Notion of Confusion in Marketing - Essay Example

? Confusion in Marketing of the of the Introduction The term “Confusion in Marketing” may sound very familiar but establishing a standardized definition for the term is equally burdensome for researchers and academic scholars. Principle reason for such difficulty in defining the term may be the mutual exclusiveness of different dimensions of the problem such as confusion among consumers may arise from own brand lookalikes, confusion among consumers regarding conveyed brand identity by marketers, confusion regarding product benefits and many others. The researcher has found that body knowledge regarding “Confusion in Marketing” or consumer confusion regarding marketing practices has been developed in the past 30 years or more. At this point, it would be rational to think that researchers from various background and time periods have conducted research on various aspects of the topic in last 30 years. In such background, the researcher has selected two academic articles addressing two different dimensions of the topic “Confusion in Marketing” and in the next section, the essay will identify, label, compare, analyze and reflect upon methodological choices in the two academic articles in terms of design of the research, data collection method, sampling and data collection, ethical aspects of the research, criteriology issues, problems or complications regarding the research etc. Articles in Discussion In the last 20 years, the world has become more globalized; consumerism has reached its pick, technological integration has revolutionized the concept of marketing promotion, evolution of interactive social media marketing took place and many other divergent occurrences happened. Same argument holds true for the research works of academic scholars regarding the topic “Confusion in Marketing”. To frame such divergence, the researcher has selected two academic articles which have 14 years of difference in terms of publication date. For the first academic article, the researcher has selected Balabanis and Craven’s (1997) academic article titled as “Consumer Confusion from Own Brand Lookalikes: An Exploratory Investigation” while for the second academic article, Srivastava’s (2011) academic article titled as “Understanding brand identity confusion” has been selected for discussion. In case of Balabanis & Craven’s (1997) academic article titled as “Consumer Confusion from Own Brand Lookalikes: An Exploratory Investigation”, the research objective was to understand how lookalikes from other brands or products having similar packaging, design and graphics as of leading brands creating confusion among customers. In case of Srivastava’s (2011) academic article titled as “Understanding brand identity confusion”, research objective was “to unveil the consumer perception about Cinthol (Indian bathing soap brand) and to understand the importance of brand identity of a product and the factors influencing it” (Srivastava, 2011, p. 340). To define consumer confusion regarding lookalike, Balabanis & Craven (1997) identified five different factors may that may invoke brand confusion among customers. However, previous researchers such as Foxman, Muehling & Berger (1990) and Foxman, Berger & Cote (1992) also identified similar kind of factors that may create confusion among customers regarding marketing practices of different marketers. Namely, five factors that can invoke marketing confusion are reason behind purchase, physical state of customers, physical environs or geographical position of the purchase, previous brand experience and temporal environment or time constraints. The academic article of Balabanis & Craven (1997) also considered the cognitive biasness model of Zaichkowsky (1985) and lack of consumer knowledge Sirdeshmukh & Unnava (1992) while understanding the source of consumer confusion regarding lookalikes. As research findings, academic article of Balabanis & Craven (1997) found that consumer confusion to lookalikes were only limited to certain product groups such as toy items but for high involvement product, extent of confusion is pretty less rather consumers buy lookalikes due to its price benefits. On the other hand, academic article Srivastava (2011) clearly distinguished brand identity as the image of the brand created by marketing managers and marketing department from brand image which depends on perception of the brand among customers. Therefore, certain degree of confusion regarding trade-off between brand image and brand identity exists (Balmer & Thompson, 2009, Gylline & Lindberg-Repo, 2006; Melewar & Hussey, 2005). In such context, Srivastava (2011) used the case study of Godrej consumer product’s “Cinthol” (one of the market leader in premium soap segment in India) to understand how marketers can address confusion regarding trade-off between brand image and brand identity. Srivastava (2011) found that certain amount of confusion regarding the actual target market (male versus female) had been created among consumers regarding “Cinthol” brand while the company successfully used celebrity endorsement in order to bridge the link between brand identity and brand image. The research findings were in line with the arguments of Vytautas, Aiste & Regina (2007) and Alessandri (2007) that consumer confusion regarding brand image might be directed by poor execution of marketing communication. It is evident from the brief description of key context of Balabanis & Craven’s (1997) academic article and Srivastava’s (2011) academic article that both of them highlighted two different aspects of one common problem named as “Confusion in Marketing”. in the next section, the researcher will conduct comparative analysis of research methodologies being used in the mentioned academic articles of Srivastava (2011) and Balabanis & Craven (1997). Methodological Choices Labelling, Analysis and Reflection Creswell (2009) and Gray (2009) defined ‘Labelling’ as the identification of philosophy that is being used in the research process. Creswell (2009) identified two types of research philosophies such as interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) and positivism. Objective of Balabanis & Craven (1997) was to address a specific business problem therefore they used positivism research philosophy. Important thing to remember is that generally interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) being used for understanding social and consumer perception related research problem. Exploratory research method was used by Balabanis & Craven (1997) due to the fact that the research problem was not well defined and significant amount of arguments exist regarding the correctness of the assumption that consumer confusion might be created by brand lookalikes. Balabanis & Craven (1997) conducted literature review in order to establish theoretical framework and hypothesis. The research scholars’ duo used deductive research approach in order to test validity of theoretical assumptions by checking relationship between variables. As part of deductive research approach, Balabanis & Craven (1997) used quantitative research strategy backed by administrative questionnaire survey of 50 customers of retail stores. Multi-item scales close ended questionnaire being used by Balabanis & Craven (1997) while one of the largest grocery retailer was the study questionnaire survey place. As part of criteriology issues, frequency of lookalikes launches and coexistence of both look alike and original brands within merchandise shelves of the retail store were being used by Balabanis & Craven (1997). 4 control variables being used for factorize the responses. Questionnaire survey was done immediately after respondents or consumers completed shopping while four pairs (original/lookalike) of products such as instant coffee, chocolate bar, soft drink and cereals were used for comparison. Foxman, Muehling & Berger’s (1990) consumer choice model is being used to show above mentioned 4 pairs of product categories (original/lookalike) to customers to understand whether it could generate confusion or not. A 10-point rating scale (1= absolutely certain and 0= not at all certain) was being used by Balabanis & Craven (1997) to develop consumer confusion index. On the other hand, 6 point likert scale was used for indicating the brand experience of customers. Saunders, Lewis & Thornhil (2009) and Robson (2011) argued that researchers should address ethical issues regarding research process in order to fulfil the interest of pertinent stakeholders who might get affected by the outcome of the research. In order to ensure addressing of ethical issues, Balabanis & Craven (1997) maintained confidentiality about name of the retail stores, branding description and identity of respondents. They also took permission of respondents prior conducting the survey and Balabanis & Craven (1997) avoided using biased questions which may hurt personal value system of respondents. Balabanis & Craven (1997) used descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (Student's t-tests and linear regression) in order to analyze data quantitatively. On the other hand, Srivastava’s (2011) methodology focused only on descriptive aspects of research problem because the research problem was not only well defined but also very subject specific therefore there was no scope for doing exploratory research. Srivastava (2011) used positivist research philosophy in order to address the business research problem in measurable manner. As part of deductive research approach, Srivastava (2011) used quantitative research strategy backed by structured questionnaire survey of respondents in the age group of 21-55 years. Sample size for the study was 1000. As criteriology issues, sampling population included both Cinthol users and non-Cinthol users in order to understand the choice differences. Face to face interview of respondents was being done by Srivastava (2011) while close ended questions were being used to develop the structured questionnaire. Location for the structured interview was Mumbai while simple random sampling was used to select respondents in probabilistic manner. As part of secondary research, company websites, online journals, books, academic peer reviewed journals, printed sources were used in order to collect secondary data Srivastava (2011). Srivastava (2011) took help of 12 students to collect data from 1000 respondents within 3 months. Male-female ratio in the sample size was equal to actual male-female ratio in India demographic population. MS-Excel being used for data analysis while two independent groups Z-test was used for statistical calculation (Srivastava, 2011). Although, Srivastava (2011) addresses ethical issues regarding confidentiality of identity of respondents, students who collected the responses or taking permission of respondents before conducting survey or stating the purpose of the survey to respondents but the scholars faced ethical challenge in getting general consensus from participating students for acting as pseudo data collection executive. In the academic article, Srivastava (2011) did not mention how the scholar addressed the ethical dilemma regarding students as data collection executive. While analyzing and reflecting the methodological choices in the two academic articles of Srivastava (2011) and Balabanis & Craven (1997), the researcher has found both merits and demerits in both the research methodology. For example, Balabanis & Craven’s (1997) research methodology can be classified as corrects due to its exploratory nature and systematic statistical approach towards the research problem while form other viewpoint, the research methodology can be classified as incorrect due to its small sample size and intention to generalize the findings. Same arguments hold true Srivastava’s (2011) research methodology; the methodology can be classified as correct due to its strong focus on developing hypothesis by doing detail study of existing literature but from statistical viewpoint, few flaws have been identified in data analysis process. Srivastava (2011) did well in defining the research problem in systematic manner but the scholar failed to use proper statistical classification technique such as clustering method (two step cluster analysis would be the most fitted) which was necessary to classify respondents groups out of 1000 sample population. On the other hand, Balabanis & Craven’s (1997) research methodology should be appreciated for developing a well structured conceptual model of a relatively unstructured problem but on similar context, the research methodology should be criticized for using linear regression model instead of logistic regression model for a categorical problem. Balabanis & Craven (1997) even not explained basis of their sampling strategy and how such small sample size can be used to reach a generalized conclusion. However, despite such shortcomings, both the academic articles of Srivastava (2011) and Balabanis & Craven (1997) should be appreciated for highlighting important dimensions of much debated topic named as “Confusion in Marketing”. Conclusion Once, Nandan (2005) conjecturally argued that it is very difficult to establish unified definition of “Confusion in Marketing” rather researchers should try to highlight different aspects of confusion among consumers that may cause due to marketing practice of marketers. After doing the comparative analysis of methodological choices in the two academic articles, the researcher has also came to similar kind of conclusion as Nandan (2005) that there cannot be one standardized methodological implication for all types research problems regarding consumer confusion being generated through different marketing practices of marketers. In conclusion, it can be said that the researcher has gained significant insight on the topic “Confusion in Marketing” by doing not only comparative analysis of methodological choices in the two academic articles but also going through related literature to the topic. References Alessandri, S. W. (2007). Identity changes and crisis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1, 147-67. Balabanis, G., & Craven, S. (1997). Consumer Confusion from Own Brand Lookalikes: An Exploratory Investigation. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 299-313. Balmer, J. M. T., & Thompson, I. (2009). Shared management and ownership of corporate brand identity – case of Hilton. Journal of General Management, 34(4), 15-37. Creswell J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications. Foxman, B. R., Muehling, D. D., & Berger, P. W. (1990). An Invesdgadon of Factors Contributing To Consumer Brand Confusion. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24, 170-189. Foxman, E. R., Berger, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1992). Consumer Brand Confusion: A Conceptual Framework. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 123-141. Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing Research in the real world. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Gylline, C., & Lindberg-Repo, K. (2006). Investigating the link between a corporate brand and customer. Brand Management, 13(49), 257-67. Melewar, T. C., & Hussey, G. (2005). Corporate visual identity – the branding of Trance telecom. Journal of Brand Management, 12(5), 379-94. Nandan, S. (2005). An exploration of the brand identity-brand image linkage: A communication perspective. Brand Management, 12(4), 264-78. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research. (3rd ed.). Chichester: John Wiely and Sons Ltd, Publication. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhil, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Sirdeshmukh, D., & Unnava, H. R. (1992). The Effects of Missing Information On Consumer Product Evaluations. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 284-289. Srivastava, R. K. (2011). Understanding brand identity confusion. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(4), 340-352. Vytautas, J., Aiste, D., & Regina, V. (2007). Relationship of brand identify and image. Engineering Economics, 5(1), 69-79. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Familiarity — Product Use, Involvement Or Expertise. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 296-299. Read More