Article B -Han, M., Newman, G. E., Smith, R. K., & Dhar, R. (2021)

Question 1

What is this article about?
NAME: The curse of the original: How and when heritage branding reduces
consumer evaluations of enhanced products.

Answer 1

→ This article explores how heritage branding, a marketing strategy that emphasizes a brand’s history, can backfire when companies update or improve their flagship products. Instead of appreciating the upgrades, consumers sometimes prefer the original, especially when they perceive that the brand’s authenticity has been disrupted.
→ Heritage Branding= A branding approach that highlights a brand’s age, traditions, and history.
→ Enhanced Product= A “new and improved” version of a flagship product.
→ Authenticity= Consumer perception of whether a brand stays true to itself. It can be:
- Continuity Authenticity: Consistency over time.
- Integrity Authenticity: Consistency with core values.

Question 2

Hypotheses

Answer 2

H1: Heritage branding that emphasizes longevity reduces evaluations of enhanced products due to disrupted continuity authenticity.
H2: Heritage branding that emphasizes values does not reduce evaluations of enhanced products. H3: Reframing enhancements as aligned with the brand’s origin can reduce negative reactions.

Question 3

Study 1 (1a & 1b): What heritage cues affect authenticity perceptions?

Answer 3

→ Method: Participants rated fictional brands with different heritage cues (e.g., age, family ownership, values).
→ Key Findings:
- Longevity cues (e.g., age, flagship product) → boost continuity authenticity.
- Values cues (e.g., family ownership, core values) → boost integrity authenticity.

Question 4

Study 2: Do longevity cues hurt enhanced product evaluations?

Answer 4

→ Method: Lab experiment with real product (hand cream). Participants read about a brand with or without longevity cues and sampled either the “original” or “enhanced” version.
› Key Findings:
- In heritage (longevity) condition: enhanced product rated worse than original.
- In control condition: no difference or slight preference for the enhanced product.

Question 5

Study 3: Are effects specific to cue type?
→ Method: Online study using Lodge cookware with real descriptions. Manipulated longevity vs. values cues.
→Key Findings:
- Longevity cues → enhanced product rated lower.
- Values cues → no penalty for enhancement.
- Mediation: Negative evaluations were explained by reduced continuity authenticity, not integrity.

Question 6

Study 4: Can reframing reduce negative reactions?
→ Method: Participants saw enhancements either as disruptive or as consistent with brand’s origin. › Key Finding: Reframing the enhanced product as connected to the brand’s roots eliminated the negative effect.

Answer 6

→ Method: Online study using Lodge cookware with real descriptions. Manipulated longevity vs. values cues.
→Key Findings:
- Longevity cues → enhanced product rated lower.
- Values cues → no penalty for enhancement.
- Mediation: Negative evaluations were explained by reduced continuity authenticity, not integrity.

Question 7

Implicatiopns

Answer 7

Marketers often rely on heritage branding, but this strategy can sometimes have negative consequences:
1) Highlighting certain heritage cues (i.e., longevity) may ultimately lower consumer evaluations of enhanced products.
2) To circumvent this, firms can establish brand heritage by highlighting cues associated with integrity, such as core values or family ownership and thereby make continuity a less salient dimension, or
3) Frame enhanced products as aligning with the brand’s origin