Executive summary of “Mental representation of brands: a schema-based approach to consumers' organization of market knowledge”

Citation

(2015), "Executive summary of “Mental representation of brands: a schema-based approach to consumers' organization of market knowledge”", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2015-908

Executive summary of “Mental representation of brands: a schema-based approach to consumers' organization of market knowledge”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 24, Issue 5

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.

Knowing what drives consumer behavior is highly important to marketers. It therefore helps enormously to gain an understanding of how individuals store and retrieve market-related information.

Various scholars have concluded that consumer use “schemata” for such purposes. The concept originates in Greek philosophy and has been extensively adopted in different domains for studies of human cognition. Schemata are essentially perceived as cognitive structures which are formed and stored in memory. People encode and retrieve relevant information to make sense of new developments within the world around them. A cognitive schema contains prior knowledge which is learned and accumulated through an individual’s direct and indirect engagement with their social environment.

Information is retained in a structured format to facilitate easier retrieval. The different pieces are therefore ordered into a variety of market-related categories which relate to particular concepts or elements. People need to create a variety of different schemata to effectively navigate the market’s “breadth and complexity”. This enables them to develop “declarative knowledge” about products, stores or other market components. They are likewise able to build knowledge about practices and procedures associated with different market situations. Having existing schemata in place permits new information to be appropriately classified as it is encountered.

Within a schema, consumers essentially organize entities which possess similar features. Halkias using the example of creating a soft drinks schema to include brands like Coke, Diet Coke and Pepsi. Researchers note how objects can belong in various schemata, so such drinks might also be part of a more general schema containing various beverages. Integration within schemata can pertain to goal achievement. An example would be Diet Coke being grouped with other foods a consumer might eat if he or she wanted to lose weight. Scope exists for a product or brand to be part of multiple “taxonomic” and “goal-derived” schemata simultaneously. In addition to this, schemata can vary in terms of size, strength and degree of abstraction.

Research suggests that schemata can incorporate information from various domains and therefore become more sophisticated. Consumers typically learn to how to develop these more complex schemata as their market experience grows.

The literature has identified various consumer schemata, although three types are perceived as most relevant to marketing. These are:

1. Product category schemata: This helps the consumer organize the market into distinct groups. Each schema reflects significant category features and how it relates to other product categories. Several researchers classify these schemata types into three hierarchical levels. The highest is superordinate, where members are most distinct from each other, although some common “features and associations” are evident. Basic level contains the highest amount of common and different features and finer discrimination of categories is more evident. This increases further at the subordinate level where members have more common associations and fewer distinctive ones. The basic level allegedly provides the most accurate “mental representation” of the category. The literature posits that consumers grade members and those best reflecting the category are labeled a “prototypical brand”. A consumer’s schema of such brands is deemed likely to overlap with that he or she holds of the overall product category.

2. Brand schema, based on attributes: It includes different features and associations consumers attach to the brands of both a functional and symbolic nature. These schemata can also incorporate both “descriptive and evaluative information” that pertain to the specifications of a product and what it signifies. Previous studies have pointed out how attributes within a schema could be more reflective of other categories than the one a brand is positioned in. This is likelier with brands regarded as being less characteristic of their category.

3. Advertisement schema: A generic property of schemata is that they emerge as a result of repeated exposure to relevant stimuli. Given that this is also a feature of advertising, it is mooted that consumers form expectations about specific advertisement types. This schema, therefore, incorporates the various components of advertising, among which are characters, layout and the visual and auditory aspects. Some sources believe that an organization of ad schemas is based on the knowledge of different product categories. Product types are thus said to determine the nature of the ad used. But brand knowledge shapes consumer expectations of advertising when the brand is more familiar to them. In such contexts, advertisements might be based around the peculiarities of the brand rather than category-level determinants.

Scholars purport that these schema types interact rather than operate in isolation. They suggest that a brand schema occupies the core position in the knowledge structures within the consumer’s mind. It is said that decision-making is influenced most by the brand schema, which also mediates the influence of product and ad schemata.

It has been variously noted that effective and consistent communication of brand meaning is critically important. Firms seek to achieve this through mechanisms like advertising, packaging and in-store displays.

Different concepts have been forwarded in the quest to enhance brand meaning. These constructs aim to define consumer brand knowledge and include:

• Brand associations that are formed in each consumer’s mind and largely relate to key product attributes, characteristics or functions. Developed through individual experience with the brand, associations are more significant when strong and unique.

• Brand image, which is based on utilitarian benefits of the brand and its hedonic and symbolic value, is typically seen as being founded on a “specific set of attributes” and can be functional, symbolic or experiential to accordingly reflect performance, social needs or sensory pleasure.

• Brand personality, whereby brands are described as though they are human, is seen as being of a highly “specific” nature, but its dimensions have been questioned along with its relevance being limited to the Western culture.

Halkias proposes that the schema theory offers a more rigorous way to conceptualize brand knowledge. It incorporates all the above dimensions and conveys various forms of information pertaining to:

• Attribute types describing the product’s specifications, its benefits, typical users, how or when it is used, what it symbolizes and where it can be purchased.

• How attributes interrelate. Connections between schemata can be weak or strong depending on their level of abstractness, which can permit their division into other sub-concepts.

• Favorability, whereby attributes are assessed in either positive or negative terms.

• Salience of attributes, the degree of which can vary by context.

• Uniqueness describes whether an association is brand specific or can relate to the product category as a whole.

The individual nature of schemata is recognized, but it is suggested that marketers can identify features which are commonly perceived by the brand’s user population to help enhance brand positioning, communication and advertising efforts. Being more informed about the schemata most relevant to consumers can also benefit brand extensions.

Future work could examine the impact of changes to significant brand schemata and examine brands from a superordinate perspective to ascertain if unique attributes exist that can differentiate the brand from the competition. A consideration of corporate brands is another option and might help determine whether any positive attitudes at that level might transfer to associated products.

To read the full article, enter 10.1108/JPBM-02-2015-0818 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “Mental representation of brands: a schema-based approach to consumers' organization of market knowledge”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)