Consumers Brand Perception And Buying Behaviour Marketing Essay
This study tends to investigate the impacts of brand misbehaviour on consumer's brand perception and variations caused in the buying behaviour. Brand misbehaviour refers to the fact that when the perceived image or perception about a particular brand does not acts as expected, what influence does it leave on consumers buying pattern and also the repurchase intension. There are many factors that influence consumer's perception and repurchase intensions discussed otherwise.
Origin of Values in Brand
Brands started from the Roman Empire where cultural brands were established beyond national cultural jurisdictions. Jeannet and Hennesey (2001) state that during the nineteenth century, to differentiate products the creation of a country-of-origin product became very important, and has remained so today. In addition, Gordon R. Foxall (2009) discusses that location is not less of a brand as products are valued on their place of origin i.e. made in England or made in USA. For example, France has become a brand through an association of its produce, perfumes. As a result, France is perceived as glamorous and aspirational. So, when location is displayed on a brand, it connects to its cultural worth. Definitely the ways consumers perceive differentiate brands from competition (Schiffman, Hensen, & Lezan, 2008).
Ideal & Actual Self Agreement
Struggling with your essay?
According to (Ekinci & Riley, 2003) Self-agreement concept states that brands cater to different needs that a consumer has and it conforms to the brand's personality and consumer's self-concept. Aaker (1997) states that a brand's personality is directly related to the personified humanistic charectaristics attached to it. Whereas, a person's self concept is defined as the person's feelings, emotions, moods and thoughts as a reference to himself.
Furthermore, the concept relates to the ideal self and actual self-agreement. Ideal self-agreement is denoted as the idea of how a person wants himself to be unlike the concept of actual self which a person strictly relies upon the realistic insight of himself.
The idea is extended to the fact that greater the degree of actual self or ideal self-agreement, the greater is the possibility to have a repurchase intention under buying behaviour. There could be variations even within the concept of actual and ideal self-agreement (Foxall & Goldsmith, 2009). For example, consumers do not want to describe themselves and want to express their ideal self during a purchase, especially when the actual self-concept contradicts the ideal self-concept hence effecting the self-agreement negatively.
Satisfaction and Quality
According to (Molinari, Abratt, & Dion, 2008), quality is considered as the key variable to measure value judgement. Satisfaction and Quality might appear to be used in a very similar fashion or even interchangeably but they're two different terms altogether.
Quality can be defined as excellence in product or service with a sense of superiority in comparison to other similar products or services. This term is highly subject to the past experience which is related to the experience in one way or the other (Fitzsimons & Morwitz, 1996). The concept of quality is different for both products and services. Since services are very high contact in nature and mostly fall under the "People Processing" bracket, behavioural intentions and attributes are involved in measuring the quality. Contrary to that, measurement of product quality is dependent on the physical attributes and/or actual consumption of the product. Moreover, the satisfaction, if positive, achieved after using the product or service creates value. This newly born value leads to the potential repurchase intention increasing brand loyalty.
Quality can further be classified into various other dimensions:
Immediate output quality
Final output quality
Potential quality relates to the search attributes that customers use to judge the suppliers' or service provider's ability before the initiation of relationship. Hard quality refers to the reception during actual performance of service or exhaustion of a product whereas, soft quality suggests the process of how the service is performed or product is consumed. Output quality gives the customer the power to judge the performance of hard and soft attributes to quality.
Huber et al. (2009) relate brand misbehaviour as the outcomes of consumption or exhaustion of a product or service that truly dissatisfies consumers' expected image of the brand. A common consequence could be the development of a strong mistrust pertaining to that particular brand which can even end up in a negative response action. Huber et al. (2009) further mentions that the concept of brand misbehaviour cannot only be related to the product or services' substantial attributes; it can be associated to some defects that a product or service has. While, socially or morally doubtful actions either in product or services' tangible or intangible attributes can harm a products image and can be considered as misbehaviour of a product or service. Hence, brand misbehaviour is beyond the idea of product-harm crises which encompass only the tangible side of a product and intangible part of a service as mentioned by Dawar and Pillutla (2000).
Building Strong Brand-Relationship
Relationship strength is one of the most discussed elements in consumer behaviour and marketing research. It is constructed under the essence of strength and the gravity of influence (Petty and Krosnick, 1995). The one quality most centrally linked phenomenon to relationship stability influencing both directly and indirectly is the consumer's satisfaction (Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt, 1994). Satisfaction, directly links with the relationship quality a brand can create hence the probability of potential repurchase of the same brand increases or decreases as per the satisfaction level of consumer. Further, relationship strength predominates in marketing of any product or service.
This essay is an example of a student's work
Dawar and Pillutla (2000) contributes to the harms done to the expectations while using the product for the first time, its steady impacts upon the next usage and finding the quality to be the same. This directly and permanently deters the consumer's satisfaction and hampers the repurchase intention.
Long lasting relationships benefit both the parties i.e. the individuals involved in brand relationship as the better the relationship between a brand and its partners, the higher will be chance of both to retain to each other. This can also be translated into financial gain to one party in particular and satisfaction to the other (Aaker, Fournier, & Brase, 2004). Dawar, Pillutla, & Madan (2000) emphasize more on consumer - brand relationship and identify the enterprises as the holders of brands. This denotation provides them with plenty of rights and obligations making them liable for any brand misbehaviours arising during the preliminary stages of interface between a consumer and a brand.
Fournier (1994) has done great research on interpersonal relationships and classifies major constituents of a consumer-brand relationship into various forms which include both partners' personalities and the interaction between the two. Fournier (1994) has formulated the term brand relationship quality which represents the power and value attributes of a consumer-brand relationship. The common phenomenon states that a positive brand relationship generates a durable emotional connection between consumer and the brand. This results in a higher probability to promote the intention of repurchasing the brand (Fournier, 1998).
Until now, no reasonable knowledge related to the effect of brand misbehaviour on consumers' perception and buying behaviour exists. Furthermore, it is still not certain that any misbehaviour is directly linked to the repurchase intentions in buying behaviour of a consumer. Also, to this point, no study has scrutinized the regulating impact of the strength of consumer-brand relationship and the consequences of brand misbehaviour. Only one research piloted by Aaker et al. (2004) taps fairly into this theme. This finding demonstrates the need for deeper understanding of the consequences of brand misbehaviour.
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal: