Exploring Consumer Perceptions of Visual Distinctiveness

Elise Gaillard, Jenni Romaniuk and Anne Sharp

Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia.

Abstract

The term ‘distinctiveness’ has been ascribed a number of differing meanings in marketing,
but there is a common element of it being something that makes the brand stand out.
Marketers seek to create distinctive brands and accompanying communication in the hope of
creating greater communication cut-through (and hence effectiveness) and to get the brand
noticed amongst the clutter at the consumer point of purchase. This paper explores consumer
perceptions of what makes a brand distinctive and compares this to perceptions about what
makes an advertisement distinctive. In particular, visual distinctiveness is explored. The
empirical data for this research comes from the banking industry, taking distinctiveness
research into the area of services, where there is little prior research. We found that brand and
advertising distinctiveness were more likely to both gain mentions for a particular brand,
rather than independently for different brands. However, consumers had great difficultly in
articulating what in particular made a brand or advertising distinctive, in terms of specific
elements such as shape or colour. When focusing on the visual elements of distinctiveness,
symbols were the most commonly mentioned element, followed closely by colours. This
research has laid a foundation for understanding how consumers perceive distinctiveness in a
retail service context.

Keywords: branding, distinctiveness, perceptions

Introduction

Although there is no single definition in marketing literature of distinctiveness, a common

element across definitions involves the cues stored in memory that make the brand stand out,
causing consumer recognition of a brand in consumers’ minds (Olson, 2004). This brand
distinctiveness is incredibly important as consumers unconsciously and continually monitor
their surroundings in a process called pre-attentive processing, to discover if anything
captures their attention (Franzen, 1999). Consumers’ surroundings consist of far too many
words and images for them to be able to process and use, leading to the screening out of much
of marketers’ efforts (Heath, 2000). This makes it important for a brand to try and cut-
through this screening out process, through being distinctive in some way. According to
Schruntek, no brand can lead or succeed if it doesn’t stand out and mean something to the
consumer (1999, p. 34)

Another important benefit of distinctiveness is the ability to create and sustain a ‘strong’
identity. It has been said that there is a greater chance a brand will be recognised by more
people if it utilises distinctive recognition cues (Olson, 2004). Further to this, Howard and
Sheth (1969 cited in Rex, 2004) identified that consumers employ a mixture of quality, price
and distinctiveness when making purchase decisions, so it plays a central role in the actual
purchase decision. Moreover, both brand equity and success are dependent on high levels of
brand distinctiveness (Keller 1998 cited in Warlop, Ratneshwar and Osselaer, 2005;
Krishnan, 1996). Distinctiveness makes it easier for the consumer to remember the details of
a brand as it is more noticeable. More specifically, in a recent study, 30 per cent of people

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 22

were able to correctly identify a distinctive theme or slogan, illustrating that it is an important
communication tool (Miller and Berry, 1998).

Advertising distinctiveness refers to a brand’s advertisements (i.e. TV, print and radio) and
includes aesthetic cues such as texture, logo, graphics, country of origin, taglines, themes,
typeface, trademarks, colour, symbols and music. Brand distinctiveness refers specifically to
the brand (i.e. Commonwealth or Bendigo bank) and includes aesthetic cues such as shape,
location, display promotions, colour and store atmospherics which entail the five senses:
sight, sound, scent, touch and taste and can include, for example, employee appearance
(Agres and Dubitsky, 1996; Pfahlert, Hoek and Healey, 2004; Rex, Wai and Lobo, 2004;
Simoes and Dibb, 2001; Miller and Berry, 1998; Ward, Bitner and John, 1992). Distinctive
advertising is said to stimulate interest and contain a catchy and easy to remember slogan that
can capture the nature of the business in a few words (Birchard, 1964). However, there is
constant debate as to the effectiveness of slogans. An exploratory study conducted by
Wateridge and Donaghey (1998) found that the brands that were commonly remembered,
such as Kit Kat’s Have a Break and Nike’s Just do it, by consumers were largely due to
campaign longevity and ad spend.

One element of distinctiveness we particularly focus on in this paper is the visual element. An
identity is usually publicised via a logo and is normally consistent in the brand’s
communication (Van de Laar and Van de Pas, 2002). Visual brand identities are said to guide
and aim the consumer in making their brand choice. Colour is one visual element that has
been suggested as a means of creating distinctiveness and can be registered as a trademark
(Pfahlert, Hoek and Healey, 2004; Plasschaert and Floet, 1995). The cleaning and hygiene
industry has recently exploded with companies attempting to register their colours for
washing machine tablets as trademarks (Playle and Hodson, 2003). Although there has been
an array of research on colour in the areas of packaging and design, the use of colour in
service markets has been limited. Additionally, there is little known about the application of
colour in store environments. This has caused many retailers to rely on subjective judgments
or the packaging and design research to make their decisions. Further to this, the ability to
create a distinctive image through visual elements, such as the physical environment is
particularly relevant for service businesses such as banks.

In summary, there is debate within marketing and advertising literature about which elements
create a distinctive brand/advertisement. There is also little published empirical investigation
of what constitutes distinctiveness from the consumer’s perspective. Therefore, research is
needed to gain an insight as to what consumers see as distinctive about advertising and
brands. This paper explores this issue, with a particular focus on the visual elements of the
brand in a retail service setting.

Methodology

We selected the banking industry as our service industry to research. This was because there
are a myriad of competing brands in the market that use different visual elements, such as
colours and symbols, in the hope of being distinctive. We chose seven of the largest banking
brands in Australia to research. Three research questions were proposed for visual
distinctiveness in the banking industry: Firstly, what do consumers see as distinctive about
brands? Secondly, what do consumers see as distinctive about the advertising of brands?
Thirdly, how do both these questions relate to the visual identity of the brand?

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 23

A total of 467 respondents were interviewed by telephone, across four of the largest states in
Australia. Respondents were randomly selected, with quotas for age, gender and geographic
area. The sample was weighted in analysis according to segment size within the banking
population to ensure a sample was representative of the total banking (consumer) market. We
over sampled Bendigo to reach a threshold. Initially they were asked to identify their main
financial institution. This was followed by a series of open-ended questions where they where
asked to name which, if any, financial institutions stood out and why; which financial
institution had the most distinctive advertising and why; and which, if any, visual elements
helped them identify each brand. For the last question, respondents were given a list of seven
bank brands and asked to respond for each brand. The responses for brand and advertising
distinctiveness were grouped in Excel in terms of similarity where the grouping of responses
was agreed upon by various researchers. For example, responses such as “always on TV”,
“everywhere” and “they have the most ads” were grouped as pervasive.

Results and Discussion

The results for the questions on brand and advertising distinctiveness are shown in Table 1.
The brands are ordered from highest to lowest market share (% of users, column 2).

Table 1: Advertising Versus Brand Distinctiveness (single response)

Brand Usage Brand Advertising

(%) distinctiveness (%) distinctiveness (%)
Commonwealth Bank 26 21 38
Westpac 12 3 3
National Australia Bank 11 6 3
St. George 8 9 13
ANZ 8 5 7
Suncorp 4 2 3
Bendigo Bank 3 11 2
Total 73 58 66
None/Don't know 3 30 26
Other 12 12 6
Total 100 100 100

Table 1 shows that there is no clear pattern between a brand’s market share and the proportion
of respondents who mention that brand as being ‘distinctive’. This holds for both the
distinctiveness of the brand in general (column 3), as well as the distinctiveness of that
brand’s advertising (column 4). For example, Westpac is the second largest brand in terms of
market share. However, it scores second to lowest for brand and advertising distinctiveness.
Likewise, Bendigo Bank, the smallest brand, has extremely high brand distinctiveness for its
market share, suggesting other factors, apart from market share, create distinctiveness.

There is little difference between the average brand distinctiveness (58%) and average
advertising distinctiveness (66%), suggesting that they are both important tools used by the
consumer. The strength of association between the two variables was further explored through
calculating the correlation coefficient between the brand and advertising distinctiveness
mentions, giving a result of r = .294. This value suggests that brand distinctiveness is not
strongly associated with advertising distinctiveness. However, it still indicates a positive

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 24

 relationship between the two; meaning brand and advertising distinctiveness are more likely
to both be mentioned for a brand, rather than independently or for different brands. This
result is not surprising, as we could expect that many of the distinctive elements of a brand
would be mirrored in its advertising. Additionally, consumer perceptions are often shaped
through both the brand and its advertising simultaneously (Wansink, 2001). The reasons for
respondents nominating a brand or its advertising as distinctive are examined in Table 2.

Table 2: Results for brand & advertising distinctiveness (multiple response)

Brand Advertising
Feature Distinctiveness (%) Feature Distinctiveness (%)
Distinctive 18 Distinctive 17
Helpful/superior service 10 Pervasive 16
Satisfied customer 10 Taglines 10
Low cost 6 Symbols 5
Community focus 6 Humorous/enjoyable 4
Multiple locations 4 Colours/logos 4
Biggest bank/familiarity 2 Personal service
Longevity 2 appeal 3
Total 58 59
Other 5 Other 9
Don't know/no 1 Don't know 1
particular reason
Total 64 69

The results show that respondents found it hard to articulate just what it was that made a
brand or its advertising distinctive. This is evidenced by 18% (brand) and 17% (advertising)
of respondents saying the brand/advertising was ‘distinctive’ because it was ‘distinctive’.
Further difficulty is evident by the high proportion of respondents saying being a satisfied
customer made the brand distinctive. This is an internal feeling of the customer rather than an
element of the brand. Other characteristics such as the biggest bank/familiarity and multiple
locations are not distinctive but instead relative to their context. Additionally, 16 per cent
mentioned pervasive adverting suggesting, contrary to the literature on distinctiveness, that
sheer volume of advertising can create distinctiveness.

Finally, respondents were asked to name which, if any, visual elements help them identify
with a brand. As mentioned, they were given the list of seven bank brands and asked to
respond for each brand. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Visual Brand Identities for the banking industry (multiple response)

% Who said...
Distinctive feature CBA St. George Westpac ANZ NAB Suncorp Bendigo Total
Symbols 48 80 51 16 28 20 6 249
Colours 57 20 34 56 27 25 24 243
Tagline 16 0 0 3 0 0 0 19
Other 9 7 7 6 7 11 15 62
Total Distinctiveness 129 107 91 81 62 56 45
Nothing 5 4 20 17 28 22 22

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 25

Adverting distinctiveness elements, as opposed to brand distinctiveness elements, came
through more in Table 3. This suggests advertising plays more of a role in forming visual
brand identities than characteristics of the brand itself, at least in the retail service setting.
However, the data does reveal that distinctiveness is associated with external, or
environmental symbols encompassing branch signs and logos.

Of all the distinctive visual features, symbols gained the most associations. Every bank has
their own symbol but some are more successful in identifying a bank than others. For
example, 80% associated the dragon with St. George, 51% associated the ‘W’ with Westpac
and 48% identified Commonwealth’s Bank yellow and black diamond symbol, whereas only
6% associated the letter ‘B’ with Bendigo. Colour was the second most visible element used
by consumers to identify a distinctive bank, but when respondents were asked what makes
advertisements distinctive (Table 2), only 4% mentioned that colours combined with logos
were significant. Taglines were not as mentioned, with Commonwealth and its “Which
Bank?” and ANZ’s “Australia’s leading bank” “Switch now” being the only two banks to
gain mentions on this dimension. However, this result is not surprising as the correlation
between advertising recall and attention, or distinctiveness, has been found to be weak
(Franzen, 1994). Although there is a strong correlation between likeability and recall,
advertising for financial institutions is unlikely to yield a high likeability. However, only
minimum attention is needed for advertising to be effective (Franzen, 1994).

Conclusion

This research has found that brand and advertising distinctiveness exist in the retail service
setting, but that consumers find it very hard to articulate just what it is about a brand or
advertisement that makes it visually distinctive. Distinctiveness is not a function of market
share. But brand and advertising distinctiveness are linked, weakly. Because of these findings,
it might be argued that brand and advertising distinctiveness are not necessarily useful selling
tools. However, the research shows that distinctiveness can convey meaning to the consumer,
such as St. George’s dragon and Commonwealth’s Bank yellow and black diamond symbol,
which helps keep the brand salient. These elements may also reduce wear-out in attention
getting, which in important in the banking industry which consistently advertises throughout
the year.

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 26

 References

Agres, S. J., Dubitsky, T. M., 1996. Changing Needs for Brands. Journal of Advertising
Research 36 (1), 21-30.

Birchard, C. W., 1964. Distinctive Advertising for Small Stores. Journal of Retailing 40 (1),
23-31.

Franzen, G., 1994. Advertising Effectiveness. Findings from empirical research. NTC
Publications Limited, United Kingdom.

Franzen, G., 1999. The brand response matrix. Admap (September).

Heath, R., 2000. Low Involvement Processing- a New Model of Brands and Advertising.
International Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 287-298.

Krishnan, H. S., 1996. Characteristics of Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based

Brand Equity Perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (4), 389-
405.

Miller, S., Berry, L., 1998. Brand Salience versus Brand Image: Two Theories of Advertising
Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research 38 (5), 77-83.

Olson, C., 2004. Maximizing brand recognition. Information Outlook 8 (1), 43.

Pfahlert, A., Hoek, J., Healey, B., 2004. Brand Colour Associations: A Comparison of Three
Survey Methods. Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy
Conference. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Plasschaert, J., Floet, M. W., 1995. The Meaning of Colour on Packaging. A Methodology
for Qualitative Research Using Semiotic Principles and Computer Image Manipulation.
ESOMAR The World Association of Research Professionals (September).

Playle, S., Hodson, S., 2003. Legal Update. Journal of Brand Management 11 (1), 75-79.

Rex, J., Wai, S., Lobo, A., 2004. An Exploratory Study into the Impact of Colour And
Packaging as Stimuli in the Decision Making Process for a Low Involvement Non-Durable
Product. Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference.
Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Schruntek, W. J., 1999. Looking Up: Brands Stand Out. FoodService Director 12 (6), 34-36.

Simoes, C., Dibb, S., 2001. Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 6 (4), 217-224.

Van de Laar, G., Van de Pas., 2002. Packaging Design: Social Trends and Brand Design.
Admap 429 (June).

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 27

Wanksink, B., Huffman, C., 2001. Revitalising Mature Packaged Goods. Journal of Product
and Brand Management 10 (4), 228-242.

Ward, J. C., Bitner, M. J., John, B., 1992. Measuring the Prototypicality and Meaning of
Retail Environments. Journal of Retailing 68 (2), 194-220.

Warlop, L., Ratneshwar, S., Osselaer, S., 2005. Distinctive brand cues and memory for
product consumption experiences. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (1), 27-
44.

Wateridge, S., Donaghey, B., 1998. The endline. important tool or hackneyed device? Admap
November).

ANZMAC 2005 Conference: Branding 28