkeit auf, die Preisdifferenz zwischen den Produkten der Linien zu rechtfertigen. Hinzu kommt, dass bei einem nahezu identischen Auftritt keine prägnante Positionierung der Produktlinien möglich ist, Kannibalisierungseffekte zwischen ihnen auftreten und man unscharfe und unklare Nutzenbotschaften an die verschiedenen Segmente aussendet. Man halte sich beispielsweise die Frontansichten von Fahrzeugen einer Marke vor Augen; nur wenige Kunden sind in der Lage, die Baureihen voneinander zu unterscheiden. In diesem Aufsatz wird gezeigt, an welchen Designfacetten eine Differenzierung der Produktlinien möglich ist, ohne das gemeinsame Markenbild zu gefährden.SummaryWhile traditionally the strength of a brand is supposed to increase with the similarity shared by different product lines, problems may arise if brand-characteristics overwhelm at the first sight. Exemplary for the automobile sector, the authors demonstrate that too much of a similarity causes negative effects on brand preference and attitude towards a product line. Furthermore, this paper suggests two solutions for dealing with this problem. A design vocabulary as well as eliminating visual congruencies at the right spot in a car’s “face” have proven to be helpful remedies for the similarity dilemma.

[1]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[2]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd Edition , 2005 .

[3]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  E. Rosch,et al.  Categorization of Natural Objects , 1981 .

[5]  M. Farah,et al.  What is "special" about face perception? , 1998, Psychological review.

[6]  D. Mackay,et al.  Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to the Psychology of Language , 1979 .

[7]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  The mental representations of faces and houses: Issues concerning parts and wholes , 1999 .

[8]  Andrew W. Young,et al.  Everyday errors in face recognition , 1998 .

[9]  Karen H. Smith,et al.  Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments , 1992 .

[10]  B. Malle,et al.  Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: beyond person--situation attributions. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Lynne Pepall,et al.  The Simple Economics of Brand Stretching , 2002 .

[12]  Tom Peters,et al.  Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image , 1997 .

[13]  Frank Alpert,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Consumer Memory, Attitude, and Perceptions Toward Pioneer and Follower Brands , 1995 .

[14]  T. Wallsten.  Physician and Medical Student Bias in Evaluating Diagnostic Information , 1981, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  D. Maurer,et al.  Newborn's following of natural and distorted arrangements of facial features , 1983 .

[16]  L. Rips,et al.  Categories and resemblance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  William P. Putsis,et al.  Product Proliferation: An Empirical Analysis of Product Line Determinants and Market Outcomes , 1999 .

[18]  P. Kay,et al.  What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? , 1983 .

[19]  D. Hilton.  Conversational processes and causal explanation. , 1990 .

[20]  Harold W. Berkman,et al.  Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence , 1997 .

[21]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[22]  Glen L. Urban,et al.  A Mathematical Modeling Approach to Product Line Decisions , 1969 .

[23]  Kevin Lane Keller.  Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge , 2003 .

[24]  H. Leder,et al.  Your eyes only? A test of interactive influence in the processing of facial features. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  Pawan Sinha,et al.  Recognizing complex patterns , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  S. Ghose,et al.  Reciprocal Spillover Effects: A Strategic Benefit of Brand Extensions , 2003 .

[27]  B. Weiner,et al.  Spontaneous" causal thinking. , 1985 .

[28]  Paul E. Green,et al.  A Consumer-Based Approach to Designing Product Line Extensions , 1987 .

[29]  Ellen Garbarino,et al.  Cognitive Effort, Affect, and Choice , 1997 .

[30]  A. Fuat Firat,et al.  From segmentation to fragmentation , 1997 .

[31]  H. Kelley.  The processes of causal attribution. , 1973 .

[32]  Tobias Langner,et al.  Integriertes Branding neuer Marken , 2004 .

[33]  Michaela Wänke,et al.  Context Effects in Product Line Extensions: Context Is Not Destiny , 1998 .

[34]  G. Dobson,et al.  Heuristics for pricing and positioning a product-line using conjoint and cost data , 1993 .

[35]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation , 1989 .

[36]  M. Banaji,et al.  THE WHORFIAN HYPOTHESIS REVISITED: A COGNITIVE SCIENCE VIEW OF LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL EFFECTS ON THOUGHT , 1988 .

[37]  E. Hunt,et al.  The Whorfian Hypothesis: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective , 1991 .

[38]  Kunal Basu,et al.  Consumers' categorization processes: An examination with two alternative methodological paradigms , 1993 .

[39]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[40]  D. Gilbert,et al.  The correspondence bias. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[41]  B. Weiner.  Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior , 2000 .

[42]  H. Gaus,et al.  Wertesysteme und Automobilkauf: Eine empirische Untersuchung , 2004 .

[43]  E. Aronson,et al.  When exemplification fails: hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[44]  L. Flynn,et al.  A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge , 1999 .

[45]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[46]  D. Jain,et al.  Product‐Line Length as a Competitive Tool , 2005 .

[47]  Harald Hruschka,et al.  Produktliniengestaltung mit Genetischen Algorithmen , 2002 .

[48]  D. Medin,et al.  Chapter 3 – Categorization , 1999 .

[49]  T. Wallsten,et al.  Processing probabilistic multidimensional information for decisions. , 1982 .

[50]  Mark H. Johnson,et al.  Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline , 1991, Cognition.

[51]  Daniel Baier,et al.  Gewinnorientierte Produktliniengestaltung unter Berücksichtigung des Kundennutzens , 1995 .

[52]  Jonathan D. Nelson,et al.  What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  P. Klemperer,et al.  Do Firms' Product Lines Include Too Many Varieties? , 1993 .

[54]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Models and Heuristics for Product Line Selection , 1985 .

[55]  F. Esch.  Markenpositionierung als Grundlage der Markenführung , 2019, Handbuch Markenführung.

[56]  S. Mudd,et al.  Depth of processing approach to face recognition: A test of two theories. , 1991 .

[57]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[58]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[59]  Peter H. Bloch.  Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response: , 1995 .

[60]  M. Tarr,et al.  Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[61]  E. Hunt.  Mechanics of Verbal Ability. , 1978 .

[62]  B. Malle,et al.  Which behaviors do people explain? A basic actor–observer asymmetry. , 1997 .

[63]  Kevin Lane Keller,et al.  The marketing advantages of strong brands , 2003 .

[64]  Joel B. Cohen,et al.  Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework , 1987 .

[65]  Susan Fournier,et al.  A Brand As a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality , 1995 .

[66]  M. Tarr,et al.  Can Face Recognition Really be Dissociated from Object Recognition? , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[67]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[68]  J. Aaker,et al.  When Good Brands Do Bad , 2004 .

[69]  J. Tanaka.  The entry point of face recognition: evidence for face expertise. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[70]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[71]  F. Esch.  Markenprofilierung und Markentransfer , 2007 .

[72]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[73]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  What triggers causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. , 1988 .

[74]  D. Aaker.  Building Strong Brands , 1995 .

[75]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Consumption Vocabulary and Preference Formation , 1996 .