geoff199 OP t1_jbblgr0 wrote
From the Journal of Marketing: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222429231162367
Abstract:
An increasingly common strategy when naming new brands is to use an unconventional spelling of an otherwise familiar word (e.g., “Lyft” rather than “Lift”). However, little is known about how this brand naming strategy impacts consumers’ beliefs about the brand and, ultimately, their willingness to support it. Across eight experimental studies, we demonstrate that in general, consumers are less likely to support unfamiliar brands whose names are spelled unconventionally compared to brands that use the conventional spelling of the same word. This occurs because consumers perceive the choice of an unconventionally spelled name as an overt persuasion attempt by the marketer, and thus view the brand as less sincere. We demonstrate these effects are driven by persuasion knowledge using both mediation and moderation and show robustness by employing different types of unconventional spellings. Our studies suggest that, while marketers may choose unconventional spellings for new-to-the-world brands with the goal of positively influencing consumers’ perceptions, doing so may backfire. However, we also find that unconventionally spelled names do not produce a backfire effect when the motive for selecting the name is seen as sincere. Further, unconventionally spelled brand names may even be desirable when consumers are seeking a memorable experience.
PlauntieM t1_jbeexzp wrote
Malk, now with vitamin r!
^*contains ^no ^milk
kds1223 t1_jbftyt2 wrote
I've always been partial to Melk, myself. It has twice the daily serving of Vitamin Z and no pesky nutrients to worry about!
HalcyonKnights t1_jbg6plz wrote
There's a Bone in my Froot!
[deleted] t1_jbgvz81 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments