CONSUMER REACTIONS TO ROUND NUMBERS IN BRAND NAMES
Gunasti, Kunter and Timucin Ozcan (forthcoming) ” Consumer Reactions to Round Numbers in Brand Names,” Marketing Letters DOI: 10.1007/s11002-014-9337-7
“The final publication is available at HTTP://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/ARTICLE/10.1007/S11002-0149337-7?SA_CAMPAIGN=EMAIL/EVENT/ARTICLEAUTHOR/ONLINEFIRST”
KUNTER GUNASTI TIMUCIN OZCAN*
* Kunter Gunasti (
[email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Connecticut, Business School, 2100 Hillside Rd, Storrs, CT, 06269; Tel: 860-4868790. Timucin Ozcan (
[email protected]) is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the School of Business, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL, 62026; Tel: 618-6502704. Authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to William T. Ross Jr. for his valuable insights. Authors would also like to thank Robin Coulter, Keith Coulter, Hans Baumgartner, Rajesh Bagchi, and Adam Brasel for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. This research was partially funded by the University of Connecticut Summer Research Grant provided to the first author. Both authors equally contributed to the manuscript. Please address all correspondence to Kunter Gunasti.
2
Round numbers are numeric values, often used for approximations of numerosity, frequent estimations, critical points, numerical inferences, appraisals of quantities, and reference figures (Dehaene and Mehler 1992; Jansen and Pollmann 2001; Sigurd 1988). Early numerology research has identified zero-ending numbers as round numbers due to their frequent use in referencing and appraisals (Lotz 1955). Subsequent studies have confirmed this finding and further noted that the multiples and the divisors of 10, 100, and 1000 bases (e.g., 25) also constitute round numbers (Sigurd 1988). Accordingly, in business research, zero-ending numbers have generally been referred to as round numbers and received attention in pricing studies (Mitchell 2001; Schindler and Wiman 1989). Another interesting domain in which round numbers may play an important role is brand names, because brand names communicate invaluable information to consumers (Maheswaran, Mackie, and Chaiken 1992). In particular, alphanumeric brand names, including numbers along with letters, have been shown to affect consumer judgments, inferences, perceptions, and preferences of products (Boyd 1985; Gunasti and Ross 2009, 2010). Round numbers often appear in brand names (e.g., Sony DSC-RX100). However, we know little about how frequently they are actually used and the factors that affect consumer preferences for round alphanumeric brand names (RABs). This research investigates frequency of RABs and their effects on consumers’ product judgments. We demonstrate that RABs are used more frequently and they enhance consumers’ product completeness perceptions, which in return increases liking and preferences for products. We also examine other number properties such as popularity, contextual relevance, and magnitude of numbers, and demonstrate that the effects of RABs on consumer responses are mediated by product completeness perceptions.
3
1. FREQUENCY AND COMPLETENESS OF ROUND NUMBERS Jansen and Pollmann (2001) explain that round numbers are the numerals that have the highest frequency of usage in most major languages. They are used both as reference values for the quantity represented by the numerals themselves and as approximate figures representing other quantities within their vicinity (e.g., 97 or 103 are about 100). Thus, zero-ending and fiveending numbers are overrepresented in all publications, broadcasts, online documents, and number-words in numerous languages (Jansen and Pollman 2001; Coupland 2011). Overall, round numbers prompt recognition of an approximation that applies to numerous domains from product packaging or military units to money or time-related information, and they have strong associations with arithmetic, geometrical, and temporal roundness facilitating their use in various types of estimations, measurements, units, or groupings (Sigurd 1988, Dehaene 1997). Many dictionaries include the words “complete, full, whole” in their definition of “round numbers” (e.g., Dictionary.com 2014). Rounding requires the provider of the information to reach the next point of totality by curbing the remainders or adding in what is needed to get to the entirety. Because round numbers are perceived as products of estimations, they indicate that a benchmark or next level of entirety has been reached. Rounding numbers and making estimations involve achieving completeness; therefore, round numbers are seen as more complete. Thus, their usage in many contexts increases completeness perceptions. In our daily lives we often use round numbers to indicate some level of completion, perfection, or superiority (perfect 100 score, 10 look, 100% complete satisfaction). Dehaene (1997) explains that numbers are often rounded up or down to the closest round number and accompanied with approximation phrases to indicate completeness. For instance, when there are 28 people in a room we tend to say there are “almost, about, approximately, nearly” 30 people to
4
reaffirm that an entirety has been achieved and feel like we need just 2 more. Since people think of round numbers as different levels of completion, they tend to trade at round numbers assuming that a new stage has been reached (Wyckoff 1963, p. 106). Recent research shows that currencies, stock trades, lotteries, SAT scores, and baseball points all reach a peak at round numbers, which may serve as psychological barriers representing the fulfillment of various levels of completeness and people exert extra effort to complete their goals at round numbers (Pope and Simonsohn 2011; Osler 2003; Mitchell 2001). Thus, an important deduction we make about round numbers and the reason for their high frequency is their associations with completeness.
1.1 Round Numbers in Brand Names Recent research by Gunasti and Ross (2010) examines the alignability of brand names with certain product features (e.g., AMD64 chip with 64-bit processing) and assert that consumers require a specific product context and must engage conscious processing to make sense of numbers in brand names. Similarly, certain contextually relevant numbers will be wellliked in particular product categories (e.g., Trojan69 condoms). However, round numbers are independent from specific alignability, context-based relevancy, or product knowledge. When brand names include round numbers, they should be more favorable to consumers, because their numeric portions evoke inherent semantic associations with completeness. RABs do not need to be alignable with specific product attributes or categories to achieve favorable evaluations, because their alignability occurs naturally and across product contexts. Use of RABs, even in arbitrary categories, triggers the inference that the product has a complete set of features without the need of consumer expertise.
5
We propose that because RABs are associated with rounding and results of estimations or completions, consumers may perceive that they offer the full set of important features regardless of the product category. Round numbers mitigate consumers’ need to review each attribute to make a precise determination of the features available in the set, because their tendency to round up prompts them to assume the set is complete. Thus the product will be perceived as more complete and of higher quality, even if consumers cannot make product-specific associations (Dutta-Bergman 2004). To sum up, we propose that RABs will increase product completeness perceptions leading to higher liking of products labeled with them.
2. EVIDENCE FOR COMPLETENESS OF ROUND NUMBERS 2.1 Study 1 – Number Perceptions 2.1.1 Method One hundred twenty-eight students rated either their completeness perceptions (This number may imply completeness, wholeness, or fullness) or their popularity perceptions (This number may be popular) for numbers ranging between 10-100 using five-point, Likert scales. To avoid fatigue and any confounds, each participant rated only thirty numbers, focusing on only one of the two constructs (i.e., either completeness or popularity). After the rating tasks, participants were asked to describe another random set of thirty numbers by writing the first “adjective” that came to mind immediately after seeing the numbers. Two coders categorized the adjectives as suggesting wholeness, perfection, grouping, or reaching one or more “targets” as associated with being “completeness-related” (e.g., whole, complete, full, perfect, over-the-hill, benchmark, quarter, etc.) vs. “not completeness-related” (inter-rater agreement = .93). 2.1.2 Results
6
The mean ratings of completeness and popularity are presented in Figure 1. Controlling for subject fixed-effects, round (vs. non-round) numbers were perceived as significantly more complete (M=4.15 vs 2.74; b=1.22, t(2392)=19.34, p
