Marketing Language: A Conceptual Framework and Examination of How Brand Name Linguistics Influence Brand Loyalty A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Marketing of the College of Business by Ruth Pogacar MBA University of Montana May 2018 Committee Chair: Frank R. Kardes, Ph.D. 2 Abstract People—be they politicians, marketers, job candidates, product reviewers, or romantic interests—often use linguistic devices to persuade others, and there is a sizeable literature that has documented the effects of numerous linguistic devices. However, understanding the implications of these effects is difficult without an organizing framework. To this end, I introduce a Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework for classifying linguistic devices based on two continuous dimensions: language complexity, ranging from simple to complex, and processing mode, ranging from automatic to controlled. I then use the framework as a basis for reviewing and synthesizing extant research on the effects of the linguistic devices on persuasion, determining the conditions under which the effectiveness of the linguistic devices can be maximized, and reconciling inconsistencies in prior research. Brand names can communicate brand gender, and feminine brand gender increases perceived warmth, which in turn increases brand loyalty. Therefore, longer names that end in a vowel (e.g., Burberry) sound both more feminine and more warm than shorter names that end in a consonant (e.g., Ford). Using both experimental manipulation of hypothetical brands and observational analysis of real brands, this research shows that people feel more loyal toward brands with feminine names, predict that feminine sounding brands are more likely to be top performers than parallel masculine sounding names, and this expectation bears out in the marketplace, where top brands have more feminine names than less successful brands. A feminine brand name is even more beneficial for hedonic, relative to utilitarian, products. However, the advantage for feminine names is neutralized when the typical user of a product is male, and masculine brand names are preferred when warmth is not a desirable product attribute. 3 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my husband, Michal, whose encouragement, support, and occasional consultations make everything possible. I am very grateful to my chair, Frank Kardes, and my committee: Tina Lowrey, L. J. Shrum, James Kellaris, and Chung-Yiu (Peter) Chiu for their invaluable feedback. Thank you to Jakki Mohr and Mary Steffel for being generous and inspiring mentors. I am also fortunate to have met Emily Plant and Laura Felton Rosulek who introduced me to academic research (it was a lot of fun!), and Nora Williams and Tom Carpenter who model best practices and follow the highest standards for scientific inquiry. My experience in the University of Cincinnati doctoral program was enriched in so many ways by the brilliant and witty faculty, including Karen Machleit, Dave Curry, and Chris Allen, and by Suzanne Masterson’s dedication to training future scholars. This research, in particular, was improved by feedback from Justin Angle, Ryan Rahinel, Tony Salerno, Jorge Pena Marin, Esta Denton Shah, Noah VanBergen, and Elliott Manzon. In drafting my dissertation, Laura Micciche’s writing workshop and expertise on the topic of acknowledgements were instrumental. I'm grateful to the editors of the Journal of Consumer Psychology for publishing a version of essay one, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. I would like to acknowledge the support of the University of Cincinnati Graduate School Dean’s Fellowship. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Anesa and Tim, my sister Antonia, and most of all JoJo. 5 Table of Contents Essay 1: The Effects of Linguistic Devices on Consumer Information Processing and Persuasion: A Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework ------------------------------------------ 5 Essay 2: Is Nestle a Lady? Brand Name Linguistics Influence Perceived Gender, Warmth, and Brand Loyalty ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67 6 Essay 1 The Effects of Linguistic Devices on Consumer Information Processing and Persuasion: A Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework Abstract People—be they politicians, marketers, job candidates, product reviewers, or romantic interests—often use linguistic devices to persuade others, and there is a sizeable literature that has documented the effects of numerous linguistic devices. However, understanding the implications of these effects is difficult without an organizing framework. To this end, we introduce a Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework for classifying linguistic devices based on two continuous dimensions: language complexity, ranging from simple to complex, and processing mode, ranging from automatic to controlled. We then use the framework as a basis for reviewing and synthesizing extant research on the effects of the linguistic devices on persuasion, determining the conditions under which the effectiveness of the linguistic devices can be maximized, and reconciling inconsistencies in prior research. 7 Introduction People use language to not only express ideas, but also to sell them. Communicators—be they marketers, politicians, job candidates, product reviewers, or romantic interests—carefully choose arguments that they believe will maximize the persuasive impact of their messages. However, along with what is said (the content of the appeals), how it is said also makes a difference. In particular, communicators may use linguistic devices to make their claims more persuasive. For example, metaphors may be used to position a benefit in relation to something else, rhymes and alliteration may be used to enhance memory and ease of processing, rhetorical questions may be used to stimulate greater depth of processing, and phonetic symbolism may be used to frame expectations. In fact, there is a sizeable and growing literature that attests to the effects of linguistic devices on persuasion (Lowrey, 2007). However, comprehending the implications of this research is difficult without an organizing framework. Not only are there many different types of linguistic devices that have been investigated, they often differ dramatically on a number of dimensions that have critical implications for their effectiveness, including underlying cognitive processes (automatic, controlled; depth of processing), type of response elicited (cognitive, affective), and effort. The purpose of this review is to provide such a framework. We begin by developing a framework for classifying linguistic devices based on two continuous dimensions: language complexity, ranging from simple to complex, and processing mode, ranging from automatic to controlled. We then map the linguistic devices onto the four quadrants of the 2 × 2 matrix, and use the framework as a basis to review research on the effects of the linguistic devices, with a particular emphasis on the processes underlying the effects. Next, we discuss implications of the 8 framework for understanding the conditions that will maximize the persuasive effects of the devices. Following that, we use the model to account for seemingly contradictory findings regarding the effects of congruence between marketing or message elements and propose avenues for future research. Language Complexity × Processing Mode Framework Although there are undoubtedly many ways that linguistic devices might be categorized (cf. Carnevale, Luna, & Lerman, 2017; McQuarrie & Mick, 1996), we focus on two dimensions: language complexity and processing mode. We chose these two dimensions because they relate directly to—and therefore facilitate understanding of—persuasion and its underlying processes, one of our primary objectives. Both language complexity and processing mode have critical implications for processes underlying persuasion, including typical components of hierarchy-of- effects models (attention, comprehension, attitudes, etc.; see McGuire, 1978), affective or cognitive processing, memory, and ease of processing, among others. We conceptualize language complexity as a continuum from simple (e.g., individual sounds or words) to complex (e.g., phrases, sentences, paragraphs). For our purposes, the primary determinant of language complexity is the unit of language (e.g., phonemes, words, sentences). All else equal, the larger the language unit, the more complex the language. Further, language complexity has two components. The primary component is the linguistic device itself, and its unit of language. For example, brand names are for the most part simple, as they typically consist of only one or two words. However, brand names can nevertheless vary in complexity, within the simple category, as a function of such things as word length and number of syllables. Some devices, such as alliteration, rhyme, and metaphors, may appear in multiple word brand names (simple), or in slogans and tag lines (moderately complex). Other devices, such as 9 syntactic complexity, necessarily appear in sentences or paragraphs, and thus are more complex. A second component of language complexity is the marketing communication in which the linguistic device is typically embedded. For example, although speech rate and voice pitch are themselves simple devices that are independent of