| Summary: | 碩士 === 大同工學院 === 事業經營研究所 === 87 === In keeping with this tradition, Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986) noted that consumers'' needs could be classified as being either functional or symbolic. They assert that functional needs are related to specific and practical consumption problems whereas symbolic needs are related to self-image and social identification. To tap into these two different types of needs, they proposed that all brands should have a "brand concept," which is an overall abstract meaning that identifies a brand. They suggested that a brand concept be either symbolic or functional, thus tapping into consumers'' symbolic and functional needs respectively. Their brand concept management framework advises managers to select a specific concept for a brand at the time of its introduction and then use the marketing mix to support and reinforce it over the brand''s life. This helps consumers understand with clarity what a brand can do for them.
Park et al. further argued that brands should be positioned to appeal to either one of these types of needs, but not both, for a number of reasons. A brand concept that is both functional and symbolic poses problems for consumers because they cannot clearly relate the brand to either their functional or their symbolic needs. In addition, it increases the number of competing brands and makes brand image management difficult. In one related research, Park et al. (1991) were able to show that consumers reaction to functional extensions of functional brands was more favorable than their reaction to prestige extensions of functional brands. In the same study, consumers also displayed a more positive reaction to prestige extensions of prestige brands than to functional extensions of prestige brands. In this study, the authors assumed that brand concepts could be either functional or prestigious (not symbolic).
Subodn Bhat and Scinivas K. Reddy(1998) develop scales that can be used to classify from brands into symbolic and functional ones. In their study, they propound a different opinion that is raised by Park et. Al, who mentions that one brand is possible to have symbolic and functional positioning at the same time. Park et. Al also mentions that symbolic positioning of a brand is a multidimensional conception, which may include "prestige" and "personality expression" dimensions.
This study was set up to investigate the phenomenon of the functionality or the symbolism of brand image. This study has following conclusions according to our experimental results:
1. Symbolic and functional positioning of brands can have a proper distinction in the minds of consumers. It is possible for some brands to be neither symbolic nor functional.
2. It is possible for both symbolic and functional positioning of brands to coexist at the same time. This result coincides with the viewpoints of Subodn Bhat and Srinivas K. Reddy, but is different from the viewpoints of Park et al.
3. Measurement scale mentioned by Subodn Bhat and Srinivas K. Reddy is efficient in measuring to symbolic and functional conception in consumers'' minds. This study finds that the scale is able to measure these two conceptions.
|
|---|
