See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235273194

Marketing Causes and Implications of Consumer Confusion

Article  in  Journal of Product & Brand Management · August 1999

DOI: 10.1108/10610429910284300

CITATIONS READS
222 3,376

2 authors, including:

Vincent-Wayne Mitchell
The University of Sydney
155 PUBLICATIONS   9,561 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mall experiences View project

Data, Privacy and Perceptions of Ownership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vincent-Wayne Mitchell on 02 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An executive summary for
managers and executive
readers can be found at the
end of this article
Information overload
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999, pp. 319-339, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1061-0421
Marketing causes and
implications of consumer
confusion
Vincent-Wayne Mitchell
Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Manchester School of Management,
UMIST, Manchester, UK
Vassilios Papavassiliou
MSc student, Manchester School of Management, UMIST,
Manchester, UK
Keywords Brands, Product management, Consumer behaviour, Marketing mix
Abstract Explores the concept of consumer confusion; what causes it, how consumers
react to it and how marketers can influence it. The focus proposed differs from previous
work by integrating the notions of stimulus overload and stimulus similarity as well as
acknowledging conscious and unconscious confusion. The marketing determinants of
confusion are classified and an inventory of confusion reduction strategies is discussed.
Examines the marketing and policy implications of confusion, presents a checklist for
brand managers to use when conducting a confusion audit and highlights areas for future
research, especially into measurement of the concept.
Introduction
Consumer confusion is becoming more of a problem as consumers are
provided with ever increasing amounts of decision-relevant information in
their purchasing environments. Moreover, consumer organisations frequently
advise consumers to ``shop around'', ``search for the best deal'' and ``be
informed''; turning information search into more of an obligation than an
option. The increasing number of products as well as the amount of
information carried by each brand can overload and confuse consumers and
can result in stress, frustration and sub-optimal decisions. This can be
particularly acute in high-involvement and complex purchases where
consumers devote more time and effort to gathering and processing
information and have a higher propensity to become overloaded. However,
the consumer is not protected against information overload and the law
currently gives no consideration to information overload as a consumer
issue.
Confusion has been identified as a marketing problem in a variety of product
markets including: computer software and multi-media (Cahill, 1995;
Khermouch, 1994), food labelling and beliefs about diet and food (Ippolito
and Mathios, 1994; Wiseman, 1994; Marshall et al., 1994), recycling
symbols and environmentally-friendly claims (Kulik, 1993; Mendleson and
Polonsky, 1995), audio and video tapes (Gelfand, 1992), CD video games
(Boxer and Lloyd, 1994), homeopathic medicines (Weisz, 1994), washing
detergents (Kelly, 1997; Benady, 1997) and even complaint channels in
public services (Ashton, 1993). One area of particular concern is so-called
``lookalike'' own-label products whose continued proliferation (Kapferer,
1995a; 1995b) is likely to lead not only to an increasing degree of consumer
confusion, but also to more cases of perceived or proven trademark and
copyright infringement.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
319
 A relatively new concept While brand confusion has been addressed in many articles over the last 20
years (Miaoulis and d'Amato, 1978; Diamond, 1981; Foxman et al., 1992;
Kapferer, 1995a; 1995b) and has been widely related to trademark law and
consumer protection issues, confusion from overchoice is a relatively new
concept (Sproles, 1986) whose origins can be traced to information-overload
studies (e.g. Jacoby, 1977; Malhotra et al., 1982). An overchoice/confusion
decision-making trait has been shown only relatively recently (Sproles and
Kendall, 1986) and researchers have identified the trait in Korea (Hafstrom
et al., 1992), New Zealand (Durvasula et al., 1993) and the UK (Mitchell and
Bates, 1998). Confusion represents something of a ``hygiene'' factor in
consumer decision making; its presence may cause dissatisfaction, but its
absence will not motivate the purchaser and will not necessarily lead to
satisfaction. Confusion can result in potential misuse of a product, which can
lead to consumer dissatisfaction, lower repeat sales, more returned products,
reduced customer loyalty and poorer brand image. It is therefore vital for
companies to have a clear idea not only of what causes confusion, but also
how they could help consumers clarify the choice decision; something that
has obvious ``educational'' implications. Despite this, relatively little
research exists on the confusion concept per se. In particular, the sources of
confusion and the concept of confusion reduction of which brand managers
should be aware are under-developed and under-researched. Prior research,
which has tended to focus on very specific confusion sources, e.g. packaging
similarity, fails to capture the multi-dimensionality of consumer confusion
which results from the consumer's experience of the marketplace as a whole,
rather than one element of it. This paper attempts to bring the reader's
attention to this increasingly important topic. It presents a more detailed
examination of confusion determinants from a broad range of individual,
situational, and marketing mix sources and discusses the implications for
marketers. The second part of the paper discusses strategies for confusion
reduction and the consumer and public policy implications of confusion. The
paper ends by focusing on the priorities for further research, in particular
confusion measurement, and suggests how brand managers can conduct a
confusion audit.

Marketing sources of confusion

Three main sources Information overload results from the finite limits of the human being's
ability to assimilate and process information during a given unit of time
(Miller, 1956); the more time the consumer has, the less likely confusion
from information overload will occur. Although consumers may be clear
about their purchasing criteria, they may still be unclear about their
``consideration set'' of products as they can become confused on coming in
contact with the choice environment. Jacoby (1977) defined information as
``the number of purchase alternatives (brands) times the number of
information dimensions presented to a subject''. Confusion can therefore be
caused not only by the excessive product offerings, but also by the increased
information carried on each product. Thus confusion usually arises from
three main sources:
(1) overchoice of products and stores;
(2) similarity of products;
(3) ambiguous, misleading or inadequate information conveyed through
marketing communications.

320 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999


Innovative imitation
Inadequate protective
legislation
Lookalikes can harm the
whole category
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
This section attempts to highlight a range of the main confusion sources
present in today's marketplace which can affect a product's relative
competitive advantage. These are summarised as a checklist in Table AI.
Product confusion
Product similarity. As far back as 1966, Levitt noted ``most of what we see
as new in the marketplace is not new at all, but is rather `innovative
imitation'''. Brand similarity confusion occurs when an imitator ``. . .so
resembles the mark in appearance, sound, or meaning that a prospective
purchaser is likely to be confused or misled'' (Diamond, 1981, p. 52). As
consumer confusion increases as physical similarity increases (Loken et al.,
1986), the introduction of more me-too products is increasingly problematic.
Brand similarity can also cause problems for salespeople, who can often find
it difficult to explain to consumers the reasons for price differences between
similar products. In addition, the similarity of advertised products has been
shown to create an interference effect on consumers which inhibits brand
name recall (Burke and Srull, 1988; Keller, 1991; Kent, 1993). An extension
of me-tooism is fake products, which can be found in virtually every market
where branding activity is strong, e.g. ``Johnnie Hawker'' Red Label whisky
from Indonesia and ``White Horsie'' whisky from Nigeria.
Confusion is central to consumer protection because confused consumers
may suffer physical harm when they unknowingly buy a product other than
the one they intend to buy (Fletcher and Wald, 1987). Imitator brands, for
example, may contain ingredients different from or inferior to the original
brands and unknowing exposure to these products can threaten consumers'
health. Inadequate protective legislation allows the proliferation of imitation
brands and is incapable of controlling trademark infringements as is often the
case in China, Taiwan and Pakistan. Trademark law, which protects original
brands from ``copy-cats'', lags behind what is happening in the marketplace.
Sainsbury's[1], for example, recently bowed to pressure from Nestle and
Coca-cola to change the look of their own-brand full roast coffee jars and
Classic Cola cans. Some retailers argue that product categories have
packaging codes, e.g. moisturising soaps are white with simple writing and it
is difficult to introduce a private label without accepting these packaging
norms. Manufacturers claim that consumers can be confused by retailers'
own-label, products because:
. they might mistake the own-label product for the manufacturer's brand;
. they assume look-alike retailers' brands give the impression that the
manufacturer has made the own-label product;
. they assume there is some degree of contents equivalence.
Branded-goods manufacturers have also argued that lookalikes can harm the
whole product category because it is easier to imitate packaging and design
than product quality and when copycat brands are of inferior quality,
consumers are put off the whole product category. However, these arguments
are difficult to prove legally. Although the likelihood of consumer confusion
is a key element the courts use to decide whether or not trademark
infringement has occurred (Boal, 1983), it is not a necessary nor sufficient
condition for a finding of infringement. One of the problems with some of
the current legislation which has the effect of deprioritising consumer
interests is that there is no widely accepted way of measuring confusion (see
``Confusion measurement'' section). Further research into this grey area is
urgently required as the number of own-labelled goods continues to rise.
321
 Product claims
Words such as ``healthy'' and ``diet'' are clearly highly marketable terms and
extremely useful in selling food to health-conscious consumers, but such
product claims can be inaccurate or misleading. For example, the ``light'' in
Asda[2] Pure Vegetable Oil refers to its colour; it is no lower in fat than other
oils. Both Prince's Premium Light Tuna and Asda Light Meat Tuna claim
they contain 0.2g fat per 100g respectively, no less than other brands
(Which?, 1995). Many people have false impressions about product
ingredients and inadequate knowledge about the health implications of
ingredients (Wiseman, 1994), and manufacturers can capitalise on this.
Environmentally friendly The environmentally conscious consumer in particular faces a mind-
products boggling array of choices (Griffith, 1993) from ``green batteries'' and non-
polluting fuels to environment-friendly detergents. Germany alone has three
different signs[3] for symbolising environmentally friendly products: and
some consumers are confused about what each symbol represents (Kulik,
1993). ``Conscience'' products claim:
. disposability (e.g. 100 per cent recyclable);
. charity contributions (e.g. donations to Bosnia);
. humanistic messages (e.g. the Body Shop's no product testing on
animals and only selling products in countries that do not mistreat their
citizens);
. fair deals for disadvantaged producers (like ``Cafe Direct'' ground
coffee).
These conscience claims can confuse consumers when there is uncertainty
about their believability and validity. In a UK Which? magazine (1995)
survey, 84 per cent of those surveyed agreed that health messages and
nutritional information should be regulated. It could be argued that the
demand for the ``healthy'' products would increase once health claims are
regulated and clarified, and it is therefore in both manufacturers' and
consumers' interests to move in this direction. Attempts to consolidate eco-
labelling efforts among the 12 countries of the EU is intended to ease
consumer confusion and curb unregulated advertising or false environmental
claims, but progress so far has been slow.
Products mislead Finally, sometimes the product name or country of origin can mislead the
consumer into thinking that the product can deliver benefits it cannot. For
example, ``Clinique'' cosmetics were said to mislead consumers into
thinking that they had a therapeutic effect (Anon., FT, 1994) and Greek feta
cheese which is produced in Denmark has been mistaken for the authentic
Greek product. Products mislead when the information cues they give lead to
the formation of inaccurate beliefs about a product's attributes. The term
differs from deception, which has legal connotations, in that it does not
always represent deliberate efforts (or omission of efforts) aimed at
developing inaccurate consumer beliefs. The consumer may also be
unintentionally misled by sales staff and friends.

Product positioning
Brand managers need to be aware of confusion which can arise during
product positioning, which can be competitively damaging because it masks
the product's competitive advantage. A lack of distinctive positioning can
lead to impressions of similarity and consumers perceiving nothing special
about the brand. Inconsistent positioning caused by conflicting and

322 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999


Incompatible standards
Product properties
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
non-synergistic product claims as well as too frequent repositioning can
create ambiguity and challenge the image, reliability and trustworthiness of
the product and the manufacturing company. A good example of this in the
UK was the great soap war of 1994 between P&G and Unilever concerning
competing claims about Unilever's Persil Power. Clearly, product claims
should always be justified and explained for the consumer to be able to
assess their validity and usefulness. Ideally, the various features and
attributes of the products should be translated into benefits for consumers.
Any product information should be clear in terms of content and presentation
and not mislead consumers or overload them with cues that are not useful for
decision making and use of the product. A congruent retail image is also
critical for brand managers, because retail image cues like quality, service,
price, and convenience also reflect on the products sold. Consumers can also
perceive a slightly confusing message if they understand only a part of what
merchandise a store sells, its price levels and its reputation for reliability and
service. After identifying consumer confusion over what it sells, Woolworths
refurbished its interiors to upgrade customer perceptions and reinforce its
value-for-money positioning (Ruth, 1994).
Product complexity
Product literature and ``how-to-use'' guidelines can often be a source of
confusion, especially for technical products such as VCRs and computers.
Confusion from incompatible standards or too many standards is most
evident in the mobile data services market (Taylor, 1994) where one
consumer report compares four types of mobile phones (analogue, digital,
mercury, orange), 17 different brands, eight specifications, 17 features and
seven performance characteristics. It is also evident in the recording market
which provides differing digital audio formats, e.g. Philips' Digital Compact
Cassette, a taped-based system, competes with Sony's Mini Disc, which
records digitally on 2.5-inch magneto-optical discs (Jorgensen, 1992). In
families, such problems can often lead to an interesting parent-child learning
role reversal.
Confusion caused by product complexity is likely to be more acute with the
elderly and less well-educated because confusion is likely to increase with
age as processing competence decreases and older people tend to limit the
amount of product information they obtain prior to purchase (Beatty and
Smith, 1987). Recent evidence confirms that elderly adults tend to satisfice
more and search less intensely and less accurately than younger adults (Cole
and Balasabramanian, 1993), which may be due to age-associated decline in
working memory. Wright (1981) found that older subjects had increasing
difficulty in performing simple addition problems as the digit load grew. A
related consideration is education level. Less well educated and less
intelligent consumers tend to be less analytical and adopt a fact-orientated or
a struggling learning style which has been found to be positively correlated
with consumer confusion (Sproles and Kendall, 1990). Marketers who have
these groups in their target markets need therefore to be more conscious of
the problems confusion can cause.
Finally, when the nature of a product is obscure, e.g. precious stones, the
consumer will often be confused about product properties, pricing and
quality. For example, nearly every country in the EU has its own hallmarking
system for precious metals, which is often significantly different from that of
other countries, e.g. Britain's Lion figure denoting sterling silver and the
figure of Britannia for silver are relatively unknown by consumers in other
EU countries.
323
 Product packaging
Packaging information can create confusion by conveying either too much
information or misleading and inaccurate information. In addition, in trying
to maximise the information carried on products, manufacturers often use
very small fonts and very dense writing styles, making the readability of
packaging difficult and sometimes confusing.

Product proliferation
``Product clutter'' Products have proliferated at an unprecedented rate in most categories of
consumer goods and services (Quelch and Kenny, 1994). Some extreme
examples of this ``product clutter'' (Fielding, 1994) include 75 kinds of
toothbrush and 240 shampoos in Boots the Chemist[4]; 13 different kettles
and 24 irons produced by Philips; 347 separate varieties of Nike trainer and
110 types of personal stereo on display in a typical Oxford Street store in
London (Fielding, 1994)[5].
The assumption that choice is necessarily valued by consumers is being
increasingly questioned by marketers. Dowding (1992, p. 314) writes ``What
we value is getting what we want'' and Pine et al. (1995) echo this sentiment,
``Customers do not want more choice, they want exactly what they want,
where, when and how they want it.'' One extension of this line of argument
seems to suggest that current proliferations are being driven less by customer
needs and more by companies' desire to increase profit by utilising extra
production capacity through making minor changes to existing product lines.
Their aim is to squeeze as much profit out of their capital investment as
possible (Quelch and Kenny, 1994). If this is true, a return is needed to
marketing's fundamental goal of customer satisfaction in which choice does
not necessarily feature.
Product policy A central question for the guidance of product policy is ``is it profitable to
maintain so many products in the product lines?'' Quelch and Kenny (1994)
have calculated that the unit-costs for multi-item lines can be 25 per cent to
45 per cent higher than the theoretical cost of producing only the most
popular item of the line. In addition, the Pareto effect is often observed with
20 per cent of the products generating 80 per cent of revenue. Apart from
confusing the consumer, Quelch and Kenny (1994) note that an excessive
line-extension policy can be detrimental for the brand/manufacturing
company by:
. weakening the line logic because retailers may be confused about the
logic and the necessity of individual products within the product line and
may be less sure about stocking all the items;
. disrupting brand loyalty because when a company extends its line, it
risks disrupting the patterns and habits that underlie brand loyalty and
reopening the entire purchasing decision;
. not increasing the demand of the product category since ``People do not
eat or drink more, wash their hair more, or brush their teeth more
frequently because they have more products from which to choose'';
. containing hidden costs including:
± fragmentation of the overall marketing effort; and
± increased production complexity.
In addition, one study of consumer decision making found the ``confused by
overchoice'' factor was highly correlated with the statement ``all brands are

324 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999


``Counter-segmentation''
False impressions about
price
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
the same in overall quality'' (Hafstrom et al., 1992). This suggests that
confused consumers, overloaded by the volume of products, recognise fewer
differences between brands and has major implications for branded goods
manufacturers who rely on the perception of these differences for
competitive advantage and gaining market share. Companies should
therefore be encouraged to adopt more formal product elimination
procedures based upon criteria like strategic importance and contribution to
profit.
Uncontrolled line-extension strategies can result in ``hyper-segmentation''
(Quelch and Kenny, 1994) and one way for companies to tackle this is to
start aggregating instead of segregating market segments in a strategy called
``counter-segmentation'', which involves eliminating market segments by
dropping products, or fusing market segments by inducing customers of
differentiated products or services to accept more simplified, multi-purpose
products with general appeal across segments and lower prices (Resnik et al.,
1979). This reduces the amount of choice and hence overload to which the
consumer is exposed. A good example of this is in the washing detergent
market where both Procter & Gamble and Lever Brothers have attempted to
reduce the number of sub-brands in the market and provide clearer package
design and instructions (Kelly, 1997; Benady, 1997). One executive referred
to this as the ``great soap simplification''.
Product proliferation might also be the focus of future regulatory activity[6]
with possible limits being placed on the number of brands and models per
brand which can be introduced to markets that suffer from confusion and
overchoice. This issue has been highlighted by the Chairman of the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in the USA (Otis, 1993).
Price confusion
Multiple price bands and complex pricing systems are often sources of
consumer confusion and one of the worst examples is the mobile telephone
market. Some companies are now recognising the problem and reducing
price complexity to gain competitive advantage.
Consumers may also form false impressions about the price of a product/
service due to either misleading or partially disclosed pricing methods, e.g.
the exclusion of VAT from price lists, the use of cover and service charges in
restaurants and supermarket price discounts. Price promotions and sales can
engender confusion because the consumer can be forced to process an
increased amount of information over a shorter period of time. Also, heavily
discounted items can cause confusion and scepticism about the original value
of the goods.
Promotional confusion
Advertising
Confusion through advertising can be caused by overloading the consumer
with too many, too complex or conflicting messages which can weaken the
effect of important messages, decrease the recall rate of individual messages
and fail to provide clear answers to consumers' problems. This is especially
relevant in the USA where companies can engage in comparative advertising
to gain competitive advantage. As far as the consumer is concerned,
advertising in the UK is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority
who supervise the British Code of Advertising Practice and the British Code
of Sales Promotion Practice. Although the codes require that advertisements
and sales promotions should be legal, decent, honest, and truthful, prepared
325
 with a sense of responsibility to the consumer and society and are in line with
principles of fair competition, this provides little protection from aspects of
information overload or consumer confusion. This may be because overload
generally results from the accumulated effects of many advertisements rather
than being caused by any single advertisement or promotion. It could be
argued that the codes should address this cumulative effect as well as the
confusion resulting from any single advertisement.

Sales promotions
Special offers Special offers can sometimes be misleading and present unclear conditions
which unfairly incite purchase. For example, magazines which use the
slogan: ``Special offer promotion: see inside for details'' exhort the
purchaser to buy further issues of the publication as a condition of eligibility,
or stipulate entry to the promotion is only by means of a premium-rate
telephone number (ASA, 1991). Unfortunately, current legislation and codes
of practice place no requirements on advertisers to reveal the information
concerning the conditions of the promotion. In addition, charity-linked
promotions can confuse consumers. The ASA reports that consumers often
feel misled about the extent of their contribution to charity from each
purchase of the advertised item (ASA, 1991).

Personal selling
A catalyst for confusion Jacoby's (1977) definition of information is too restrictive for the purposes
reduction of marketing management as it excludes non-product information from
stores, salespeople, friends etc. In the course of an interaction with a
consumer, the salesperson can cause confusion by conveying: inadequate,
unclear, ambiguous, conflicting, misleading, deceptive or too much
information. Inconsistent, unclear and conflicting advice from different
salespersons in the same or different stores can be particularly problematic,
especially if the salesperson's opinion also contradicts the consumer's prior
beliefs. In some instances the salesperson can be an effective communicator,
acting as a catalyst for confusion reduction and retailers can play a crucial
part in reducing confusion because eight out of ten purchase decisions are
made in the store (Erickson, 1994). Salespeople should be trained to
recognise signs of confusion (e.g. indecisiveness, hesitancy, inconsistency in
what the consumer says and asks for) and to mobilise mechanisms for
confusion reduction. This is part of the consultative selling approach where
the salesperson becomes the prospect's problem solver (Jones, 1994) and can
help in building trust and loyalty among customers, as well as helping secure
a competitive advantage.

Merchandising
Separate one brand from Conveying too much information through the designed environment can
another exacerbate information overload and confusion. Retailers should be
encouraged to separate one brand from another clearly because the proximity
of similar products on shelves and in windows has been found to create
confusion. This view is based on perceptual grouping theory and
Pomerantz's (1981) experimental work. In contrast, a well-thought out
display of the products not only reduces consumer confusion, but also
strengthens the brand image and creates competitive advantage. Retailers can
help brand managers to reduce consumer confusion by designing outlets and
merchandise displays in ways that facilitate choice, e.g. by using ``benefit
segmentation'' merchandising in which merchandise is arranged according
to the conditions of use or benefits.

326 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999


Negative outcomes
Six ``generic'' approaches
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
Before considering the consumerism and policy implications of concern to
marketers, the next section discusses how consumers react to confusion and
how they attempt to reduce it.
Confusion reduction
Confusion can have a number of negative outcomes, such as:
. unknowingly altering the consumer's brand choice;
. knowingly altering a brand choice caused by a lack of understanding.
Confused consumers are also likely to be more promiscuous and buy on
price or buy multi-task products as a means of simplifying the purchase
task;
. making the same choice, but with undue amounts of uncertainty,
frustration and dissonance;
. making the same choice, but which results in poor or non-maximal
product utilisation caused by inadequate understanding;
. making the same choice, but disabling the consumer from informing
others about the product or causing them to misinform others, which may
create problems. Confused consumers are likely to confuse other
consumers when spreading word-of-mouth by passing on too much
inaccurate or irrelevant decision-making information;
. making the same or a different choice depending on the outcome of a
delay designed to clarify the choice by using confusion reduction
strategies;
. creating decision paralysis; when the consumer is overwhelmed by the
decision. In certain cases, where the decision cannot be made and the
purchase is not important, the consumer might abandon the purchase or
switch to other products with which he/she is more familiar. Neither
action is helpful to sales.
Foxman et al. (1992) contend that brand confusion must involve errors of
which the consumer is unaware, because if a consumer knows that a belief
about the attributes or performance of a brand is incorrect, he/she will reject
that belief. Confusion can also be either total, i.e. when the consumer thinks
that one product is exactly the same as another, or ``partial'', i.e. involving
only some attributes of a product like country of origin or product
ingredients. While this may be true, we argue that such a narrow view of
confusion does not reflect the nature of confusion as it occurs for consumers
in the marketplace. Confusion is more than subconscious mistakes, it is a
state of mind which affects information processing and decision making. The
consumer may therefore be aware or unaware of confusion.
Once confusion exceeds an acceptable level, the confused consumer will
respond to the cognitive unclarity and strain by developing strategies to
reduce it. A prerequisite for the use of confusion-reducing strategies (CRS) is
that the consumer is aware of the confusion involved in the purchase. The
more intolerant of confusion a consumer is, the more likely he/she will be to
use CRS. To the best of the authors' knowledge, confusion reduction has not
been studied before and this section identifies some strategies which
consumers use. Examples of these strategies are given in Table I. We propose
that strategies can be categorised into six generic approaches, namely:
(1) do nothing;
(2) postpone/abandon the purchase;
327
 Do nothing
1 I do nothing/I ignore the difficulty and act as if it does not exist
Postpone/abandon
2 I postpone the purchase
3 I abandon the purchase
Clarify goals
4 I clarify my purchasing goals/what I need
5 If it is a present, I ask the recipient
Share/delegate
6 I follow the advice of my friends, family, spouse
7 I follow the advice of the salesperson
8 I take a joint decision with another person
9 I delegate the responsibility to somebody else
Narrow down the choice set
10 I buy the item which is on sale
11 I buy the first item I see and like
12 I buy something quickly to get it over with
13 With complex products, I buy the most simple item
14 I do not buy a new product if it has not been tested by others
15 I buy the newest/most modern product
16 I buy the cheapest of the items that I like
17 I buy the best-known brand
18 I buy the most unusual brand
19 I buy the most expensive brand
20 I buy from shops of the area where I live or which is convenient to me
21 I buy something that I like the moment I see it, regardless of the shop
22 I buy only from shops that I have selected over time
23 I buy from the shop with the best reputation
Seek information
24 I devote more time to information gathering
25 I obtain additional information from printed advertisements
26 I obtain more information from advertisements on TV
27 I look for the most information I can get in order to make a purchase that offers
the best value for money
28 I focus on information that will help me to make a reasonably good purchase
without wasting my time
29 I stay in the shop as long as I need to make the decision
30 I visit as many shops as I can searching for a bargain
31 I read the product information carefully
32 I ask the salesperson for advice

Table I. Examples of confusion reduction strategies

(3) clarify the buying goals;

(4) seek additional information;
(5) narrow down the set of alternatives;
(6) share/delegate the purchase.
Other strategies Many other strategies not listed can reduce confusion if they are used as
criteria to narrow down the choice set:
. Doing nothing is not a confusion-reducing strategy as such, but is a
response to confusion which differs from postponing or abandoning the
purchase in the sense that it is usually an unplanned reaction. It could
result from confusion being either below the threshold above which CRS
are used, or so high that it causes mental paralysis.

328 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999


Involve another person
Seek additional information
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
. Postponing or abandoning the purchase implies that the confusion is at a
higher level than can be dealt with at that time. Purchase postponement
is the deliberate delay of a specific purchase during which time
consumers can compare alternatives, clarify their purchase goals and
evaluate any information gathered. When consumers abandon a specific
purchase, they often reduce the importance of acquiring the product
through dissonance mechanisms and/or transfer the purchasing goals to a
product category with which they are more familiar and comfortable.
. Confused consumers can often involve another person (i.e. spouse,
family member, friend) in the purchasing decision or even delegate the
task to them completely. Shopping partners, however, can themselves
sometimes confuse the purchaser and inhibit the decision-making
process by giving opinions which contrast with the buyer's opinion or by
conveying inaccurate or unclear information about a product and/or
store. Furthermore, consumers can feel guilty about wasting their
shopping partner's time and either feel pressured into making a purchase
quickly or seek to abandon the purchase altogether. A distinction also
needs to be drawn between optional and compulsory companionship. For
example, a mother who has to go shopping with her child may not feel
helped by the companionship. Such compulsory companionship may
make the consumer more stressed and confused.
. A major way of reducing confusion from information overload is to
narrow down the choice set. Consequent reduction of the choice
alternatives and evaluative attributes decreases the probability that the
consumer will be confused by overchoice and information overload. One
topical case is that of the ethical consumer (Stone, 1954; Darden and
Reynolds, 1971) who, when able to identify what is and is not ethical to
purchase, narrows the choice-set by eliminating alternatives that do not
comply with the ethical standards; or favouring the products that are
more ethical. Experienced consumers use a similar strategy. They are
less likely to be overloaded than inexperienced ones, partly because
heavy users look at fewer brand alternatives, although they do consider a
greater number of information dimensions (Jacoby, 1977), and partly
because the knowledge that stems from experience facilitates informa-
tion processing. In addition, the firmer product beliefs which accrue
from experience make consumers selectively perceptive (Neisser, 1976)
and reduce consumers' scope of search.
. The ``seek additional information'' category mostly consists of strategies
which clarify the choice environment, but can also involve simplifying
strategies. For example, the consumer might seek information to clarify
which is the best brand in the market. Once obtained, the information is
likely to be used by the consumer as a simplifying cue to reduce the
scope of further search in related categories. However, the reduction of
confusion critically depends on the content of the information received.
Information which is conflicting and confusing will not always reduce
confusion. When the information is not conflicting, there is likely to be a
negative relationship between information acquired and the level of
confusion up to a certain point, beyond which confusion is expected to
increase as overload sets in. One implication of this proposition is that
there is an optimum range of information acquisition within which
purchasing decisions are most comfortably and effectively made.
329
 Consumerism implications of confusion
The confusion concept has several implications for consumerism of concern
to marketers.
Excessive product From a societal perspective, excessive product proliferation caused by the
proliferation differentiation of products to more closely match consumers' needs is often
blamed for contributing to the increasingly materialistic, consumption and
``me-orientated'' nature of society. Marketing encourages and develops self-
fulfilment expectations in which products play a part. Admittedly, this point
is part of a much wider debate on marketing's role in shaping society and the
responsibilities it shoulders; however, product proliferation is one of the
most visible representations of marketing's influence. The wider aspects of
self-fulfilment, including how other people react to it and how society views
it and provides for it, are not addressed by marketers. In addition, some
products, e.g. public sector services, do not only exist to meet the needs of an
individual, but also exist to meet public needs that are in part a result of some
collective societal desire (Barnes and Prior, 1995). Thus, the choice of the
individual may conflict with the choice that society at large deems
appropriate or necessary. Barnes and Prior (1995) conclude that, for public
services, empowerment of consumers to influence services should be the
focus of an organisation's attention by increasing the effectiveness of user
``voice'' mechanisms rather than introducing choice. In the USA, where
these issues are more evident, anti-consumerism organisations run
advertisements ridiculing the excesses of consumerism and UK companies
should be aware of the dangers involved in product proliferation. Such
actions not only exemplify the concerns of certain groups within society, but
also reflect the debate in marketing's societal role. Avoiding a consumerism
backlash, which would be detrimental to marketing as a subject as well as
individuals and companies, should concern marketers and policy makers
alike.
Consumers' decision The second point to be made is that confusion can affect consumers' decision
quality quality and can undermine consumer rights to safety and information. The
fact that confused consumers are: less able to process information and make
sound choices; may be more vulnerable to deceptive marketing practices;
and are more likely to buy inappropriate or defective products, or to use
products incorrectly, is of direct concern to many consumer groups.
Ironically, the consumerism movement's success in pressurising legislators,
manufacturers and consumer organisations to furnish consumers with more
information, without much consideration being given to the analytical and
information processing capacity of consumers, is one cause of confusion.
The consumerism movement appears to be pursuing a principle of ``informed
consent'' when purchasing goods and services without fully appreciating the
difficulties of achieving this state for buyers and sellers alike. These
problems are likely to be worse for certain consumers who are predisposed to
confusion, e.g. the less well-educated, less intelligent, cognitively impaired
and the elderly.

Research implications of confusion

Future research into the amounts of information that comprise information
overload should be considered, because confusion is a result not only of the
amount of information presented, but also of how it is presented. For
example, a recent (1995) survey on food labelling found that 90 per cent of
people agreed that nutritional information panels should be laid out in the
same way for all food products. Even consumer reports can too often convey
unmanageable amounts of information through very extensive and detailed

330 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999


Three modes of behaviour
The degree of conscious
confusion
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
facts and figures tables. Several researchers have pointed out the distinction
between availability of information and its processibility (Russo et al.,
1975). Future research could usefully focus on how these product
comparison tables are used by consumers and how they could be better
designed. One study suggests that the adjective format, compared to the
numerical format, facilitates the processing of information, but little work
has sought to establish the generalisability of this finding (Malhotra et al.,
1982). Furthermore, if the efforts of consumer groups and policy makers to
provide consumers with ever increasing amounts of information are to result
in better decision making, these groups need to acknowledge not only the
capacity limitations of consumers, but also their motivational limitations to
process information.
The confusion and cognitive strain caused can result in:
. goal avoidance;
. delegation of the purchase responsibility; and
. a general negative attitude towards shopping and consumerism.
The links of these potential outcomes with ``shopping fatigue'' could be
more thoroughly considered. Some exploratory research in the UK has
already identified three modes of behaviour shoppers use as a defence
against confusion (Gofton, 1995). These include:
(1) the blinkered shopper, who knows exactly what he/she is going to buy
and sticks to it;
(2) the magpie, who is attracted by anything new or bright; and
(3) the browser, who will read the backs of packs before making a choice.
Future research could focus on the generalisability and validity of these
suggested types and how they can be protected from confusion. Confusion is
likely to be particularly acute in gift purchasing, when consumers buy for
people they do not know well, and when travelling, because the consumer
has to deal with relatively unknown purchasing environments, product,
money and transaction behaviours.
Confusion measurement
Accurate measurement is required not only for marketing purposes, but also
for public policy makers to re-examine the laws surrounding trademark
infringement and other consumer protection legislation designed to regulate
companies' activities and allow consumers to make optimal and informed
choices. Research therefore needs to address the problem of developing
robust and generalisable measures of confusion. Efforts have been hampered
by a lack of consensus on how to proceed, and no comprehensive scale
currently exists, although some existing scales may capture elements of the
confusion concept, e.g. Childers et al.'s (1985) ``Style of processing scale''
and Sproles and Kendall's (1986) confusion factor in their ``Consumer styles
inventory''. There is therefore a need to devise a new scale to measure the
degree of conscious confusion.
Unfortunately, courts can dismiss questionnaire survey evidence in cases of
copyright infringement because it creates a situation in which the
interviewee pays more than average attention to the copying brand.
Tachistoscope methodologies can overcome the attention problem to some
extent by actually limiting the time spent scrutinizing a product. However,
imitating the conditions of a hurried, low-involved consumer scanning the
331
 shelves is hard. Kapferer (1995) notes the tachistoscopic methodology can
validly assess the likelihood of in-store perceptual confusion, but does not
get at the important issues of comprehension and inference nor does it tap
the attributions consumers make on the basis of package similarity. In
addition, the tachistoscope method may enhance the rate of perceptual
confusion in all categories where the market leader's brand name is used as
a practical definition of the product category, e.g. most people use Martini.
Recent work has focused on an alternative method which, instead of relying
on the length of time the respondent sees the product, relies on gradually
increasing the focus on a picture of the product from blur to absolute
sharpness (Kapferer, 1995). The work has major implications for defining
the legal concept of confusion and trademark infringement, but further
research is still required to test the robustness of the technique with different
products and to compare its results with those of different methodologies
such as direct questioning, observation, information sorting experiments and
measuring behaviour[7].

Conclusion
Factors to consider If marketers are to address confusion in order to gain competitive advantage
they need a checklist of factors to consider when embarking on a confusion
audit of their brands to ascertain where, and to what extent, confusion is
present. We propose that each element of the marketing mix needs to be
examined in relation to the elements which cause confusion, namely:
overload, inadequate, ambiguous, conflicting and misleading information.
The relationship between these confusion antecedents and marketing mix
factors has been discussed throughout this paper and is summarised in
Table AI.
The development of a confusion scale to measure the level of confusion
within a particular market would allow manufacturers and retailers to
recognise the wider marketplace picture and take action to reduce confusion.
It would also be of use to consumer pressure groups and government
regulatory agencies who might use it in the consumers' interest to press
for:
. changes in the number of brands or products;
. changes in the way these products are sold; or
. changes in the way information about them is presented.
Re-evaluate brand choice Finally, in order to increase market share in markets where brand loyalty is
high, the exact same confusion-reduction techniques discussed in the article
can be used to increase consumer confusion and force consumers to re-
evaluate their brand choice. Such a strategy has to be pursued carefully,
however, because the stimulus has to be sufficiently confusing in order to
generate doubt, but sufficiently clear that, once the purchase decision is re-
opened, the original confusing brand stands a good chance of being
preferred. One of the easiest ways of doing this, exemplified in the washing
powder market, is to convince consumers of a new purchasing evaluative
criterion, e.g. fat digester, colour protector, reduced bobbling,
environmentally friendly, etc. The consumer must first clarify the
importance of the new criterion in his/her mind before re-evaluating
competing brands. Confusion can therefore be deliberately increased by
marketers in an attempt to re-open the brand choice decision and break
existing loyalty patterns.

332 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999

 Notes
1. Sainsbury's is a large, full-range UK multiple grocery retailer which has many own-label
products.
2. Asda is a low-cost UK multiple grocery retailer.
3. These are Blue Environmental Angel, the Green Dot and the Flower Symbol.
4. Boots is the UK's main high street pharmacy and toiletries store, selling: perfumes,
cosmetics, health care products, etc.
5. Although all these products will not be available in every store, they nonetheless exist,
and even if a reduced number are available, this still constitutes a potentially
overwhelming amount of choice.
6. Regulation may be necessary but it would seem impractical for all the companies
involved to take an industry-wide view which would benefit the consumer when this
might involve some companies' product development plans being restricted.
7. One behavioural method is to give consumers coupons for the original brand as they enter
a store in which both original and imitator are displayed in close proximity. Confusion is
measured by the percentage of coupons redeemed against the imitator brand (Boal, 1983).
This method does have its limitations and great care must be taken to account for the
physical environmental differences (e.g. poor lighting, clutter etc.) which might increase
confusion rates over those attributable to marketer-controlled or individual psychological
causes. A confusion correction factor also needs to be applied which incorporates the
brand's strength into the equation for new and innovative brands where consumers may
have little experience and knowledge, which results in higher than normal confusion
rates.

References
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), 1991 and 1992, Annual Reports.
Anon. (1994), ``Business and the law: `Clinique' name can be used ± European Court'',
Financial Times, 8 February.
Ashton, C. (1993), ``A focus on information overload'', Managing Service Quality, July,
pp. 33-6.
Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (1995), ``Spoilt for choice? How consumerism can disempower public
services users'', Public Money & Management, July-September, pp. 53-8.
Beatty, S. and Smith, S. (1987), ``External search effort: an investigation across several product
categories'', Journal of Consumer Research, 14 June, pp. 83-95.
Benady, D. (1997), ``P & G does a U-turn with Ariel launch'', Marketing Week, 21 March.
Boal, R.B. (1983), ``Techniques for ascertaining likelihood of confusion and the meaning of
advertising communications'', The Trademark Reporter, July-August, pp. 405-35.
Boxer, S. and Lloydd, C. (1994), ``Too many systems spoil the CD broth'', The Sunday Times,
13 February, p. 16.
Burke, R.R. and Srull, T.K. (1988), ``Competitive interference and consumer memory of
advertising'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Cahill, D.J. (1995), ``We sure as hell confused ourselves, but what about the customers?'',
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 5-9.
Childers, T.L., Houston, M.J. and Heckler, S. (1985), ``Meaning of individual differences in
visual versus verbal information processing'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12,
September, pp. 125-34.
Cole, C.A. and Bolasubramanian, S.K. (1993), ``Age differences in consumers' search for
information: public policy implications'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, June,
pp. 157-69.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1971), ``Shopping orientations and product usage rates'',
The Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, November, pp. 505-8.
Diamond, S. (1981), Trademark Problems and How to Avoid Them, revised edition, Crain
Communications, Chicago, IL.
Dowding, K. (1992), ``Choice: its increase and its value'', British Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 301-14.
Durvasula, Lysonski and Andrews, (1993), ``Cross-cultural generalisability of a scale for
profiling consumers' decision-making styles'', Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 55-65.

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999 333

 Erickson, G. (1994), ``Seeing double'', Brandweek, Vol. 35 No. 40, pp. 30-5.
Fielding H. (1994), ``Spoilt for choice in all the clutter'', Independent, January.
Fletcher, A.L. and Wald, J.S. (1987), ``The 40th year of administration of the Lanham
Trademark Act of 1946'', The Trademark Reporter, Vol. 77, pp. 445-672.
Foxman, E.R., Berger, P.W. and Cote, J.A. (1992), ``Consumer brand confusion: a conceptual
framework'', Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 9, March/April, pp. 123-41.
Gelfand, M. (1992), ``Blank tapes: untangling the market'', Discount Merchandiser, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 66-9.
Gofton, K. (1995), ``Shopper types'', Marketing, 26 January, p. 27.
Griffith V. (1993), ``Changing colours: Victoria Griffith examines the fickle purchasing
patterns of green consumers'', Financial Times, 7 April, p. 16.
Hafstrom, Chae and Chung (1992), ``Consumer decision-making styles: comparison between
United States and Korean young consumers'', Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 146-58.
Ippolito, P.M. and Mathios, A.D. (1994), ``Nutrition information and policy: a study of US
food production trends'', Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 271-305.
Jacoby, J. (1977), ``Information load and decision quality: some contested issues'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14, November, pp. 569-73.
Jones, M. (1994), ``The theories of sales'', American Agent and Broker, Vol. 66 No. 11,
November, pp. 16, 18.
Jorgensen, B. (1992), ``Digital audio tape format war heats up for Christmas'', Electronic
Business, Vol. 18 No. 15, December, pp. 68-70.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1995a), ``Stealing brand equity: measuring perceptual confusion between
national brands and `copycat' own-label products'', Marketing and Research Today,
pp. 96-102.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1995b), ``Brand confusion: empirical study of a legal concept'', Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 551-68.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand
equity'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Kelly, J. (1997), ``Lapses in concentration'', The Grocer, 3 May.
Kent, R.J. (1993), ``Competitive versus noncompetitive clutter in television advertising'',
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 40-6.
Khermouch, G. (1994), ``Packard Bell becomes contrarian with launch of sub-brand:
Spectria'', Brandweek, Vol. 35 No. 25, p. 9.
Kulik, A. (1993), ``Differing recycling symbols confuse German consumers'', World Wastes,
Vol. 36 No. 2, February, pp. 14-19.
Levitt, T. (1966), ``Innovative imitation'', Harvard Business Review, September/October,
pp. 63-70.
Loken, B., Ross, I. and Hinkle, R.L. (1986), ``Consumer confusion of origin and brand
similarity perceptions'', Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 5, pp. 195-211.
Malhotra, N.K., Jain, A.K. and Lagakos, W. (1982), ``The information overload controversy:
an alternative viewpoint'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Spring, pp. 27-37.
Marshall, D., Anderson, A., Lean, M. and Foster, A. (1994), ``Healthy eating: fruit and
vegetables in Scotland'', British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 7, pp. 18-24.
Mendleson, N. and Polonsky, M.J. (1995), ``Using strategic alliances to develop credible green
marketing'', Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 4-18.
Miaoulis, G. and D'Amato, N. (1978), ``Consumer confusion and trademark infringement'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, pp. 48-55.
Miller, G.A. (1956), ``The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our
capacity for processing information'', Psychological Review, Vol. 63, March, pp. 81-92.
Mitchell, V.-W. and Bates, L. (1998), ``UK consumer decision-making styles'', Journal of
Marketing Management.
Neisser, U. (1976), Cognition and Reality, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Otis, L.H. (1993), ``Regulators clash on credit insurance issues'', National Underwriter,
Vol. 97 No. 39, 27 September, p. 38.
Pine, B.J. II, Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (1995), ``Do you want to keep your customers
forever?'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 2, March/April, pp. 103-8.

334 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999

 Pomerantz, J.R. (1981), ``Perceptual organization in information processing'', in Kubovy, M.
and Pomerantz, J.R. (Eds), Perceptual Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Quelch, J.A. and Kenney, D. (1994), ``Extend profits not product lines'', Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp. 153-60.
Resnik, A.J., Turney, P.B.B. and Mason, B.J. (1979), ``Markets turn to counter-segmentation'',
Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 34-40.
Russo, J., Krieser, J. and Miyashita (1975), ``An effective display of unit price information'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, April, pp. 11-19.
Ruth, N. (1994), ``Woolies sheds its drab image'', Marketing, Vol. 20, January, p. 5.
Sproles, G.B. (1986), ``A methodology for profiling consumers' decision-making styles'',
Journal of Consumer Affairs, Winter, Vol. 86, pp. 267-79.
Sproles, G.B. and Kendall, E. (1990), ``Consumer decision-making styles as a function of
individual learning styles'', Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 134-47.
Stone, G.P. (1954), ``City shoppers and urban identification: observation on the social
psychology of city life'', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60, pp. 36-45.
Taylor, P. (1994), ``Survey of mobile data communications (7): customers are confused'',
Financial Times, 5 September.
Weisz, P. (1994), ``A healthier choice? Herbal, homeopathic gain acceptance'', Brandweek,
Vol. 35 No. 16, pp. 26-9.
Which? (1995), ``Food labelling'', August, London, pp. 14-28.
Wiseman, J. (1994), ``Beliefs about food components, foods, fat and heart disease in New
Zealand'', British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 11, pp. 14-19.
Wright, R.E. (1981), ``Aging, divided attention and processing capacity'', Journal of
Gerontology, Vol. 36, September, pp. 605-14.

(Appendix on next page)

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999 335

 Appendix

Misleading/
deceptive
Conflicting/ information
Information Inadequate ambiguous and stimulus
overload information information similarity
Product
Product proliferation of original
brands ± extension of product
lines V V V V
Product proliferation of me-too
imitator brands V V
Confusion from manufacturers'
me-too brands V V
Confusion from retailers'
me-too brands V V
Fake products V
Inappropriate positioning V
Packaging V V V V
Uses of the product V V
Fast-developing technology V V
Too-new a technology V V
Too-new a product V V
Flawed new products V V
Fashionability perceptions V
Incompatibility of standards V V
Too many standards V
Negative connotations of
brand-product-technology
name V V
Associating a brand name with
certain properties V V
Country of origin V
Source ± sponsorship of the
product V
Complex, hidden, intangible
nature of the product V V V
Price
Too many price bands V
Low price and extras V V
Inconsistency of prices across
stores of the same category V V
Promotion
Personal selling V V V V
Advertising V V V V
Sales promotion V V V
Place
Location of the outlet V V V V
Similar retail image V V
Atmospherics V V V
Merchandising V V V
Note: V indicates a possible relationship between the two factors

Table AI. Marketing mix sources of confusion creation and information

categories

336 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999

 This summary has been
provided to allow managers
and executives a rapid
appreciation of the content
of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then read
the article in toto to take
advantage of the more
comprehensive description
of the research undertaken
and its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
Are you confused? I certainly am
In our hectic modern lives we are inundated by information about products
and services, confronted by a bewildering range of options and alternatives
for us to spend our money on and bombarded by endless promotions and
``special offers''. We are, as Mitchell and Papavassiliou put it, ``confused''.
At the same time ± with our professional marketing hats on ± we participate
in this profligacy. Brand managers are encouraged to ``do something'' and
that means new brand and line extensions, linking up with other brands,
running endless promotions and buying vast quantities of advertising across
every conceivable medium. Consumer confusion results ± to a very great
extent ± from the strictures of classical brand marketing. Almost nothing we
do actively reduces the poor benighted consumer's nonplussed state.
Mitchell and Papavassiliou's discussion of consumer confusion raises
concerns in several areas:
. confusion could, in some circumstances, harm consumers;
. confused consumers could be misled into making choices against their
interests;
. confusion makes it harder to build, maintain and develop brands.
I propose to discuss, in the context of these concerns, various possible
responses to consumer confusion. In order, these are public policy and
regulatory responses, brand management strategies and retail strategies. If
consumer confusion becomes a more prominent issue (something Mitchell
and Papavassiliou see as highly likely) then marketers need to understand
how markets may change.
Marketing risks to consumers ± what ever happened to caveat emptor?
Mitchell and Papavassiliou set some significant hares running in their
consideration of possible government responses to concerns about consumer
confusion. Not least among these is the prospect of regulatory restrictions on
the ``. . . number of brands and models per brand which can be introduced to
markets that suffer from confusion and overchoice.''
I hear the sound of hackles rising at this frontal assault on the fundamentals
of free enterprise. But Mitchell and Papavassiliou have a point when they
raise this issue. Throughout most of the developed world, many rights are
protected but free enterprise isn't one of them. Governments can and will
restrict trading rights in the way suggested if they perceive such restrictions
to be popular with the consumer. Moreover, large businesses may support
such restrictions since they act to protect markets from new competitors.
Other areas of concern perhaps require some regulations ± or at least the
tidying up of existing regulations. Health concerns are prominent among
these given the advent of genetically modified foods, problems with hormone
treated beef and several prominent food safety scandals. Consumers (or
some of them) want accurate, understandable information about ingredients
in food products. As marketers we can do this without government having to
tell us. Why on earth haven't we?
Confusion pricing is a second area where government intervention is a sure-
fire bet. Why? Because marketers have exploited complex pricing in areas
337
 such as mobile telephony to secure market share and increase the margins
taken from gullible consumers. In an age of ``relationship'' marketing and a
supposed focus on customer service, such opacity over what something
actually costs is appalling. Expect governments to introduce a requirement
for certain sectors (such as telephony and public utilities) to set prices in a
consistent way. This will be similar to the requirement in many markets for
firms offering loans to state the annual percentage rate.
The third area where governments may act is over misleading advertising or
promotion. Mitchell and Papavassiliou cite examples of large, multinational
firms that use words and phrases with a particular resonance to give the
impression of being environmentally friendly, concerned about workers in
poor countries or low in fat. Nobody can persuade me that these firms select
such words unknowingly nor do they choose particular packaging or specific
images in advertising with the intention of communicating something about
the product that is manifestly misleading. Why do we do this? Can't we
market our products without recourse to such exploitation?
Marketers have only themselves to blame if governments act to restrict
market entry, control our advertising or influence how we communicate our
prices. It is our actions that have led to discussion of such controls and, of
course, it is our strategies that have led to consumer confusion. I believe in
the principle of caveat emptor and abhor the ``it's not my fault'' culture
promoted by too many consumer advocates. But we should expect these
problems when we set out to gull the public.

The bankruptcy of classical brand marketing strategy ± why consumer

marketing must change
It is apparent from what Mitchell and Papavassiliou say that the classical
brand marketing model rapidly approaches intellectual bankruptcy. How
much longer will we continue in our semi-detached relationship with
consumers?
Mitchell and Papavassiliou provide us with some hope. We read that some
big brand marketers are trying to reverse the fragmentation and
segmentation of markets by rationalizing their own portfolios and
encouraging consumers to buy generic products rather than products
supposedly designed for a particular niche. It is clear that this
rationalization results from high level decisions within these organizations.
They have recognised that brands are their company's key assets and that
the proliferation of brands only acts to undermine the value of these assets.
Alongside this process of ``de-segmentation'' we see the continuing
development of relationship marketing ideas. Once such ideas were
dismissed as irrelevant to brand marketing ± something for salespeople, not
marketers. Now brand managers appreciate that the relationship with
consumers is part of the brand and that investing in that relationship
enhances the value of the brand to the firm. We cannot claim that direct
marketing methods will replace mass market branding ± the ``de-
segmentation'' process acts counter to this trend ± but good marketers will
realise that confusing or misleading the public represents one of the quickest
routes to brand and market share decline.

Retailers must continue to learn about branding

In some ways retailers have been classed as the number one proponents of
brand confusion. After all, it's these retailers that have aped established
manufacturer brands in their efforts to promote own-label. At the same time

338 JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999

 retailers have become strong product brands in their own right. It's not just
in the development of store brands that we see retailers beginning to lead the
pack but in product brands as well.
However, retailers still lack a real commitment to the brand. Retail analysts
still speak of store location, product mix and price as the main determinants
of retail success. The strong retail brand, it seems, plays only a minor part in
the overall performance. This is not the case, as some retailers have come to
realise ± compromising the brand results in declining fortunes.
In terms of brand confusion the retailer creates problems through the overall
store brand, because of own-branding strategies and through the process of
merchandising and sales promotions at the point of sale. Manufacturers may
grumble about it, but using clear branding throughout the store acts to the
benefit of the retailer ± whatever their market positioning and product mix.

Customer-linked branding ± one way to combat confusion

Copy-cat brands, excess information, ``overchoice'' and brand proliferation
result in confusion among consumers. To combat this confusion (since we
should resist illiberal solutions such as governmental action) brand owners
need to adjust brand strategies so as to get closer to the customer.
Relationship marketing represents the direction for brand marketers ± we
must embrace the techniques of database marketing and acknowledge that a
brand is more than product and ``manufactured'' image. The association
between a product category and a brand ± in the consumer's mind ± should
be automatic.

(A preÂcis of the article ``Marketing causes and implications of consumer

confusion''. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)

JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 8 NO. 4 1999 339

View publication stats