Abstract
‘Great’ is an adjective that is differently employed by organizations for naming products, as a kind of magical word that adds value to products. However, little is known about this supposed effect. This research analyses the power of ‘great’ when linked to product names under different settings. The aim of this research was to determine whether the word ‘great’ and some of its synonyms, such as ‘grand’, are magical words that add value to a product. A series of empirical studies were carried out, employing both random and convenience samples, and using face-to-face interviews, web and telephone surveys. Results show that when consumers know that ‘great’ means truly superior, they overestimate some of the main attributes of ‘great’ products. In this sense, ‘great’ serves as a powerful tool to increase expectations about a specific product. There is also weak evidence that, for new or unknown products, ‘great’ provides small added value. However, when there is no way to know if ‘great’ truly means superior but the evaluated product is well-known, consumers generally react with indifference. Finally, if ‘great’ is artificially added to the name of a product, there is no effect on consumer perceptions with respect to the product. This research clarifies the conditions where ‘great’ has a positive impact on the bottom line for some companies. Consequently, it is a term that marketers should consider when seeking to persuade consumers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993) The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science 12 (2): 125–143.
Aydinoglu, N. and Krishna, A. (2011) Guiltless Gluttony: The asymmetric effect of size labels on size perceptions and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 37 (6): 1095–1112.
Douget, L. (2004) Service provider hostility and service quality. Academy of Management Journal 47 (3): 761–771.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (2002) Heuristics and Biases – The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hardin, J.W. and Hilbe, J.M. (2012) Generalized Linear Models and Extensions, 3rd edn. Texas: Stata-Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Heath, R. (2012) Seducing the Subconscious: The Psychology of Emotional Influence in Advertising. Maldon, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hutter, K. and Hoffman, S. (2014) Surprise, surprise. Ambient media as promotion tool for retailers. Journal of Retailing 90 (1): 93–110.
Javaras, K.N. and Ripley, B.D. (2007) An ‘unfolding’ latent variable model for Likert attitude data: Drawing inferences adjusted for response style. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102 (478): 454–463.
John, D.R., Loken, B., Kim, K. and Monga, A.B. (2006) Brand concepts maps; A methodology for identifying brand associations networks. Journal of Marketing Research 43 (4): 549–563.
Johnson, M. and Fornell, C. (1991) A framework for comparing customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. Journal of Economic Psychology 12 (2): 267–286.
Juslin, P.N. and Västfjäll, D. (2008) Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5): 559–621.
Kover, A.J. (1995) Copywriters’ implicit theories of communication: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research 21 (March): 596–611.
Martínez, J.A., Ko, Y.J. and Martínez, L. (2010) An application of fuzzy logic to service quality research: A case of fitness service. Journal of Sport Management 24 (5): 502–523.
Mousavi, S. and Gigerenzer, G. (2014) Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research 67 (8): 1671–1678.
Oliver, R. (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. JournaI of Marketing Research 17 (November): 460–469.
Rozin, P., Rozin, A., Appel, B. and Wachtel, C. (2006) Documenting and explaining the common AAB pattern in music and humor: Establishing and breaking expectations. Emotion 6 (3): 349–355.
Robertson, K. (1989) Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. Journal of Consumer Marketing 6 (4): 61–71.
Saris, W.E. and Gallhofer, I. (2007) Estimation of the effects of measurement characteristics on the quality of survey questions. Survey Research Methods 1 (1): 29–43.
Sitzia, S. and Zizzo, D.J. (2012) Price lower and then higher or price higher and then lower? Journal of Economic Psychology 33 (6): 1084–1099.
Thomas, M. and Morwitz, V.G. (2009) The ease of computation effect: The interplay of metacognitive experience and naïve theories in judgments of price difference. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (February): 81–91.
Weierich, M.R., Wright, C.I., Negreira, A., Dickerson, B.C. and Barrett, L.F. (2010) Novelty as a dimension in the affective brain. Neuroimage 49 (3): 2871–2878.
Wilcox, R.R. (2010) Fundamentals of Modern Statistical Methods: Substantially Improving Power and Accuracy, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.
Yan, D. and Duclos, R. (2013) Making sense of numbers: Effects of alphanumeric brands on consumer inference. International Journal of Research in Marketing 30 (2): 179–184.
Zaltman, G. and Zaltman, L. (2008) Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal About the Minds of Consumers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Zeithaml, V. (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52 (3): 2–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martínez, J. The magic of ‘great’ linked to product names. J Brand Manag 23, 179–196 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2016.2
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2016.2