Presentation_FINAL

GOOGLE TO GLASS:Brand & new category design consistency in brand extensions

Jessy Schott

Commitee

April 17, 2015 Arizona State University

Wil Heywood, Ph.DCommittee MemberVisual Communication

John TakamuraCommittee MemberIndustrial Design

Mookesh PatelChairVisual Communication

Al SanftCommittee MemberVisual Communication

Al SanftCommittee MemberVisual Communication

Introduction

Conclusion

Literature Review

Methodology

Data Analysis

Overview

Introduction

Conclusion

Literature Review

Methodology

Data Analysis

Overview

Introduction

Conclusion

Literature Review

Methodology

Data Analysis

Overview

Introduction

Conclusion

Literature Review

Methodology

Data Analysis

Overview

Introduction

Conclusion

Literature Review

Methodology

Data Analysis

Overview

1 Introduction

PurposeDefinitionsSignificanceConceptual FrameworkResearch QuestionsScope & LimitationsGoogle Glass

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

Purpose

Brand extension strategy leverages the equity of an established brand name to increase consumer acceptance of a new extension product that carries the same brand’s attributes and character (Keller, 1993).

US brand extension failure rate is reported to be 84% in many consumer good categories (Ernst & Young, 2009).

Overarching purpose to examine the impact of BDC and CDC on consumers’ attitudes and purchase intensions toward brand extensions, and to provide insight on the design elements and how they should be implemented with the understanding of processing fluency method.

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

Brand extension:Leveraging a well-known brand name in one category to launch a new product in a different category is known as “brand extension”.

Parent brand:The definition of “parent” as the product that originally used the brand name is similar to the definition of “core” brand.

Brand design consistency (BDC):The design consistency between the concept of a parent brand and the extension product as perceived by the consumer.

Category design consistency (CDC):The degree to which the design of an extension product is prototypical of its category exemplar.

Prototypicality:The form of recognition-based processing – processing related to the perception of the parent brand.

Processing fluency theory (PFT):The theory that asserts that “aesthetic pleasure is a function of the perceiver’s processing dynamics”.

Definitions

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

SignificanceHypothetical brands/productsA study conducted by Page and Herr (2002) found that product aesthetics have greater impact than brand strength on consumer liking based off memorization of parent brand descriptions.

Processing fluency tells us a consumer’s purchase intentions Goh et al. (2013) also found that when prototyping, both BDC and CDC significantly had impact effects on new product attitude in brand extensions.

Test existing products in existing marketplacesAaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004) call for research that is able to test products that already existing in the marketplace and see the connection to consumers using different parent brand standards.

Why research is needed:• distinguish consumer values on design

elements in extended products• prototype of the actual extension product is

needed• better understanding of consumer decision

making• brand extension attitudes • purchase intentions

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

Conceptual Framework

parent brand strength

BDC strength

CDC strength

consumer attitudetoward brand extension

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

Research Questions

Should an extension into a new consumer category be consistent with the parent brand image?

According to Goh et al. (2013), consumer purchase intention significantly increases when the BDC and CDC are easily recognizable to the consumer.

Consumers being able to connect the extended product to the parent brand by brand description and description of hypothetical category extensions by aesthetics and design (Sood and Keller, 2012).

Research has found that brand loyalty is a direct correlation of trustworthiness and has the greatest impact on consumer choice (Erdem and Swait, 2004).

What design features are critical in consumer evaluations of design between brand extension and the parent brand?

How does the BDC and CDC affect brand loyalty?

1

2

3

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

Scope and Limitations

ScopeThe parent brands that will be used are Google and Apple. These brands are international technology companies with huge consumer bases and brand loyalists.

LimitationsThis study is only is concerned with two brands in a single consumer category.

Time and sample size.

ParticipantsUndergraduate students who are consumers of the mentioned brands studying in the Herberger Institute for Design and The Art and W.P. Carey School of Business at Arziona State University in the Spring semester of 2015.

They will be between the ages of 18-23. Both male and females will be surveyed.

Voluntary basis and include approximately 100 undergraduate student participants in the disciplines of design and business.

GOOGLE TO GLASS INTRODUCTION

Google Glass

ForbesIn 2014,Google was ranked third on Forbes “World’s Most Valuable Brands”, bringing in over 380 billion dollars in revue annually (Forbes, 2014).

CompetitionPrevious competition: Yahoo, BingCurrent competition: Apple, Amazon, Facebook

April 2012Google announced they were going to be venturing into a new consumer category with “Project Glass”.

June 2012Google Glass Explorer edition was released to consumers who could purchase the product for $1,500 and provide feedback on the product on a weekly basis.

January 2015Google announced they were shutting down their “explorer program” and will be going through a “transition”.

2 Literature Review Brand ExperienceBrand ExtensionProcessing Fluency

GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Experience

Brand identity and image

Brand identity and brand image are related as they areessential ingredients for a strong brand (Nandan, 2005).

Identity represents the company while image represents the consumer (Srivastava, 2011).

The development of brand image, while attempting to present brand identity to the consumers, enhances the position of a company and opens up room for brand extensions (Vytautas, Aiste, and Regina, 2007).

Components of brand image:• brand vision• brand culture• positioning • personality• relationship• presentation

Chernatony (2001), de Charlatony (1999)

GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Experience

Brand personality

Five dimensions of the brand personality scale: • sincerity• excitment• competence• sophistications• ruggedness

Brand personality can be defined as attributing human characteristics to brands (Aaker, 1997; Keller & Richey, 2006).

GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Experience

Brand strength

Brand strength is a heuristic “short cut” that forms consumer’s attitudes towards products (Goh et al., 2013).

Extension product success will depend on the accessibility oft he parent brand (Keller & Aaker, 1992).

Brand strength effects on consumer responses in:• advertising context (Dahlen & Lange, 2005)• product quality judgement (Page & Herr, 2002)• retailing context (Woodside & Walser, 2007)• brand extension strategy/pricing (DelVecchio & Smith, 2005)

GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand Extension

Effect of perceived fit

Gives extensions credibility, which in turn creates a more willingness to buy (Buil et al., 2009).

Perceived fit between the parent brand and the extension is one of the major determinants of brand extension success (Volckner & Sattler, 2006).

Important factors:• weight in the evaluation of extension brands

and products (Aaker & Keller, 1990)• feedback effect on the parent brand (Smith &

Park, 1992)

GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand ExtensionCommon brand extension approaches

Risks diluting the core brand image built within the parent brand name (Aaker, 1990).

Brand extension must create its own niche within the company’s brand-mix (Chen and Liu, 2004).

Current brand extension strategy: • horizontal: new product in a new category• vertical: same category with different price point &

quality level

GOOGLE TO GLASS LITERATURE REVIEW

Processing Fluency

Product attitude & Purchase intention Processing Fluency

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): person’s overall attitude towards an object and their intention to perform a behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).

How a person’s attitude toward a product is influenced by the ease with which he/she identifies and recognizes the product (Reber et al., 2004).

Kids, Fun, FamilyValue

Meals

Service

Social Involvement

Friendly/WarmHappy Meal ToysBirthday PartiesPlaygroundRonald McDonald

ConsistentConvenientHassle-FreeFast

PricingPortion SizePromotions

ProductsBreakfastBurgersFriesDrinks

QualityFreshConsistentGood Tasting

BrandsBig MacMcMuffi n

CharitiesRonald McDonald House

3 Methodology Research Design Literature ReviewPre-Test Study & FindingsSurvey Data Analysis Methods & Procedures

GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY

MethodologyResearch design

Participants

Mixed methods approach with quantitative & qualita-tive data collected through:

100 undergraduates between the ages of 18-23 in the Herberger Institute for Design and The Arts and W.P. Carey School of Business during the spring 2015 semester.

• literature review• case study (Apple & Google)• pre-test• survey

GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY

Case StudyGoogle

Color

Inspired by bold color statements with muted environments, taking cues from contemporary architecture, road signs, pavement marking tape, and sports courts.

Imagery

Illustration and photography enhances the user experience, choose images that express personal relevance, information, and delight.

Typography

Roboto has been refined extensively to work across the wider set of supported plaforms. It is slightly wider and rounder, giving it greater clarity.

GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY

Apple

Color

Family of pure, clean and neutral colors that look great individually and in combination, and on both light and dark backgrounds.

Imagery

Icons and photography are unique, uncluttered, engaging, and memorable. Imagery should never be used more than once.

Typography

Helvetica Neue is used across all interfaces for readability, sharpness, and unity through all interfaces and marketing.

30%Apple

70%Google

75%Apple

25%Google

GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY

Pre-TestFormat

Findings

10 questions that gathered information on brand image, experience with the brand, brand strength, perceptual characteristics of the brands, and best-fit consumer category for Apple and Google.

Which brand do you favor more?

Which brand do you think is stronger?• participants favored Google over Apple in

experience• Apple was rated as a stronger brand than Google

due to brand image• Google best fit into the technology services and

news and information cateogry

GOOGLE TO GLASS METHODOLOGY

SurveyFormat

19 questions that gathered information on brand image, experience with the brand, brand strength, perceptual characteristics of the brands, and best-fit consumer category for Apple and Google.

3 products were shown where participants were asked questions directly relating to BDC and CDC of each product: • MacBook with “Siri” search engine on screen• “GoogleBook” with Google search engine on screen• Google Glass

Participants

100 undergraduates between the ages of 18-23 in the Herberger Institute for Design and The Arts and W.P. Carey School of Business during the spring 2015 semester.

4 Data AnalysisBrand Experience & FamiliarityBDC & CDC in Extension ProductsParticipant Demographics

GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS

Brand Experience & Familiarity Best-Fit Consumer Category

Apple Google

News or Information

Mobile Applications

Mobile Connected Devices

Technology Services

Consumer Electronics

58%

19%

22%

News or Information

Mobile Applications

Mobile Connected Devices

Technology Services

Consumer Electronics

49%44%

BDC and CDC in Extension MacBook with “Siri”

CDC specific attributes:

product feelover-priceddevice mobile electroniccomputertechnology

BDC specific attributes:

silverwhiteminimalisttypefacecolor paletteclean designlogometalclean brandingnegative spacesimple designsleek

GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS

BDC and CDC in Extension GoogleBook with Google Search Engine

GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS

CDC specific attributes:

searchresearchsearch engineinternethelpfulnavigationsearch barinformationknowledgetechnologygoogle docsgmail “not actually a product Google would make because they are an information technology company.”

BDC specific attributes:

roundcolorfulimage placementsaturated color palettelogoartworkanimationfreecreativefun childishbubblyillustrationsbright friendly

BDC and CDC in Extension Google Glass

GOOGLE TO GLASS DATA ANALYSIS

“It looks like an Apple product, but I know the technology function is more information based like Google.”

“Clean, but Apple should be producing because they are a tech product company and Google is search based.”

“No brand attributes of Google, but I know it is Google Glass because I have seen it before.”

“The subtle design of the glasses resembles Apple. Also, Apple is an electronics company.”

“I know it’s Google, although it has Apple branding elements.”

“I do not recognize anything related to Google.”

“I have seen Google Glass before, but if I had not, I would think Apple made the product.”

“Very little brand attributes relate to Google. If I did not know what it was [Google Glass] I would think it belonged to Apple, being an electronic product and sophisticated design.”

5 Conclusions Implications for Google GlassImplications for Brand Extension Strategies

Implications for Google Glass

From the data in this study, it can be concluded that there is a disconnect between potential consumers of Google Glass due to BDC and CDC elements not being consistent with the parent brand, Google.

Participants were able to identify the product being under the Google parent brand only due to previous exposure to the product.

Redesign or rebrand the Glass to connect more with their parent brand.

Reconsider if the product even makes sense for them to be exploring and investing in .

Suggestions

Implications for Brand Extension Strategies

This study concludes that a brand extension is most successful when both BDC and CDC are predictable and consistent with the parent brand. It also concludes that an extension could be successful with just one element, BDC or CDC, aligning with the parent brand. However, there is a greater chance that it will fail because consumers have a much harder time connecting the extension to the parent brand.

The BDC and/or CDC of an extension product should be consistent with the parent brand image and consumer category.

The more consistent these two elements are, the more consumers will connect the extension product to the parent brand, which leads to higher trust and ultimately to more favorable purchase intentions.

Summary of Conclusions

ReferencesAaker, D.A. (1990). Brand extensions: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 47-56. Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 1-17.Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Buil, I., de Chernatony, L., & Hem, L.E. (2009). Brand extension strategies: Perceived fit, brand type, and culture influences. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11), 1300-1324.Chen, K.J & Liu, C.M. (2004). Positive brand extension trial and choice of parent brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13(1), 25-36. Dahlen, M. & Lange, F. (2005). Advertising weak and strong brands: Who gains? Psychology and marketing, 22(6), 473-488.DelVecchio, D., & Smith, D. C. (2005). Brand-extension price premiums: The effects of perceived fit and extension product category risk. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 184-196. Erdem, T. & Swait, J. (2004). Brand creditability, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191-198.Ernst & Young (2009). New product successful innovation: A fragile boundary. New York: Ernst & Young Global Client Consulting. Forbes lists. (2014, May). World’s most value brands. Forbes.com. Retrieved February 25 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/companies/google/.

Goh, Y.S., Chattaraman, V., & Forsythe, S. (2013). Brand and category design consistency in brand extension. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(4), 272-285.Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22. Keller, K.L., & Aaker, D. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35-50.Keller, K.L., & Richey, K. (2006). The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century business. Brand Management, 25(6), 740-759.Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage: A communication perspective. Brand Management, 12(4), 264-78.Page, C. & Herr, P. (2002). An investigation of the process by which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 133-147.Smith, D.C. & Park, C.W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 296-313.Srivastava, R.K. (2011). Understanding brand identity confusion. Marketing Intelligence & Planing, 29(4), 340-352.Volckner, F. & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70, 18-34.Vytautas, J., Aiste, D. and Regina, V. (2007). Relationship of brand identify and image. Engineering Economics, 5(1), 69-79.Woodside, A.G., & Walser, M.G. (2007). Building strong brands in retailing. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 1-10.

THANK YOU