July 18, 2013
Do Consumers Prefer Copycat Products?
A university study from the U.K. has found that, rather than craving something different when purchasing new items, consumers feel more confident in their purchases if the products in the market look the same.
The study, published in the Psychology and Marketing journal, from Qing Wang of Warwick Business School and Paurav Shukla of Glasgow Caledonian University London, was inspired by the trademark infringement cases involving Apple and Samsung.
In 2012, Apple won $600 million in damages after a jury found that Samsung devices copied the look and features of the iPhone and iPad. This past June, Samsung won a patent case that could block the U.S. import and sale of some older Apple devices.
The study looked at smartphone users in two large cities in the southeast of the U.K. Eight-hundred shoppers were interviewed, of which 316 were chosen to fill in a questionnaire focused on the determination of consumer confusion, choice goals and decision.
The study explored "similarity confusion" or when brand similarity has a negative impact on consumer decision-making and consumer satisfaction.
Unexpectedly, researchers discovered not knowing the difference between brands with similar attributes may result in consumers simply transferring their confidence in one brand to another.
"Contrary to what many marketers and managers believe, companies should stop trying to find their USP (unique selling point)," Prof. Wang said in a statement.
The researchers believe customers largely preferring items with similar attributes appear to extend across categories.
"Take, for example, a supermarket," said Prof. Wang. "The shelves are packed with products that look increasingly similar in terms of packaging colors and size. Brands are promoted with a similar message in a similar way."
The study concluded that highlighting the similarity between competing products in marketing communication might have a positive effect on consumers’ choice confidence.
Regardless, the researchers still found having too many choices demotivates consumers from making a decision. Having too much information to digest or ambiguous information can also put consumers off.
The findings appear to somewhat mirror this author’s observations covering the footwear market. Most footwear trademark lawsuits seem to focus on aesthetics (Adidas’ three-stripes, e.g.) or style names rather than innovative design techniques. Copycatting innovative design approaches by many brands is said to provide comfort to consumers and drive mainstream acceptance.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are consumers not necessarily looking for something new and different? Are retailer efforts at the store level to play up differences and newness often counterproductive? What lessons does the study offer around marketing and innovation?
Poll
This falls into the “it depends” category. Is the manufacturer aiming to create a product or category without a credible imitator? Clearly the market is full of successful examples—everything from the iPhone (which was designed deliberately as the anti-BlackBerry) to the Dyson vacuum cleaner.
At the same time, there is clearly a role in CPG product development for the theory that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” Brand extensions and store brands in particular seem to benefit by imitating some of the design elements and visual cues of their better-known competitors.
Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep last night…let me see if I get it.
Apple won $600 million because Samsung products looked like theirs. And then Samsung won a case from Apple over them copying patents. So do what Apple and Samsung do, copy others and sue each other back and forth. The advantage of doing so is that when products look alike, people confidently switch brands (from yours to theirs) more easily. In your marketing you should point out how your product is just the same as everyone else’s. And for goodness sakes stop trying to be different! Forget innovation! Stop trying to see what else might be possible! You creative thinking fool.
Hard to know where to get better advice than that!
I think all houses and cars should look exactly alike too, we’d be so much more confident. Let’s support our local ‘Paint by Numbers’ art gallery. And authors—please—use the same plot someone else has already published, your readers will love it. Restaurants—listen to these guys and save a lot of time and thrill your customers by simply copying Applebee’s menu.
Together now…”USP – Not For Me!” “USP – Not For Me!”
When faced with so many choices, consumers find comfort in the familiar. Rather than innovate, many brands simply opt for line extensions. That said, when something truly different comes along, like the iPhone or iPad, consumers will pay attention and frequently purchase.
Trying to distinguish a products by splitting hairs does not build consumer interest. Having something truly different does. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of products at retail are “me too,” rather than being truly innovative.
It is a function of the risk/reward trade-off in the product search process. In a high risk or high learning involvement category, existing products benefit from the related costs or risks of switching. Therefore, comparable products benefit by being just that, comparable even copy cat in nature.
On the other hand, low involvement, e.g., supermarket products, benefit from differentiation as consumers see little risk in trying the new product. While consumers like stability in their lives, they also like a little tension or change in routine to ward off boredom. That is why we try new restaurants, even though we have a favorite dining establishment.
Consumers want to be cool and hip and spout claims that they want to be ahead of the future curves. But every consumers has an already established comfort zone while “newness” must earn its eventual place in that zone.
Consumers frequently do that with their eyes rather than their circumspect brains as they watch how other humans react to new trends, new tastes, new products and “newness” in general. If I am right, that could account for the counterproductive in question here.
Retailers, don’t overplay the greatness of “newness” until you are sure what is the general public’s perception.
I agree with Max Goldberg: “consumers find comfort in the familiar.” I think in many cases, consumers don’t know what they want, they just happen to know what is already available in the marketplace. Truly innovative, new products answer previously unmet consumer needs and therefore, are new and unfamiliar. There are always early adopters willing to try new things. The best new things will amaze and wow, eventually evolving into the familiar thing that gets copied by everyone else.
Some consumers want new and different, some want same and better, some want same, and some want a deal. All types of consumers, all wanting different things, which is why we do segmentation and why marketing is hard.
Consumers are open to new and different, as long as the new product/service helps to enrich their life. In the packaged goods industry, a phenomenal example is Chobani yogurt, the brand that launched the Greek yogurt phenomenon. Why was it such a success? Simply put, because this new product offered consumers many highly-sought benefits, including convenience, wellness and satiation, and marketers of the brand clearly communicated these benefits in a way that resonated with shoppers. Today, the Greek yogurt trend is alive and well, and the wave is being ridden and shaped by Chobani and many other yogurt marketers.
There’s a little bit of middle school in all of us. Yes, we want new and different, but at the same time, we want to know what is popular and what other people are buying. We then decide how far away from the curve we are willing to go.
Retailers should absolutely play up differences, but also show us the common. The common may be the 3 stripes on the shoe, the packaging of the product, the length of the shorts, etc. Therein lies the challenge for marketing and innovation.
Claims of “new,” “different,” or even “parity performance” can all drive trial. To achieve more than your fair share of sales, however, you still have to offer shoppers a competitive advantage…that is, SHOPPERS must think that your offering results in an advantage for THEM. Too often, only the management sees the advantage in their differentiation strategies.
Ian’s not the only one wondering about sleep deprivation; consider some of the remarks in the study:
“Not knowing the difference between brands with similar attributes may result in consumers simply transferring their confidence in one brand to another.”
Or this:
“…increasingly similar in terms of packaging colors and size. Brands are promoted with a similar message in a similar way.”
You mean when someone produces something that really sells, everyone will copy it? And people won’t really care?
Who’d ‘a thunk it?
The main lessons to be learn are, 1) If a product succeeds, copy it! (legally) 2) Create as many product extensions as the market will bear, 3) Keep a real-time eye on social sentiment to gauge the next required product development move.
I’m not sure that a study based on 316 completed questionnaires* focused on a multi-feature Smartphone has application across products, regions, and consumers, so I wouldn’t bet against another professor coming up with a similar yet conflicting study in the future. I call this ‘psychology study similarity confusion’ and it keeps academia busy.
Marketers may not have named the study’s conclusion but anybody who has ever had to support the #2, #3 product in the market knows to align and confuse it with the #1 product. This causes the consumer to take a closer look, commoditizing all of the products and leads and the condition of ‘what’s the big differenceness’ (my term.) From there the consumer transfers and applies any brand associations across the commoditized choices. Good for #2, 3, etc. but bad for the leader.
*Questionnaires: Is there any form of research less reliable than a questionnaire? Shouldn’t they observe the choices in a retail setting and then draw some conclusions based on the actual behavior? Anyway, something to write about
There’s a reason that many private label brands include some reference of equivalency with national brands. Some have gone further and extended it to package design. Sometimes, the national brands even sue.
Consumers are definitely looking for something new and different. By copying a product what consumers really gain is an advantage of having more options for the same product. I guess the question being asked here is: Are consumers more comfortable in buying iPhone look alike given that iPhone exists vs. are consumers more comfortable in buying iPhone look alike given that iPhone does not exist? This does not make much sense to me….
More Discussions
Is Meta Committing to Retail via Meta Lab Stores, or Are Other Goals More Important?
Is Meta playing in retail, actually committing to retail, or looking for more data?Aerie Recruits Pamela Anderson To Highlight No-AI Models Promise
American Eagle’s Aerie banner has recruited former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson to broadcast the lifestyle brand’s…How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…
This falls into the “it depends” category. Is the manufacturer aiming to create a product or category without a credible imitator? Clearly the market is full of successful examples—everything from the iPhone (which was designed deliberately as the anti-BlackBerry) to the Dyson vacuum cleaner.
At the same time, there is clearly a role in CPG product development for the theory that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” Brand extensions and store brands in particular seem to benefit by imitating some of the design elements and visual cues of their better-known competitors.
Maybe I didn’t get enough sleep last night…let me see if I get it.
Apple won $600 million because Samsung products looked like theirs. And then Samsung won a case from Apple over them copying patents. So do what Apple and Samsung do, copy others and sue each other back and forth. The advantage of doing so is that when products look alike, people confidently switch brands (from yours to theirs) more easily. In your marketing you should point out how your product is just the same as everyone else’s. And for goodness sakes stop trying to be different! Forget innovation! Stop trying to see what else might be possible! You creative thinking fool.
Hard to know where to get better advice than that!
I think all houses and cars should look exactly alike too, we’d be so much more confident. Let’s support our local ‘Paint by Numbers’ art gallery. And authors—please—use the same plot someone else has already published, your readers will love it. Restaurants—listen to these guys and save a lot of time and thrill your customers by simply copying Applebee’s menu.
Together now…”USP – Not For Me!” “USP – Not For Me!”
When faced with so many choices, consumers find comfort in the familiar. Rather than innovate, many brands simply opt for line extensions. That said, when something truly different comes along, like the iPhone or iPad, consumers will pay attention and frequently purchase.
Trying to distinguish a products by splitting hairs does not build consumer interest. Having something truly different does. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of products at retail are “me too,” rather than being truly innovative.
It is a function of the risk/reward trade-off in the product search process. In a high risk or high learning involvement category, existing products benefit from the related costs or risks of switching. Therefore, comparable products benefit by being just that, comparable even copy cat in nature.
On the other hand, low involvement, e.g., supermarket products, benefit from differentiation as consumers see little risk in trying the new product. While consumers like stability in their lives, they also like a little tension or change in routine to ward off boredom. That is why we try new restaurants, even though we have a favorite dining establishment.
Consumers want to be cool and hip and spout claims that they want to be ahead of the future curves. But every consumers has an already established comfort zone while “newness” must earn its eventual place in that zone.
Consumers frequently do that with their eyes rather than their circumspect brains as they watch how other humans react to new trends, new tastes, new products and “newness” in general. If I am right, that could account for the counterproductive in question here.
Retailers, don’t overplay the greatness of “newness” until you are sure what is the general public’s perception.
I agree with Max Goldberg: “consumers find comfort in the familiar.” I think in many cases, consumers don’t know what they want, they just happen to know what is already available in the marketplace. Truly innovative, new products answer previously unmet consumer needs and therefore, are new and unfamiliar. There are always early adopters willing to try new things. The best new things will amaze and wow, eventually evolving into the familiar thing that gets copied by everyone else.
Some consumers want new and different, some want same and better, some want same, and some want a deal. All types of consumers, all wanting different things, which is why we do segmentation and why marketing is hard.
Consumers are open to new and different, as long as the new product/service helps to enrich their life. In the packaged goods industry, a phenomenal example is Chobani yogurt, the brand that launched the Greek yogurt phenomenon. Why was it such a success? Simply put, because this new product offered consumers many highly-sought benefits, including convenience, wellness and satiation, and marketers of the brand clearly communicated these benefits in a way that resonated with shoppers. Today, the Greek yogurt trend is alive and well, and the wave is being ridden and shaped by Chobani and many other yogurt marketers.
There’s a little bit of middle school in all of us. Yes, we want new and different, but at the same time, we want to know what is popular and what other people are buying. We then decide how far away from the curve we are willing to go.
Retailers should absolutely play up differences, but also show us the common. The common may be the 3 stripes on the shoe, the packaging of the product, the length of the shorts, etc. Therein lies the challenge for marketing and innovation.
Claims of “new,” “different,” or even “parity performance” can all drive trial. To achieve more than your fair share of sales, however, you still have to offer shoppers a competitive advantage…that is, SHOPPERS must think that your offering results in an advantage for THEM. Too often, only the management sees the advantage in their differentiation strategies.
Ian’s not the only one wondering about sleep deprivation; consider some of the remarks in the study:
“Not knowing the difference between brands with similar attributes may result in consumers simply transferring their confidence in one brand to another.”
Or this:
“…increasingly similar in terms of packaging colors and size. Brands are promoted with a similar message in a similar way.”
You mean when someone produces something that really sells, everyone will copy it? And people won’t really care?
Who’d ‘a thunk it?
The main lessons to be learn are, 1) If a product succeeds, copy it! (legally) 2) Create as many product extensions as the market will bear, 3) Keep a real-time eye on social sentiment to gauge the next required product development move.
I’m not sure that a study based on 316 completed questionnaires* focused on a multi-feature Smartphone has application across products, regions, and consumers, so I wouldn’t bet against another professor coming up with a similar yet conflicting study in the future. I call this ‘psychology study similarity confusion’ and it keeps academia busy.
Marketers may not have named the study’s conclusion but anybody who has ever had to support the #2, #3 product in the market knows to align and confuse it with the #1 product. This causes the consumer to take a closer look, commoditizing all of the products and leads and the condition of ‘what’s the big differenceness’ (my term.) From there the consumer transfers and applies any brand associations across the commoditized choices. Good for #2, 3, etc. but bad for the leader.
*Questionnaires: Is there any form of research less reliable than a questionnaire? Shouldn’t they observe the choices in a retail setting and then draw some conclusions based on the actual behavior? Anyway, something to write about
There’s a reason that many private label brands include some reference of equivalency with national brands. Some have gone further and extended it to package design. Sometimes, the national brands even sue.
Consumers are definitely looking for something new and different. By copying a product what consumers really gain is an advantage of having more options for the same product. I guess the question being asked here is: Are consumers more comfortable in buying iPhone look alike given that iPhone exists vs. are consumers more comfortable in buying iPhone look alike given that iPhone does not exist? This does not make much sense to me….