Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Norm violations and the role of marketplace comparisons in positioning brands

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates how consumer norms regarding the use of marketplace comparisons can influence the effectiveness of positioning strategies. Using an experimental method and student samples, we provide evidence across a set of three studies that comparing a focal brand to an offering from the same product category (i.e., a within-category comparison) represents an expected marketplace tactic, while comparing a brand to a rival from a different category (i.e., a between-category comparison) constitutes a deviation from the norm. Studies one and two utilize an experimental design that manipulates comparison type to demonstrate the effect of norm violations on positioning outcomes. Consistent with the proposed theoretical framework, within-category comparisons were perceived as a more appropriate tactic and were thus more effective in positioning the focal brand than were between-category comparisons. Study three employs a two-factor experimental design to demonstrate the moderating effects of attribute claims. Specifically, the results from this study indicate that the general effect of comparison type established by studies one and two are contingent upon the size of the superiority being claimed in the comparison.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, J. G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25, 56–62 (May/June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, J. (2003). Detroit worries some consumers are souring on big SUVs. Wall Street Journal, 8 January, B1.

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., Manning, K. C., & Miniard, P. W. (2004). Consumer response to retailers’ use of partially comparative pricing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 37–47 (July).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 187–199 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dröge, C., & Darmon, R. Y. (1987). Associative positioning strategies through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall similarity approaches. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 377–388 (November).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31 (June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, R. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising: Motivating more extensive Ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 87–99 (June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. E., Costley, C. & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61, 1–15 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 751–753 (December).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. C. (1998). The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 210–224 (May).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, K. C., Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Understanding the mental representations created by comparative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30, 27–39 (Summer).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Tybout, A. M. (1989). Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 39–54 (June).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50, 135–145 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann, C., & Ratneshwar, S. (1991). The use of comparative advertising for brand positioning: Association versus differentiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 145–160 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1990). The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 180–191 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146 (September).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratneshwar, S., & Shocker, A. D. (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 281–295 (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., Edell, J. A., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed Ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 285–294 (December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B. (1994). Advertising’s impact on category substitution. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 505–515 (November).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (1996). Advertising strategies to increase usage frequency. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46 (January).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, W. L., & Farris, P. (1975). Comparison advertising: problems and potential. Journal of Marketing, 39, 7–15 (October).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziamou, P., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in product functionality: When and why are explicit comparisons effective? Journal of Marketing, 67, 49–61 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Noreen Klein, Paul Miniard, Kent Nakamoto, Terry Shimp, Roy Teas, and Rao Unnava for helpful comments provided on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

    Robert D. Jewell

  2. College of Business Administration, Department of Marketing, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Michael J. Barone

Authors
  1. Robert D. Jewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Barone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert D. Jewell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jewell, R.D., Barone, M.J. Norm violations and the role of marketplace comparisons in positioning brands. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 35, 550–559 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0050-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0050-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation