Ethical attribute and brand concept congruity enhances brand evaluations

Introduction

Under the guidance of its former CEO Indra Nooyi, Pepsi Co. introduced Pepsi Next – an aspartame-free cola beverage brand. This introduction coincided with a strategic modification of Pepsi Co.’s brand portfolio through the acquisition of brands associated with health benefits, such as Tropicana and Quaker Oats. In introducing its new brand and adding brands associated with health benefits, Pepsi Co. sought to contribute to consumers’ long-term well-being (Chatterji, 2013). Although Pepsi Co.’s strategy was initially praised in the media (Seabrook, 2011), Pepsi Co.’s stock prices stagnated, while Coca Cola’s doubled (Chatterji, 2013).

The lack of a positive consumer response to Pepsi Co.’s offering of ethical attributes supporting consumers’ long-term health appears counterintuitive, and raises several questions: Is it possible that consumers perceive a lack of congruity between Pepsi Co.’s brand positioning – which is highly symbolic and conveys excitement (Aaker, 1997) – and the introduction of ethical attributes that have functional implications for consumer health? Does this apparent contradiction negatively influence consumers’ evaluations of the brand?

Emerging evidence indeed suggests that consumer responses to brands offering ethical attributes are contingent upon contextual factors, such as consumers’ familiarity with the brand (Arora and Henderson, 2007), values conveyed by the brand (Torelli et al., 2012) or extrinsic brand quality cues (Bodur et al., 2016). To shed light on factors that influence consumers’ evaluation of brands offering ethical attributes, this article examines the effect of congruity between symbolic and utilitarian ethical attributes (Bodur et al., 2014) and symbolic and utilitarian brand concepts (Aaker, 1997; Keller, 1993; Park et al., 1986, 1991).

Brand concepts capture the unique meaning associated with a brand in consumers’ minds (Keller, 1993; Park et al., 1986, 1991). A symbolic brand concept allows consumers to self-express, convey prestige or signal group membership, whereas a utilitarian brand concept emphasizes functionality or performance (Keller, 1993; Wilcox et al., 2009). Brands seek to distinguish themselves from competing brands within the same product category by choosing unique and differentiated brand concepts (Keller, 1993; Park et al., 1986, 1991). Similarly, brands compete by offering diverse ethical attributes. Utilitarian ethical attributes relate to ingredients or functionality, whereas symbolic ethical attributes signal non-product-based ethicality, such as cause support (Bodur et al., 2014).