Consumer psyche and positioning strategies

Sair, Shrafat Ali Article Consumer psyche and positioning strategies Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Sair, Shrafat Ali (2014) : Consumer psyche and positioning strategies, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, pp. 58-73 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/188126 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Pak J Commer Soc Sci Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 2014, Vol. 8 (1), 5873 Consumer Psyche and Positioning Strategies Shrafat Ali Sair Department of Management Sciences, Virtual University of Pakistan E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The significance of positioning is firm in marketing but there is scant research, how positioning (strategies) alternatives are important or substitute each other, which positioning strategy overlap and how it measures effectively. Sometimes brand managers waste their energies and company resources to build an image of brand with simultaneous positioning strategies, whereas purpose can be achieved by applying the one of them. Quantitative mode of study is applied herein the research. Relative effectiveness of positioning strategies is measure by using multidimensional scale. The scale is based on four dimensions i.e., favorability, dissimilarity, uniqueness, and credibility. The associated items are seventeen with these four dimensions. Two print advertisements from cellular industry that are representing the given positioning strategies showed to the 100 consumers using purposive sampling technique. The statistical technique, ANCOVA is applied herein the study. The results show that the surrogate positioning strategy and feature positioning are identical in term of favorability and credibility. Other two dimensions named dissimilarity and uniqueness counter balance each other. Keywords: positioning, positioning strategy, surrogate positioning, feature positioning. 1. Introduction Decision making for marketing executive is associated with the evaluation of positioning strategies. Positioning strategies are the major source to shape the consumer preferences toward a brand. It is essential to assess the consumer behavior and psyche how they perceive the offered brand by recalling the company’s communications. Right positioning strategy at right time is required to build right image of a brand in the mind of consumer. questions “which positioning decision is better” and “which rationale positioning decision should be made” are still unclear” (Fuchs, 2008). So according to Fuchs (2008), there is a gap to conduct the current study. No doubt, few valuable researches have been conducted to analyze positioning. The efforts to measure the effectiveness of brand positioning are being made but on the limited scope. After acknowledging the significance of positioning effectiveness dimensions (favorability, dissimilarity, uniqueness, and credibility), brand managers take benefits of (a) depth understanding of brand positioning (b) developing refined positioning strategies and (c) motivating branding initiatives. Precisely, the judgment of consumer psyche regarding positioning dimensions, brand managers enable to distinguish the pros and corns of the effectiveness dimensions for instance, which dimension should focus to improve or which pair of dimension may decide to develop positioning strategies. Sair 59 There is a positive relationship between the positioning related decision and the brand success that is the success of brand moves around the pivot of positioning decision (Pham & Muthukrishnan, 2002; Punj & Moon, 2002). Here it is necessary to answer a question “why positioning decision is major cause of brand success?” The answer of this important question is very simple but important one and based upon two variables which are perception and available choices for consumer. In short, positioning decisions are potential forces that interpret the selection behavior and consumer’s perception (D.A. Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Carpenter, Glazer, & Nakamoto, 1994). Of course, brand positioning is designed for potential customers as input which results in customer’s feedback. Feedback to positioning appears as output in different ways such as price consciousness. Brand positioning plays a very vital role to build the customer touch points for instance, brand equity that is driven from customer side, price negotiation (margin) and demand related elasticity (Boulding, Lee, & Staelin, 1994; Carpenter et al., 1994; Keller, 1993; Keller & Richey, 2003). Eventually, the brand which is positioned in a well-mannered way attracts the required segment of the customers by shaping brand loyalty, brand preferences, brand values, brand beliefs, brand attitudes, and brand behaviors. The brand positioning shapes searching behavior of customers in such a way that they are never satisfied until the required brand comes in their access (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2010; Trommsdorff & Paulssen, 2005). There is a strong positive relationship between positioning and company financial health. If positioning is being done in a right direction then the financial position of a company will be healthy and vice versa (Day, 1990; Roth, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Urban & Hauser, 1993). In a broad spectrum, positioning is a backbone of a company if being designed in right direction and in a purposive way, a dominated brand will be there in market place; conversely, if positioning is not being designed or done inefficiently then there will be serious consequences on brand life (Haig, 2011). The basic research question that is being answered in the research is “which positioning strategy is more effective than the other i.e., surrogate positioning or feature positioning”? 2. Literature Background The concept of positioning in marketing is not simple as it is considered. It is trickiest and most complex in nature (Bhat & Reddy, 1998). There is major cause behind this complexity of positioning concept that is no consensus regarding the meaning of this concept among the marketing scholars and specialist (Rigger, 1995). Further, there is lack of evidence about the generally accepted definition of positioning. In other words, the limit of positioning concept is not defined clearly. Marketers are still in discussion process with respect to this concept and related literature is unable to draw clear boundary around the positioning concept (Blankson & Kalafatis, 1999). Many scholars explained that positioning is a managerial aspect. In this managerial activity managers are trying to create unique associations for consumer mindset with respect to rival. For instance, “Positioning refers to the set of strategies that firms develop and implement to ensure that these differences occupy a distinct and important position in the minds of customers” (Lilien & Rangaswamy, 2003). According to Solomon, Marshall, and Stuart (2006), in a wider sense, positioning covers all such kind of marketing efforts that possibly build or alter the association for the consumer mindset. Consumer Psyche and Positioning Strategies 60 As discussed above positioning is a managerial activity which is showing one side of coin whereas the other side of coin is different. There is a second view of positioning that is consumer perspective. According to the initiator of positioning concept, positioning is concern with communication stuff that controls the consumer perception or opinion about certain products. The major focus of the positioning concept is towards consumer mindset and preferences (Al & Jack, 1981; Ries, Trout, Sabin, & Hamerling, 1986). Ellson (2004) explained the positioning concept in a same way as Al and Jack (1981) demonstrated. For instance, “positioning is related with creating brand perceptions in the minds of consumers and with achieving differentiated images apart from competitors’ brands/offerings and meeting customer needs/expectations” (Ghodeswar, 2008). Thus regarding the second view point the positioning is a consumer concern rather than managerial one. The current research is being conducted with respect to the consumer. The positioning strategy is being formulated for particular segment by using one “P” of marketing mix (i.e., promotion) whereas corporate strategy is applied to the overall organization (i.e., to improve the efficiency). Corporate strategy is beyond the scope of the study. There exist unlimited dimensions through which managers position the brands (Hooley, Saunders, & Piercy, 2004). Current study measures the effectiveness of brand positioning by using cell phone ads. For instance, cell phone industry positions its brands in term of durability, smartness, style, user friendliness, shape, outlook, physical characteristics, usage, internet connection, social status (in expensive phones), particular usages (like mobile for ladies, water proof mobile etc.). In the present study two positioning strategies are under discussion 1) Surrogate positioning strategy and 2) feature positioning strategy. Surrogate positioning strategy emphasizes on certain usage of the brand whereas feature positioning strategy emphasizes mainly on features of the brand. Relative effectiveness of positioning strategies (surrogate and feature) is measured empirically regarding consumer’s viewpoint. 2.1 Study Dimensions Fuchs and Diamantopoulos (2012) have explained that conceptualization is foundation to develop instrument. This study is based on the three dimensions a) Favorability b) Differentiation and c) Credibility. Furthermore, differentiation dimension is divided into two sub-dimensions that are “dissimilarity” and “uniqueness”. Logically, there are four dimensions to measure the effectiveness of positioning strategies. The study model is presented in figure 1. Each dimension is being measured by the elements that the dimension has (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2012). An association of a brand helps the consumers to understand the meaning of brand (Pullig, Netemeyer, & Biswas, 2006). Positive association of consumer with a brand is a significant factor either brand is positioned well or not. Favorability examines such kind of association which consumer attaches positively or negatively with brand. If positive association is there then brand is well-positioned otherwise not (David A Aaker, 1991; William R Dillon, Madden, Kirmani, & Mukherjee, 2001; Keller & Richey, 2003). To differentiate brands with the help of dissimilarity consumer tries to recall the cognitive clues (features or salient attributes) of brands (Creusen & Schoormans, 1997; Derbaix & Sjöberg, 1994; Lefkoff-Hagius & Mason, 1993). Keller, Parameswaran, and Jacob (2011) Sair 61 have endorsed that uniqueness highlights that features of brand which were not touched by the competitors (i.e., brand shows distinct image). Uniqueness explains that the brand appears like a special object in its category (Franke & Schreier, 2008). Tybout and Sternthal (2005) further explain that identified gap between the focal and rival brand should be believable for consumers. Figure 1: Study model to measuring the effectiveness of brand positioning strategies (Source: Fuchs, 2008) 2.2 Hypothesis Well reputed, recognized and strong organizations avoid positioning their brands by communicating the features (attributes) and benefits but belief and values (Kotler & Armstrong, 2009). Surrogate strategies are more near to the consumers’ requirement and values than to provide just the product information to the consumers (Maclnnis & Jaworski, 1989). Actually, consumers do not get satisfied or convinced from the products’ physical feature (characteristics) but their satisfaction level is associated with the fulfillment of product related particular purposes or objectives (Graeff, 1997). A particular form of surrogate position strategy is “usage” in which brand is positioned with respect to the certain usage in a particular situation e.g., cell phone designed for those consumers mostly working in water (Crawford, 1985). The basic working of surrogate positioning strategy is to shape or associate the consumers’ favorability with his desire or self-image (Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; Lefkoff-Hagius & Mason, 1993; Sirgy, 1982). Eventually, surrogate positioning is more concerned with the self-relevance consumer need than only describing the features (Belk, 1988; Ennis, 1982). Another positive aspect of surrogate positioning strategy is no duplication or very difficult to copy in comparison to feature strategy (Ennis, 1982). Similar to the benefit positioning strategy, surrogate positioning strategy is superior to the benefit positioning. The reason behind the supremacy is information that is surrogate positioning is more informative as compared to the benefit (Pham & Muthukrishnan, 2002). In the light of above information it may be posited that:  H: Surrogate (user) positioning is more effective than feature positioning. Furthermore, the study hypothesis is sub-divided into four parts and each division is associated with different dimension. Separate discussion on every part of hypothesis is incorporated in “Results & Interpretation” section. Favorability Dissimilarity Uniqueness Credibility Positioning Effectiveness Consumer Psyche and Positioning Strategies 62  aH: Surrogate (user) positioning is more effective than feature positioning with respect to favorability  bH: Surrogate (user) positioning is more effective than feature positioning with respect to dissimilarity  cH: Surrogate (user) positioning is more effective than feature positioning with respect to uniqueness  dH: Surrogate (user) positioning is more effective than feature positioning with respect to credibility 3. Research Methodology The descriptive technique is involved because study is required to describe the phenomena of brand positioning effectiveness. The recommended tool for descriptive study is questionnaire, so structured questionnaire is used herein the study. Non-contrived design for the research is suggested due to induction of the open (i.e., natural) environment (Malik, Ghafoor, & Naseer, 2011). Cell phone users have been selected for the study hence unit of analysis is “individual”. There is a strong evidence for the selection of individual as a unit of analysis that is Fuchs and Diamantopoulos (2012) have selected consumer for such kind of study. The time horizon for the study is crosssectional because positioning is relative concept and is observed with respect to competitors. Sample is that subset of study population that the author used to collect data practically and after all author generalized the results for the target population and legitimately for the study population (Elston & Johnson, 2008; Kazerooni, 2001). The selected sample size for the study is 100 business graduates consumers (using purposive sampling technique) belong to the Lahore city of Punjab province. There are two justifications behind the selection of 100 as a sample size (1) purposive sampling technique allowed author to take the smart set of respondents (2) Fuchs and Diamantopoulos (2012) have taken 100 sample size for such sort of study. There is advantage of purposive sampling technique over a probability technique that is “depth info” from the respondents (Patton, 2005). Purposive sampling is appropriate technique for a study in specific culture (Tongco, 2007) and present study is conducted in Pakistan. Respondents that required for the study are educated one those have knowledge about the positioning concept. Purposive sampling gives permission to select such kind of respondents (Bernard, 2011; Lewis & Sheppard, 2006). Non-probability sampling (purposive sampling) is not against of the theory of probability, if it does not negate the probability theory hence it is not against the concept of generalizability (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). Primary data is gathered by visiting the respondents through survey. The questionnaire has been adopted from the Fuchs (2008). The questionnaire is comprised of seventeen items called elements. Each dimension is explained by four elements except credibility that is composed to five elements. Measuring items are presented in appendix A. Brand positioning is cultivated by marketing communications tool with advertising as a major tool, so it is stated that advertisement is chief source of positing for the consumers (W.R. Dillon, Domzal, & Madden, 1986; Seggev, 1982). Crawford (1985) has claimed that product positioning is explained by print advertisements maximum of 74%. Fuchs and Diamantopoulos (2012) have used the magazine (print) advertisements to evaluate the effectiveness of positioning strategies. Two print advertisements are selected after the content analysis. Both advertisements are Sair 63 represented the positioning strategy. The first advertisement is delivers the “surrogate (user) positioning” whereas second one communicates the “feature positioning”. Before the distribution of questionnaire to the consumers, both advertisements are displayed with different orders. So, the questionnaire and print advertisements are complementary for each other in data collection. The consumers have evaluated the positioning strategies on the given four dimensions. 4. Results & Interpretation 4.1 Analysis Procedure The statistical technique applied on the data set was analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs) by using SPSS. All basic assumptions of ANCOVA were confirmed in a pre-testing phase. After the satisfactory results regarding basic assumption ANCOVA test was performed. The ANCOVAs test applied on the four dimensions of positioning effectiveness with the pair of positioning strategy. The desired pair of positioning strategy is “surrogate vs. feature” that is required to investigate the relative effectiveness. Practically, analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs) applied by taking all four effective dimensions one by one with the pair “surrogate vs. feature” positioning strategy by considering age and monthly income as a covariates. Socio-demographic variables are very important elements in observing the consumers’ view point with respect to positioning concepts (Friedmann & Lessig, 1987; Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2010; Munn, 1960; Williams & Drolet, 2005; Wolin, 2003). The socio-demographic data that addressed in this study are age, gender, marital status, education, monthly income and occupation. 4.2 Interpretation of Results Findings and interpretation are based on the analysis procedure explained above. Further, statistics of every dimension is captured in a table and author interprets each table separately. Table 1: Statistical Results for Hypothesis (Favorability) Position Strategy Mean Std. Deviation N Coefficient of Variation (CV) % Surrogate 2.62 1.22 97 46.56 Feature 2.56 1.20 97 46.88 Total 2.59 1.21 194 Favorability F-value = .133 p-value = .716 > α Covariates Age & Monthly Income F2a F = .760 & F2a p = .384 > α F2bF = 2.522 & F2bp = .114 > α Table 1 opens the door of discussion for the hypothesis by considering the favorability dimension of positioning effectiveness. The Table (1) values predict that surrogate positioning strategy is more effective as compared to feature positioning strategy. It should not be ignored that the discussion is going on by taking the positioning dimension one by one. So, the superiority of surrogate positioning over the feature is with respect to the favorability dimension. Statistically, the numeric value (mean) of surrogate positioning strategy is 2.62 and it is little bit higher than the mean value of feature Consumer Psyche and Positioning Strategies 64 positioning strategy that is 2.56. Hence, on the basis of discussion above and numerical values in a Table 1, it is concluded that surrogate positioning strategy outperforms the feature positioning strategy in term of favorability. Here, the conclusion is obvious that the results are consistent with the hypothesis (H). Further, it is necessary to explain the significance of result presented in Table 1. No doubt, the Table values reveal that surrogate strategies leads over the feature positioning strategy with respect to the favorability. There is an important point in the interpretation of outputs in Table 1, the difference of means between the positioning strategies with respect to favorability is insignificant because p-value > α (F = .133 & p = .716 > α). Age and monthly income are the covariates in the current study and here producing insignificant effects on positioning effectiveness dimension that is favorability. The evidence of insignificance of these covariates is there in a form of statistical tests (repeated measures ANCOVA on favorability). The p-value of both age and monthly income is greater than alpha i.e., p-values > α and their respective F values are given here (F2aF = .760 & F2ap = .384 > α; F2bF = 2.522 & F2bp = .114 > α). Last column of Table 1 is presenting the values of “coefficient of variation” CV. The percentage value of CVs against surrogate positioning strategy and feature positioning strategy is also ignorable because difference of mean is insignificance. In the light of these values in the Table, author concludes that surrogate positioning provides no significance difference of performance as compared to the feature positioning strategy. Table 2: Statistical Results for Hypothesis (Dissimilarity) Position Strategy Mean Std. Deviation N Coefficient of Variation (CV) % Surrogate 5.42 1.44 97 26.56 Feature 4.88 1.44 97 29.51 Total 5.15 1.46 194 Dissimilarity F-value = 6.901 p-value = .009 < α Covariates Age & Monthly Income D2a F = .028 & D2a p = .868 > α D2bF = 2.882 & D2bp = .091 > α Table 2 opens the door of discussion for the hypothesis by considering the dissimilarity dimension of positioning effectiveness. The Table (2) values predict that surrogate positioning strategy is more effective as compared to feature positioning strategy. It should not be ignored that the discussion is going on by taking the positioning dimension one by one. So, the superiority of surrogate positioning over the feature is with respect to the dissimilarity dimension. Statistically, the numeric value (mean) of surrogate positioning strategy is 5.42 and it is higher than the mean value of feature positioning strategy that is 4.88. Hence, on the basis of discussion above and numerical values in a Table 2, it is concluded that surrogate positioning strategy outperforms the feature positioning strategy in term of dissimilarity. Here, the conclusion is obvious that the results are consistent with the hypothesis (H) Further, it is necessary to explain the significance of result presented in Table 2. No doubt, the Table values reveal that surrogate strategies leads over the feature positioning Sair 65 strategy with respect to the dissimilarity. Moreover, the difference of means between the positioning strategies with respect to dissimilarity in Table 2 is significant because pvalue < α (F = 6.901 & p = .009 < α) Age and monthly income are the covariates in the current study and here producing insignificant effects on positioning effectiveness dimension that is dissimilarity. The evidence of insignificance of these covariates is there in a form of statistical tests (repeated measures ANCOVA on dissimilarity). The p-value of both age and monthly income is greater than alpha i.e., p-values > α and their respective F values are given here (D2aF = .028 & D2ap = .868 > α; D2bF = 2.882 & D2bp = .091 > α). Last column of Table 2 is presenting the values of “coefficient of variation” CV. The percentage value of CV against surrogate positioning strategy is 26.56%. This value in the CV column is lower than the other value (i.e., feature). In the light of these values in the Table, author concludes that surrogate positioning provides more consistent performance as compared to the feature positioning strategy. Table 3: Statistical Results for Hypothesis (Uniqueness) Position Strategy Mean Std. Deviation N Coefficient of Variation (CV) % Surrogate 2.79 1.30 97 46.59 Feature 4.26 1.52 97 35.68 Total 3.52 1.59 194 Uniqueness F-value = 52.952 p-value = .000 < α Covariates Age & Monthly Income U2a F = .022 & U2a p = .883 > α U2bF = 2.252 & U2bp = .135 > α Table 3 opens the door of discussion for the hypothesis by considering the uniqueness dimension of positioning effectiveness. The Table 3 values predict that surrogate positioning strategy is less effective as compared to feature positioning strategy. It should not be ignored that the discussion is going on by taking the positioning dimension one by one. So, the superiority of feature positioning over the surrogate is with respect to the uniqueness dimension. Statistically, the numeric value (mean) of surrogate positioning strategy is 2.79 and is lower than the mean value of feature positioning strategy that is 4.26. Hence, on the basis of discussion above and numerical values in a Table 3, it is concluded that feature positioning strategy outperforms the feature positioning strategy in term of uniqueness. Here, the conclusion is obvious that the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis (H). Further, it is necessary to explain the significance of result presented in Table 3. No doubt, the Table values reveal that feature strategies leads over the surrogate positioning strategy with respect to the uniqueness. Moreover, the difference of means between the positioning strategies with respect to uniqueness in Table 3 is significant because p-value < α (F = 52.952 & p = .000 < α) Age and monthly income are the covariates in the current study and here producing insignificant effects on positioning effectiveness dimension that is uniqueness. The Consumer Psyche and Positioning Strategies 72 Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research and Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications Inc. Pham, M. T., & Muthukrishnan, A. V. (2002). Search and alignment in judgment revision: Implications for brand positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 1830. Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Biswas, A. (2006). Attitude basis, certainty, and challenge alignment: A case of negative brand publicity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 528-542. Punj, G., & Moon, J. (2002). Positioning options for achieving brand association: a psychological categorization framework. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 275-283. Ries, A., Trout, J., Sabin, W., & Hamerling, M. (1986). Positioning: The battle for your mind (1st Ed.): McGraw-Hill New York. Rigger, W. (1995). Positioning in theory and practice: towards a research agenda. 24th EMAC Conference Proceedings, 1, 16-19. Roth, M. S. (1992). Depth versus breadth strategies for global brand image management. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 25-36. Roth, M. S. (1995a). The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 163-175. Roth, M. S. (1995b). Effects of global market conditions on brand image customization and brand performance. Journal of Advertising, 24(4), 55-75. Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (2010). Consumer behavior: Pearson Global Edition (9th Ed.). New Delhi: Pearson Education. Seggev, E. (1982). Testing persuasion by strategic positioning. Journal of advertising research, 22(1), 37-42. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287-300. Solomon, M. R., Marshall, G. W., & Stuart, E. W. (2006). Marketing: Real People, Real Choices (4th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research: Sage Publications Inc. Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147–158. Trommsdorff, V., & Paulssen, M. (2005). Messung und Gestaltung der Markenpositionierung [Measurement and design of brand positioning]. Moderne Markenführung: Grundlagen, innovative Ansätze, praktische Umsetzungen [Modern branding: Principles, innovative approaches, practical implementations](4th Rev. Ed., pp. 1363-1379). Wiesbaden: Gabler. Tybout, A. M., & Sternthal, B. (2005). Brand positioning. In A.Tybout and T. Calkins (Eds.) Kellogg on Branding (pp.11–26).New York:John Wiley and Sons. Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and Marketing of New Products (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Sair 73 Williams, P., & Drolet, A. (2005). Age‐Related Differences in Responses to Emotional Advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 343-354. Wolin, L. D. (2003). Gender issues in advertising-An oversight synthesis of research: 1970-2002. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1), 111-129. Appendix A: Measures for Variables Measurement Items Compared to competing strategies, this strategy is: 1. Identical/Distinct 2. Similar/Dissimilar 3. Does not set itself apart /Sets itself apart 4. Same/Different (Dissimilarity) What is your opinion regarding the strategy? 1. Good/Bad 2. Like/Dislike 3. Positive/Negative 4. Appealing/Not appealing (Favorability) Compared to competing strategies, this strategy is: 1. Unique/Not unique 2. Extraordinary/Ordinary 3. Atypical/Typical 4. Special/Standard (Uniqueness) The differences between this strategy and competing one is: 1. Believable/Not believable 2. Plausible/Implausible 3. Convincing/Not convincing 4. Trustworthy/Untrustworthy 5. Realistic/Unrealistic (Credibility) Source: Adopted from Fuchs (2008)