According to the consumer behavior and marketing literature, both brands and customization practices participate in customer self-identity definition and communication (Holt, 1995; Berger and Heath 2007; Kirmani 2009; Chernev et al. 2011). Previous studies have shown that customers may affirm their identity by means of customized products (Franke and Schreier 2008; Lynn and Harris 1997), and that brands may have a pivotal role in constructing and communicating the customer self-concept (Belk 1988; Levy 1959). However, the area concerning the interaction between customization models and brands in customer identity communication remains largely unexplored. This issue is relevant as a conceptual framework of the interaction effect of customization and brand on consumer reactions is not yet available. Considering that interactive customization models consent the customer to manipulate the product with respect to elements (e.g., colors, graphic patterns, pictures, texts) that pertain, directly or indirectly, to the domain of brand identity (Keller 1993), one might question how individuals eager to affirm their identity may respond to the opportunity of customizing product elements traditionally connected to the brand domain in presence or absence of the brand logo. In this paper, we distinguish two basic, highly interactive approaches to product customization based on the customizable content and the content provider. Module-based Customization (MbC) regards personalization based on selecting a combination of modules concerning variants of product elements, such as graphic patterns, shapes, and colors, provided and organized by the company. Symbol-based Customization (SbC) consists of personalization based on including into the product pictures and texts chosen and provided by the customer. We propose that MbC allows the adaptation of product elements to express customer preference and style (Franke, Schreier, and Kaiser 2010), whereas SbC enables the customer to generate a set of signs that can be used to convey personal symbols, and thus to create her/his self brand (Wind and Rangaswamy 2001). We argue that MbC and SbC operate at diverse levels of customer identity communication: The former leverages on elements (e.g., graphic patterns, shapes, colors) that may subtly or implicitly convey customer personality and values (Berger and Ward 2010; Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010), whereas the latter uses the immediateness of pictures and texts to explicitly communicate self-identity (Berger and Heath 2007; Scott 1994). Focusing on the case of a mass brand whose identity is well-known to customers, we use the proposed distinction to analyze the interaction between customization models and brands, and maintain that customer responses to MbC and SbC depend on the presence/absence of the mass brand logo upon the customized product. Specifically, we predict that the presence of a mass brand generates better consumer reactions for MbC compared to SbC, whereas the opposite holds in absence of a mass brand. Indeed, in presence of a mass brand, MbC and a mass brand, operating at different levels of communication, implicit and explicit respectively, complement each other, or at least do not compete with each other, in identity communication. Differently, SbC (i.e., self brand) and a mass brand, which operate at the same, explicit level of identity communication, may compete for transferring to relevant others customer identity. In absence of a mass brand, SbC should instead generate better customer responses than MbC. Indeed, SbC is characterized by a higher potential to communicate explicitly customer identity than MbC and, thus, should better satisfy individuals eager to transfer their identity. Moreover, SbC, compared to MbC, implies the integration into products of personally-chosen symbols, which are supposed to be congruent with the self. We also identify two boundary conditions for the competition effect between SbC and a mass brand. Indeed, under high levels of congruence between the self and the mass brand, it is likely that SbC conveys symbols that are consistent with the brand itself, thus eliminating the advantage of MbC over SbC for branded products. Moreover, we argue that the competition effect between SbC and a mass brand may disappear if the mass brand stimulates its customers to be creative and proactive in self-identity definition and communication. Compared to the case of a functional brand, SbC (which allows customers to creatively construct symbols) and a creative mass brand would be congruent with each other, and therefore generate positive customer reactions. We conducted two studies based on a web customization toolkit, which concerns customization of t-shirts. In study 1, we adopted a 2 (customization model: MbC vs. SbC) by 2 (brand: present vs. absent) between-subjects design. The brand used was Adidas and the dependent variables were attitude, purchase intention, and willingness to pay (WTP). In study 2, we adopted a 2 (customization model: MbC vs. SbC) by 3 (brand: functional vs. creative vs. absent) between-subjects design. The brands used were Adidas (functional) and Diesel (creative) and the dependent variables were attitude, purchase intention, and willingness to pay (WTP). Findings of study 1 show that MbC-branded products receive better customer responses than SbC-branded products, and SbC-unbranded products receive better customer responses than MbC-unbranded products. Study 1 also shows that, for branded products, and consistent with previous studies (Franke, Schreier, and Kaiser 2010), appreciation for MbC is (partially) mediated by preference fit and the “I designed it myself” effect, but not by identity communication potential. Differently, for unbranded products, appreciation for SbC is mainly mediated by identity communication potential and preference fit. Finally, findings of moderated regressions suggest that the advantage of MbC over SbC for branded products disappears if the brand is perceived to be highly congruent with the self. Findings of study 2 replicate those of study 1 and additionally show that the advantage of MbC over SbC for branded products disappears for creative brand.
Consumer symbols vs. firm symbols in self-identity communication: the interaction between customization and brand
MICELI, Gaetano;RAIMONDO, MARIA ANTONIETTA;
2012-01-01
Abstract
According to the consumer behavior and marketing literature, both brands and customization practices participate in customer self-identity definition and communication (Holt, 1995; Berger and Heath 2007; Kirmani 2009; Chernev et al. 2011). Previous studies have shown that customers may affirm their identity by means of customized products (Franke and Schreier 2008; Lynn and Harris 1997), and that brands may have a pivotal role in constructing and communicating the customer self-concept (Belk 1988; Levy 1959). However, the area concerning the interaction between customization models and brands in customer identity communication remains largely unexplored. This issue is relevant as a conceptual framework of the interaction effect of customization and brand on consumer reactions is not yet available. Considering that interactive customization models consent the customer to manipulate the product with respect to elements (e.g., colors, graphic patterns, pictures, texts) that pertain, directly or indirectly, to the domain of brand identity (Keller 1993), one might question how individuals eager to affirm their identity may respond to the opportunity of customizing product elements traditionally connected to the brand domain in presence or absence of the brand logo. In this paper, we distinguish two basic, highly interactive approaches to product customization based on the customizable content and the content provider. Module-based Customization (MbC) regards personalization based on selecting a combination of modules concerning variants of product elements, such as graphic patterns, shapes, and colors, provided and organized by the company. Symbol-based Customization (SbC) consists of personalization based on including into the product pictures and texts chosen and provided by the customer. We propose that MbC allows the adaptation of product elements to express customer preference and style (Franke, Schreier, and Kaiser 2010), whereas SbC enables the customer to generate a set of signs that can be used to convey personal symbols, and thus to create her/his self brand (Wind and Rangaswamy 2001). We argue that MbC and SbC operate at diverse levels of customer identity communication: The former leverages on elements (e.g., graphic patterns, shapes, colors) that may subtly or implicitly convey customer personality and values (Berger and Ward 2010; Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010), whereas the latter uses the immediateness of pictures and texts to explicitly communicate self-identity (Berger and Heath 2007; Scott 1994). Focusing on the case of a mass brand whose identity is well-known to customers, we use the proposed distinction to analyze the interaction between customization models and brands, and maintain that customer responses to MbC and SbC depend on the presence/absence of the mass brand logo upon the customized product. Specifically, we predict that the presence of a mass brand generates better consumer reactions for MbC compared to SbC, whereas the opposite holds in absence of a mass brand. Indeed, in presence of a mass brand, MbC and a mass brand, operating at different levels of communication, implicit and explicit respectively, complement each other, or at least do not compete with each other, in identity communication. Differently, SbC (i.e., self brand) and a mass brand, which operate at the same, explicit level of identity communication, may compete for transferring to relevant others customer identity. In absence of a mass brand, SbC should instead generate better customer responses than MbC. Indeed, SbC is characterized by a higher potential to communicate explicitly customer identity than MbC and, thus, should better satisfy individuals eager to transfer their identity. Moreover, SbC, compared to MbC, implies the integration into products of personally-chosen symbols, which are supposed to be congruent with the self. We also identify two boundary conditions for the competition effect between SbC and a mass brand. Indeed, under high levels of congruence between the self and the mass brand, it is likely that SbC conveys symbols that are consistent with the brand itself, thus eliminating the advantage of MbC over SbC for branded products. Moreover, we argue that the competition effect between SbC and a mass brand may disappear if the mass brand stimulates its customers to be creative and proactive in self-identity definition and communication. Compared to the case of a functional brand, SbC (which allows customers to creatively construct symbols) and a creative mass brand would be congruent with each other, and therefore generate positive customer reactions. We conducted two studies based on a web customization toolkit, which concerns customization of t-shirts. In study 1, we adopted a 2 (customization model: MbC vs. SbC) by 2 (brand: present vs. absent) between-subjects design. The brand used was Adidas and the dependent variables were attitude, purchase intention, and willingness to pay (WTP). In study 2, we adopted a 2 (customization model: MbC vs. SbC) by 3 (brand: functional vs. creative vs. absent) between-subjects design. The brands used were Adidas (functional) and Diesel (creative) and the dependent variables were attitude, purchase intention, and willingness to pay (WTP). Findings of study 1 show that MbC-branded products receive better customer responses than SbC-branded products, and SbC-unbranded products receive better customer responses than MbC-unbranded products. Study 1 also shows that, for branded products, and consistent with previous studies (Franke, Schreier, and Kaiser 2010), appreciation for MbC is (partially) mediated by preference fit and the “I designed it myself” effect, but not by identity communication potential. Differently, for unbranded products, appreciation for SbC is mainly mediated by identity communication potential and preference fit. Finally, findings of moderated regressions suggest that the advantage of MbC over SbC for branded products disappears if the brand is perceived to be highly congruent with the self. Findings of study 2 replicate those of study 1 and additionally show that the advantage of MbC over SbC for branded products disappears for creative brand.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
