Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of atypical product design on consumer product and brand perception

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the influence of atypical product designs on consumers’ product and brand perceptions. Drawing on appraisal theory of emotions and research on inference making, the results of three experimental studies conducted among US and European consumers demonstrate that the atypicality of a product’s design positively influences impressions of brand excitement and negatively influences impressions of brand reliability. The former relationship is mediated by the product’s perceived interestingness, while the latter is mediated by the product’s perceived functionality. Importantly, product design atypicality interacts with product positioning in affecting consumer brand perception. Compared to positioning a product hedonically, positioning a product functionally increases the positive influence of product design atypicality on brand excitement and decreases the negative influence of product design atypicality on brand reliability. These findings contribute to research in the field of product design and brand management by demonstrating a dual effect of design atypicality on consumers’ brand perceptions. Managerial implications and suggestions for future research are outlined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, J., S. Fournier, and S.A. Brasel. 2004. When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J.L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altschiller, D. 2000. Do dot. coms’ ads reveal a more basic flaw? Brandweek 41 (12): 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J., and K. White. 2012. When do consumers eat more? The role of appearance self-esteem and food packaging cues. Journal of Marketing 76 (2): 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D.E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blijlevens, J., G. Gemser, and R. Mugge. 2012. The importance of being ‘well-placed’: The influence of context on perceived typicality and esthetic appraisal of product appearance. Acta Psychologica 139 (1): 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blijlevens, J., R. Mugge, P. Ye, and J.P.L. Schoormans. 2013. The influence of product exposure on trendiness and aesthetic appraisal. International Journal of Design 7 (1): 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blijlevens, J., C. Thurgood, P. Hekkert, L.-L. Chen, H. Leder, and T.W. Allan. 2017. The aesthetic pleasure in design scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11 (1): 86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P.H. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing 59 (3): 6–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, C.B., S. Ulrich, P. Jungen, and F.-R. Esch. 2016. Impact of symbolic product design on brand evaluations. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25 (3): 307–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chitturi, R., R. Raghunathan, and V. Mahajan. 2007. Form versus function: How the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing Research 44 (4): 702–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creusen, M.E.H., and J.P.L. Schoormans. 2005. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (1): 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, N., J. Moultrie, and P.J. Clarkson. 2004. Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies 25 (6): 547–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, X., and B.E. Kahn. 2009. Is your product on the right side? The “location effect” on perceived product heaviness and package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (6): 725–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, X., and R. Srinivasan. 2013. When do transparent packages increase (or decrease) food consumption? Journal of Marketing 77 (4): 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deval, H., S.P. Mantel, F.R. Kardes, and S.S. Posavac. 2013. How naive theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (6): 1185–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., and K. Wertenbroch. 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (1): 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisend, M., and N.E. Stokburger-Sauer. 2013. Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters 34 (3): 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B.L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 2 (3): 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, M.R., D.W. Dahl, and C.P. Moreau. 2012. Innovation aesthetics: The relationship between category cues, categorization certainty, and newness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30 (2): 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunasti, K., and W.T. Ross. 2010. How and when alphanumeric brand names affect consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research 47 (6): 1177–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H. 2011. The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing 75 (4): 86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H., and V.M. Patrick. 2008. Art infusion: The influence of visual art on the perception and evaluation of consumer products. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (3): 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, W.K., and L.L. Chen. 2012. Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic preference in product design. International Journal of Design 6 (2): 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jhang, J.H., S.J. Grant, and M.C. Campbell. 2012. Get it? Got it. Good! Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research 29 (2): 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., G.J. Gorn, M. Galli, and A. Chattopadhyay. 2015. Does your company have the right logo? How and why circular- and angular-logo shapes influence brand attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 42 (5): 709–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F.R., S.S. Posavac, and M.L. Cronley. 2004. Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14 (3): 230–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karjalainen, T.-M., and D. Snelders. 2010. Designing visual recognition for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27 (1): 6–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuzbauer, R., and A.J. Malter. 2005. Embodied cognition and new product design: Changing product form to influence brand categorization. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (2): 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M., and N. Garg. 2010. Aesthetic principles and cognitive emotion appraisals: How much of the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder? Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (4): 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuppens, P., I. Van Mechelen, D.J. Smits, and P. De Boeck. 2003. The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity and sufficiency of components. Emotion 3 (3): 254–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, J.R., D. Wentzel, and A. Herrmann. 2013. Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing 77 (5): 92–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, T., B. Grohmann, A. Herrmann, J.R. Landwehr, M. van Tilburg, N. Lee, and D. Biswas. 2015. The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal of Marketing 49 (1/2): 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M., and K.S. Swan. 2011. Perspective: The emergence of product design as a field of marketing inquiry. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maehle, N., C. Otnes, and M. Supphellen. 2011. Consumers’ perceptions of the dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10 (5): 290–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mai, R., C. Symmank, and B. Seeberg-Elverfeldt. 2016. Light and pale colors in food packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior tastiness? Journal of Retailing 92 (4): 426–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugge, R., and D.W. Dahl. 2013. Seeking the ideal level of design newness: Consumer response to radical and incremental product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30 (S1): 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, A., and W.D. Hoyer. 2001. The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3): 462–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C.H., and M. Kumar. 2008. Using product design strategically to create deeper consumer connections. Business Horizons 51 (5): 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noseworthy, T.J., J. Cotte, and S.H. Lee. 2011. The effects of ad context and gender on the identification of visually incongruent products. Journal of Consumer Research 38 (2): 358–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noseworthy, T.J., and R. Trudel. 2011. Looks interesting, but what does it do? Evaluation of incongruent product form depends on positioning. Journal of Marketing Research 48 (6): 1008–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U.R., and K. Malkewitz. 2008. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing 27 (3): 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, T. 2014. Product attachment and replacement: Implications for sustainable design. International Journal of Sustainable Design 2 (3): 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Person, O., J. Schoormans, D. Snelders, and T.-M. Karjalainen. 2008. Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies 29 (1): 30–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, I.J., and C.A. Smith. 2001. Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research, ed. K.M. Scherer, 3–19. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P.J. 2001. Interest and interests: The psychology of constructive capriciousness. Review of General Psychology 5 (3): 270–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P.J. 2005. What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion 5 (1): 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P.J. 2008. Interest—The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (1): 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P.J., and C. Berg. 2011. Finding movies interesting: How appraisals and expertise influence the aesthetic experience of film. Empirical Studies of the Arts 29 (1): 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S.J., M.P. Zanna, and G.T. Fong. 2005. Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6): 845–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, A., and T.J. Noseworthy. 2016. Too exciting to fail, too sincere to succeed: the effects of brand personality on sensory disconfirmation. Journal of Consumer Research 43 (1): 44–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner Jr., S.A., and P.J. Silvia. 2006. Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures. Emotion 6 (4): 670–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rompay, T.J.L., and A. Pruyn. 2011. When visual product features speak the same language: Effects of shape-typeface congruence on brand perception and price expectations. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (4): 599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R.W., and J.W. Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 374–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, K.E., E.R. Spangenberg, and B. Grohmann. 2003. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (3): 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by D. Swarovski KG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Strategic Management, Marketing, and Tourism, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstr. 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Benedikt Schnurr

Authors
  1. Benedikt Schnurr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedikt Schnurr.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Stimuli used in Study 1

figure a

Appendix 2: Stimuli used in Study 2

figure b

Appendix 3: Stimuli used in Study 3

figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schnurr, B. The impact of atypical product design on consumer product and brand perception. J Brand Manag 24, 609–621 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0059-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0059-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation