A recent study on the psychology of trademarks finds that people perceive brands in the same way as they do faces.
Researchers compared the reactions of viewers to 16 renowned brands -- Cola-Cola and Apple among them -- and 18 computer-generated faces. The subjects were asked to evaluate the pictures according to various attributes including trustworthiness and assertiveness.
Two basic dimensions dictated how a large proportion of how both trademarks and faces are perceived: (1) Overall assessment, which represents the observer's assessment of how trustworthy brands or people are and how favorable they find them to be, and (2) The impression of strength, which involves acting on the ability to correctly detect intentions -- whether they be good or bad.
Most of us can identify with the results of the study. For example, after the BP oil spill that took place a few years ago, resulting in extensive damage to wildlife habitats and fishing and tourism industries, most consumers wanted to boycott BP.
Commercials touting the company's cleanup efforts had little effect, especially on those with a deep concern for the environment. In essence, people came to view the BP logo just as it did the big wigs in the TV spots -- as heartless and irresponsible.
The same goes for celebrities whose misdeeds cast a shadow over the brands they pitch. No one was buying Chris Brown CDs when news broke that he had assaulted his then-girlfriend, Rihanna. And now that Jared Fogle has been busted for child pornography and soliciting sex from minors, many feel the Subway brand has been damaged beyond repair and have pledged never to buy a footlong again.
Indeed, consumers view brands as carrying the types of characteristics we would attribute to human beings.
Do you ever find yourself judging brands this way?
Which brands do you view favorably and unfavorably?
For more posts, click here: How to Understand People
Researchers compared the reactions of viewers to 16 renowned brands -- Cola-Cola and Apple among them -- and 18 computer-generated faces. The subjects were asked to evaluate the pictures according to various attributes including trustworthiness and assertiveness.
Two basic dimensions dictated how a large proportion of how both trademarks and faces are perceived: (1) Overall assessment, which represents the observer's assessment of how trustworthy brands or people are and how favorable they find them to be, and (2) The impression of strength, which involves acting on the ability to correctly detect intentions -- whether they be good or bad.
Most of us can identify with the results of the study. For example, after the BP oil spill that took place a few years ago, resulting in extensive damage to wildlife habitats and fishing and tourism industries, most consumers wanted to boycott BP.
Commercials touting the company's cleanup efforts had little effect, especially on those with a deep concern for the environment. In essence, people came to view the BP logo just as it did the big wigs in the TV spots -- as heartless and irresponsible.
The same goes for celebrities whose misdeeds cast a shadow over the brands they pitch. No one was buying Chris Brown CDs when news broke that he had assaulted his then-girlfriend, Rihanna. And now that Jared Fogle has been busted for child pornography and soliciting sex from minors, many feel the Subway brand has been damaged beyond repair and have pledged never to buy a footlong again.
Indeed, consumers view brands as carrying the types of characteristics we would attribute to human beings.
Do you ever find yourself judging brands this way?
Which brands do you view favorably and unfavorably?
For more posts, click here: How to Understand People
Comments