The evolution of brand choice

Received (in revised form): 5th September, 2005

RONNIE BALLANTYNE
is a lecturer in marketing in the Division of Marketing at Glasgow Caledonian University. His specialist area of
research is consumer brand choice. He has presented several papers on this research topic at international
conferences both in Canada and the UK. Ronnie has also been a guest speaker on the use of brand image and
brand personality at the Leo Burnett Advertising company in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Ronnie is in the final stages
of completing his PhD.

ANNE WARREN
is a lecturer in consumer behaviour in the Division of Marketing at Glasgow Caledonian University. Anne has
over ten years’ teaching experience and has written several articles in conference proceedings. Her current
research interests include branding and consumer identity.

KARINNA NOBBS
is a lecturer in fashion marketing in the Division of Marketing at Glasgow Caledonian University. Karinna was a
trained visual merchandiser, has been teaching for three years and recently received her PgC LTHE. Research
interests include luxury fashion brand management and visual merchandising; she has also presented papers
within these areas.

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to trace key developments in the evolution of consumer brand choice.
Based upon the critical and in-depth literature review, several salient issues are identified. Today’s
consumer can be characterised as suffering from ‘over choice’ and choice fatigue. As a consequence,
consumers have developed phased decision-making strategies in order to simplify their decision
making. An integral component of these phased decision-making strategies is the formation of a
downsized subset of brands, the consideration set, from which brand choice is made. Of those
brands held within the consideration set, similarities in terms of brand attributes have prompted
brand image as the significant differentiator in facilitating choice. It is evident that brands must
develop an emotional and symbolic attachment with consumers if they are to succeed in today’s
highly competitive marketplace. Brand managers must recognise that it is through the manipulation
and moulding of brand image that truly meaningful differentiation and brand meaning can be
achieved. The main contribution of the paper lies in the exploration of brand image. Brand image is
viewed as a multi-dimensional construct — the key dimensions of heritage and authenticity have
been identified as pivotal determinants of brand success.

INTRODUCTION strategies that promote choice and

Ronnie Ballantyne
Glasgow Caledonian University,
Division of Marketing,
Cowcaddens Road,
Glasgow G4 OBA, UK
Tel: ⫹44 (0)141-331-8232
Fax: ⫹44 (0)141-331-8210
E-mail: r.ballantyne@gcal.ac.uk
The topic of understanding and predic-
ting consumer choice is a central
theoretical issue within marketing and
is one of the most interesting and
challenging areas of consumer be-
haviour research. Furthering an under-
standing of these processes is crucial
to marketing practitioners and brand
managers alike. In order to iden-
tify, refine and sustain key branding
loyalty one must further illuminate the
dynamic and evolving relationship be-
tween the consumer and the brand.
This paper seeks to address this critical
need. The paper first examines the
nature of consumer decision making —
identifying the formation of the con-
sideration set as an integral component
of this process; secondly, it investigates
the characteristics of those brands held

䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006 339
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
within the consideration set and their
evaluation; finally, it concentrates on
the evolution of brand image and its
use within brand choice. For marketers
the ultimate goal is to transcend
functional appeal, it is only through
moving into the arena of emotional
and symbolic attachment that brands
can be trusted and thus endure.
CONSUMER DECISION MAKING AND
THE CONSIDERATION SET
Today’s consumers face many chal-
lenges in an increasingly complex
world — they are cash rich and
time poor, and are exposed to the
phenomenon of ‘over choice’. As a
result consumers are suffering from
choice fatigue. Decision theorists have
suggested that in an effort to reduce the
cognitive effort and complexity in
decision making, consumers will tend
to group products together.1–4 Further-
more, consumer resources such as time
and cognitive processing ability may be
limited in the real purchase situa-
tion, thus highlighting the need for
the consumer to simplify their deci-
sion-making processes. In effect it is
suggested that consumers create a
downsized choice set restricting their
evaluation process to those brands
within the reduced set, thus reducing
cognitive effort.
This downsized choice set is
normally referred to as the evoked set5
or more recently as the consideration
set,6 and is viewed as an integral
component of the consumer decision-
making process.7,8 Current theory
suggests that consumers adopt a
phasing or screening strategy, it is
hypothesised that simplifying heuristics
are used initially to eliminate ‘flawed’
options followed by more complex
340 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
decision-making strategies which lead
to consumer choice from the con-
sideration set.9–12 Consequently, both
the theoretical and empirical dimen-
sions of the consideration set have
attracted much interest from the
academic community.
To date no uniform definition of the
construct exists; some available defini-
tions include:
— those brands which are acceptable
for purchase;13
— brands the subject would con-
sider for a specified consumption
situation;14
— the set of brands brought to mind
on a particular choice occasion;15
— brands that a consumer will con-
sider buying in the near future;16
— goal satisfying alternatives salient or
accessible on a particular purchase
occasion;17
— the subset of brands that are
scrutinised carefully on a particular
choice occasion.18
Nevertheless, what is core to the
varying definitions available is the
notion that the consideration set con-
sists of the pool of brands from which
choice is made. It is generally felt that
those definitions which incorporate a
situational context are a more accurate
description of how the consideration
set exists in reality. In terms of how the
consideration set contributes to the
overall choice process, previous em-
pirical investigations have identified
that consumers will adopt a two-stage
screening process leading to choice,
that is, consideration set formation
followed by brand evaluation from the
consideration set leading to choice.19
The implications for marketers are
clear — for a brand to be successful not

only must it gain access and sustain
membership of the consideration set
over time, but it must also become the
preferred alternative offering greater
value than the other set members.
Previous research suggests that this
choice process falls into three main
categories:20–22
— stimulus based choice — brand
recognition;
— memory based choice — brand
recall;
— mixed choice — combination of
brand recognition and brand recall.
The authors’ characterisation of deci-
sion making allows for these three
scenarios to take place during brand
choice, for example, if choice is purely
stimulus-based, the consumer is ex-
posed to all relevant information about
brands. In effect, the consumer is
exposed to external stimuli, such as
brand name, and will rely on brand
recognition and must simply decide
whether or not the brand is an
appropriate option to satisfy their
needs. Shindler and Berbaum23 suggest
that brands that stand out perceptually
in contrast to their environment, ie
exhibit brand salience, be it via
eye-grabbing packaging, being posi-
tioned at consumer eye-level, or other
in-store attempts to make the brand
more noticeable, are more likely to
attract attention, thus encouraging con-
sideration. This seems realistic given
the many brands competing for con-
sumer attention and consideration.
Furthermore, time pressure is likely to
affect the way in which consumers
visually explore the choice environ-
ment, again suggesting that consumers
are more likely to pay attention
to those brands which are visually
䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
striking.24 Further empirical support for
Shindler and Berbaum’s claims can be
found in Allenby and Ginter.25 They
also argue that brand salience may be
an important factor in consideration set
formation, citing display and feature
variables as major determinants of
consideration set formation.
Alternatively, when the brand choice
process is purely memory based, con-
sumers must perform an internal search
to recall all decision relevant informa-
tion from memory, in this instance it is
brand recall that becomes more impor-
tant. As a consequence, the rela-
tive accessibility of information in
consumer memory regarding several
brands will determine the consideration
set.26 It is postulated that the salience of
a brand will also determine accessibility
in consumer memory. As brands within
the consideration set will not be
recalled simultaneously one must also
consider recall latency. Recall latency
refers to the time taken to recall a
particular brand and the mental costs
associated with this procedure. Conse-
quently, cost of recall is not equal for
all brands.27
It is proposed that consumers will
use a set size (ie the consumer will
decide to limit the number of brands to
be considered) or deadline heuristic (ie
the consumer will limit the amount of
time they intend to spend on the
purchase decision) to form the con-
sideration set. Therefore those brands
which are easier to recall stand a much
better chance of gaining entry into the
consideration set. Furthermore, the or-
der in which brands are recalled will
have a direct effect on the size and
shape of the consideration set. As a
consequence, those brands which the
consumer encounters on a frequent
basis, either physically (eg recency of
341
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
the brand’s last purchase) or via adver-
tising and other media, are more likely
to be accessible in memory.28
Mixed choice acknowledges that in
many instances decisions may not be
entirely dependent upon information
stored in memory or purely stimulus
based and, as a result, combines both
brand recognition and brand recall
processes. In this situation the con-
sumer makes use of internally gener-
ated and external retrieval cues. This
paper hypothesises that the members of
the consideration set are then either
retrieved directly from memory (brand
recall), and/or simply perceived in the
external choice environment (brand
recognition).
In reality, mixed choice decisions are
most likely to take place when the
consumer is directly exposed to brand
information, eg brands that are on
display in a particular outlet, but must
also recall information about other
brands. Moreover, Nedungadi29 intro-
duced the concept of brand priming
whereby a brand is primed or activated
by direct reference to brand name, via
storefront signs, package labels or other
marketer controlled variables such as
displays or point of sale materials.
These persuasive cues can then be seen
to prime brands and cue their retrieval
from consumer memory. As a conse-
quence, both brand recognition and
brand recall are then viewed as pivotal
determinants of consideration set for-
mation, but how do consumers ul-
timately arrive at brand choice?
BRAND EVALUATION
The topic of brand evaluation is clearly
of great importance to marketing
practitioners and marketing academics.
As cited previously, it is not enough for
342 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
a brand to be considered, it must
become the focal brand surpassing
the perceived brand utility of other
competing brands within the con-
sideration set. Ultimately, this process
will facilitate choice. Previous research
has identified that be it stimulus,
memory or mixed choice scenarios,
consumers tend to group together
brands that are similar in terms of
product attributes.30–32 This suggests
that the brands within the considera-
tion set are fairly homogeneous. This
consequently highlights a potential
difficulty for consumers when it comes
to determining choice — if the brands
are similar in terms of product at-
tributes, it becomes much more dif-
ficult for consumers to discriminate
between them, thus leading to choice.
Previous research by Brown and Wilt33
and Roberts and Nedungadi34 suggests
that those brands included in the
consideration set were more similar to
each other than those excluded, ie
nonconsidered brands. This notion was
supported by Roberts and Lattin35
when they investigated the ready to eat
cereal market. They found ‘similar
brands were more likely to be in
the consideration set or not at all’.
Gensch and Soofi36 and Jedidi et
al.37 suggest that it is the aware-
ness sets (those brands the consumer
has some knowledge of) underlying
heterogeneity that allow consumers to
easily separate the awareness set into
the two disjointed subsets of the
consideration set and the noncon-
sideration set. Moreover, they argue
that those brands held within the
consideration set have a tendency to be
more homogeneous in terms of brand
attributes. In addition, Roberts and
Lattin38 more recently suggested that
‘in practice we tend to see individual

consumers including brands that bunch
together in perceptual space in their
consideration sets’.
It is both logical and realistic to view
those brands within the consideration
set as being more homogeneous in
terms of product attributes. This factor
highlights a potential difficulty for
consumers when it comes to determin-
ing choice — if the brands are more
similar it becomes more difficult for
the consumer to differentiate and
evaluate between them. Additionally
this raises serious concerns regard-
ing the adoption of classic utility
maximisation models as a way of
forecasting brand choice. Utility maxi-
misation models are derived from basic
economic theory. In simple terms, it is
postulated that the consumer uses all
relevant information and then chooses
the brand which they perceive to have
the maximum brand utility. Thus,
brand utility can be described as the
overall attractiveness of the brand.39–41
By adopting utility maximisation as
the means of identifying the focal
brand, the underlying assumption is that
all of the brand attributes are considered
in a simultaneous compensatory struc-
ture. In effect, the most accurate pre-
diction of which brand will be chosen
on a particular choice occasion can be
arrived at by simply allocating a utility
value to each competing brand. Brands
are then compared and the brand with
the most positive overall evaluation
(highest value) is selected.42,43 If this
classic utility maximising model of
consumer choice is adopted, the brands
within the consideration set may be
awarded very similar scores in terms of
overall brand utility. As a consequence,
consumers may have difficulty in isolat-
ing and identifying the focal brand,
or lack confidence in isolating their
䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
preferred alternative, due to closeness of
brand scores.
In simple terms, of the above process
makes the assumption that the overall
evaluation of an individual brand is
independent of other brands within
the consideration set.44–46 In reality,
the pieces of information which con-
sumers use to form overall judgments
are not likely to be independent of each
other. As a consequence, it is likely
that interbrand relationships do ex-
ist, whereby consumer attitude towards
one brand within the consideration
set is not only derived from their
evaluation of that particular brand, but
is also influenced by their perception
of other competing brands within the
consideration set.
In response to some of the
above issues, several researchers have
developed multi-attribute/multibrand
models of consumer decision making.
The essential difference within these
models and more traditional multi-
attribute models is in the assumption
that multi-attribute/multibrand models
assume nonindependence of brand
evaluations. It is hypothesised that a
consumer’s attitude and purchase
intention towards a brand are not only
a product of their cognitive evaluations
of that individual brand but are also
determined by their perception of
other competing brands within the
consideration set. Empirical support for
this approach can be found in Laroche
et al.47 Furthermore, it is logical to
assume that a brand may be evaluated
differently depending upon the other
brands which populate the consumer
consideration set. Therefore this
process is more likely to reflect what
happens in reality.
Moreover, within real buying situa-
tions the consumer is faced with
343
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
imperfect knowledge and may have
limited time and motivation to engage
in the buying process and will not
utilise all decision relevant information.
These factors, coupled with the need
for emotional and hedonic satisfaction,
as well as utilitarian benefits from
products, clearly suggest oversimplifica-
tion and a tendency to rely on existing
‘comfortable’ procedures (ie utility
maximisation) which do not accurately
reflect the actual choice process,
presenting serious deficiencies within
many of the available choice models.
This paper utilises the multi-
attribute/multibrand approach as it is
felt that this is a more realistic
representation of the brand evaluation
process leading to choice. In terms of
contribution, an important addition to
this process is the brand image
construct. This conceptualisation of
brand choice allows for brand image to
influence the interpretation of in-
dividual brand attributes and the
interpretation of other competing
brands within the consideration set.
Based on this premise it is hypothesised
that brand image will augment the
overall perceived utility of a brand by
biasing attribute information. In effect,
brand attributes will be interpreted
differently given the image associated
with the brand. This implies that
although brands within the considera-
tion set are similar in terms of their
product attributes, it is brand image that
ultimately creates the perceived
differences between the competing
brands by altering perceived brand
utility.
BRAND IMAGE
This paper proposes that brand image
will distort and augment not only in-
344 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
dividual consumer perceptions of brand
attributes but also competing brands,
thus affecting overall brand utility and
consequently affecting brand choice. In
simple terms, brand image refers to the
consumer’s perception of the brand. In
effect, the brand image that a con-
sumer associates with a particular brand
will bias brand attribute information
and, as a consequence, attributes will
be perceived differently depending on
the brand image associated with the
brand. Previous research argues that
leading brands are predominately those
brands which portray the correct image
or personality. Doyle48 suggests that
this is achieved by encouraging con-
sumers to interpret the attributes of the
brand as attributes to which the con-
sumer aspires. Foxall and Goldsmith49
define brand image as the mental rep-
resentation that a brand evokes in the
consumer’s mind in response to the
brand’s previous performance (eg pre-
vious consumption experiences and the
brand’s ability to meet the needs of
the consumer), marketing stimuli and
other social stimuli. Essentially, con-
sumers use these mental representations
or perceptions as a means to distin-
guish between competing brands and
facilitate choice.
It was Levy50 who initially helped to
conceptualise the concept of brand
image. It is generally accepted in
academia and in the marketplace that
in reality consumers do indeed pur-
chase products for benefits other than
their physical attributes and functions
alone. Levy suggested that products
have social attributes (eg when a
product is purchased it may affect the
buyer’s social status) and psychological
attributes (eg self-esteem). In effect, the
consumer develops an emotional at-
tachment to the brand. Recently

marketers have used brand personality,
one element of brand image, to
differentiate and attach meaning to
their brands.51 A highly salient example
of this would be the evolution of the
Levi’s brand 501. Throughout the
1980s and 1990s and continuing to the
present day, Levi’s the brand has fully
visualised the multifaceted personality
it wants to be. It can be argued from
the consumer’s perspective that the
Levi’s brand is now offering a menu of
feelings to select to wear or to keep in
the wardrobe at any given time.
Indeed, Levi’s suggests that its six
dominant character traits are romance,
sexual attraction, physical prowess,
rebellion, independence and admira-
tion.
In contrast, historically it was
generally accepted that brand cam-
paigns achieved the most impact by
being one-dimensional in nature. At
the extreme the brand was still
conceptualised as a product that was
best supported by a unique selling
proposition. This is clearly a very
straightforward strategy but today’s
serious big brand corporations now
create, develop and nurture brand
campaigns with much more breadth
and depth. When communicating
brand concepts to the intended
consumer audience the theory is
relatively simple — by incorporating
personality characteristics into a brand,
the brand should become more
appealing to consumers who are more
likely to affiliate with brands possessing
desirable personalities. Thus, the
personalities of the consumer and the
brand begin to merge and the value of
the brand has become self-expression.
This brings the brand closer to the
consumer by developing an emotional
bond with them, thus strengthening
䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
the relationship between the consumer
and the brand, leading, it is hoped, to
brand loyalty. Recent conceptualisation
of brand image has seen a shift in
thinking away from brands being
simply a mechanism for product
identification to consumers owning
brands instead of products.
Many academics have investigated
the concept of brand image.52–59
Recently there has been renewed
interest in the subjective and emotive
aspects of consumption. As previously
discussed, it is generally accepted that
products are often purchased or indeed
avoided based not on the functional or
utilitarian qualities that the product
provides, but on symbols and the
relationship that the brand has with an
individual’s self-esteem. This is more
likely to be the case with high-visibility
products such as fashion products and
automobiles, as other people are
exposed to an individual’s brand
choices. As a result, some personal or
social meaning is being attached to the
brand. Moreover, a common sense
approach does suggest that ‘as with
people not all brands matter equally in
psychological or social ways to
consumers’.60
It can then be argued that the
consumption of brands enables con-
sumers to change hats as the occasion
demands. This use of brands to tell
‘who I am’, or ‘who I would rather
be’, is achieved by a pick-and-mix
of the meaning of various brand
images on offer. This is termed self-
image congruency and incorporates Ar-
nould’s61 ‘looking glass self’. Graeff62
concluded that consumers’ interpreta-
tion and evaluation of those brands
consumed publicly are more affected
by the congruence between brand
image and ideal self-image than actual
345
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
self-image, in contrast, actual and ideal
congruence have equal effects on
consumers’ evaluations of those brands
consumed privately.
Therefore, brand choice communi-
cates by semiotics ‘who I would like to
be’ as an individual. In effect, the
personalities of the consumer and the
brand begin to merge and the value of
the brand has become self-expression.
This brings the brand closer to the
consumer by developing an emotional
bond with them, thus strengthening
the relationship between the consumer
and the brand.63 In effect, the 21st
century subject uses brands to create
and communicate their identity, con-
structing oneself and the image one
projects in consumer culture.
Nevertheless, what is not universally
accepted is the conceptualisation and
definition of the brand image con-
struct. Dobni and Zikhan64 provide
a review paper on brand image and
identify some of the more popular
definitions of the construct. These in-
clude blanket definitions, such as from
Newman:65
‘A brand can be viewed as a com-
posite image of everything people as-
sociate with it. These impressions determine
how a prospective buyer feels about it
and influence his selection. Brand images
may have several dimensions: functional,
economic, social, psychological . . . The
limits are set by brand image built through
styling and advertisements as well as other
product attributes.’
There are also definitions that place
emphasis on symbolism. For example,
Levy66 suggests that: ‘People buy things
not only for what they can do, but
also for what they mean. The things
people buy are seen to have per-
sonal and social meanings in addi-
346 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
tion to their functions.’ There are also
those definitions that place emphasis on
meanings or messages. For example,
Reynolds and Gutman67 conceptualise
brand image as ‘. . . the set of meanings
and associations that serve to differen-
tiate a product or service from the
competition’. Meanwhile, Bullmore68
argues:
‘A brand’s image is vital to what people
think and feel about it and those thoughts
and feelings will not — cannot — be
universally identical . . . The image lies in the
eye of the beholder — and is conditioned at
least as much by the nature of the beholder
as by the nature of the product itself.’
Given the multiplicity of concep-
tualisation and definition of the con-
struct, Poiesz69 suggests that there are
essentially three main categories of
brand image definition. Timmerman70
provides a summary and interpretation
of these categories as follows:
— network of meanings stored in
memory;
— theoretical and operational equiv-
alents of attitudes — in the Fish-
bein tradition, attitudes are viewed
as a function of the combination
of salient beliefs and belief evalua-
tions;
— general/holistic impressions or per-
ceptions of the relative position of
a brand among its perceived com-
petitors.
According to these three categories and
having reviewed the many interpreta-
tions and definitions available, the core
essence of brand image must stem
from the consumer’s memory and
experience with the product or indeed
communications about the product.
Although there are many varying

interpretations and definitions of brand
image, the consistent underlying theme
is that perception of reality is more
important than reality itself. Thus
when conceptualising brand image,
one must examine the construct from
the consumer’s perspective in terms of
what it actually connotes and evokes
from the consumer. It must also be
remembered that the creation of brand
image is a dual process of corporations
creating and communicating brand
concepts to consumers who then form
brand images in memory.
This paper views the construct as an
amalgam of the interaction of the user
or perceiver and the brand stimulus.
Brand image will thus be defined as:
perceptions about a brand as reflected by
the brand associations held in consumer
memory.
Brand image helps consumers to attach
or ascribe meaning to brands. Previous
research suggests that brand preference
will depend on what the brand means
to the consumer.71 Given that the
brands held within the considera-
tion set are very similar in terms
of the physical (instrumental fea-
tures) and functional attributes (conse-
quences) they provide, it is through
portraying the ‘correct’ image that
marketers are allowed to differentiate
these very similar products.
A brand image will be constructed
by consulting a vast number of associa-
tions held in consumer memory. For
example, associations regarding the
physical properties of the brand, such as
name or packaging, in conjunction
with the benefits or feelings (emo-
tional, psychological) produced on
consuming or using the brand will help
to characterise or, increasingly, define a
䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
brand’s image. It is hypothesised that
these associations will influence con-
sumer evaluations of brands. As a
function of brand image, brands may
consequently signify more than the
sum of their parts, thus creating a
differential advantage giving consumers
a reason to prefer one particular
brand over other competing brands.
Nevertheless, despite the large volume
of research undertaken on brand choice
and brand image, there is a significant
lack of agreement as to which key
dimensions of brand image will in-
duce successful positioning in today’s
marketplace. Clearly, however, the
product class and level of involvement
will influence these decisions.
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
Trend guru Faith Popcorn has iden-
tified ‘anchoring’ and ‘cocooning’ as
key shifts in consumer behaviour. This
suggests that as consumers become less
confident in the future they will seek
reassurance from the products they
buy.72 This has prompted the in-
creased interest in brands with a brand
image that incorporates components of
heritage and authenticity. Terrorism,
the recent war in Iraq and exposures in
the media involving royalty, govern-
ment and religious leaders have left the
consumer without a stable establish-
ment they feel they can trust. Seeking
comfort in the past is a trend which has
grown in strength as technological
change has confronted consumers.73
Across many markets, retro has become
more than a look, it has become a
discrete and thriving category.74 In an
uncertain time, those brands within the
consideration set representing stability,
familiarity, trust and the comfort of
normalcy stand the best chance of
347
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
becoming the preferred alternative
over time. This could be the time
when innovation is less important than
heritage, as brands with history can
speak to consumers through nostalgia
packaging, graphics and advertising
messages.75 It can, in effect, be argued
that brand managers should be in the
process of evolution not revolution.
When in difficult times, brands should
not try and reinvent themselves anew,
but rather reach back into their brand
heritage to find a basis for stabilisation
and growth. This is already apparent in
many markets, for example, Coca–
Cola re-issuing its original bottle and
brands like Volkswagen Golf and Jack
Daniels using vintage advertising cam-
paigns.
The key value that has moved to the
front and centre of brand image in this
time of uncertainty is authenticity,
consumers seek the comfort of the real,
something they can trust and count
on.76 Authenticity has two meanings:
the original and the substantive, things
that are honest and are what they say
they are.77 This is exemplified by
Adidas, which defines itself as the first
genuine sports brand founded by a true
athlete, Adi Dassler, whose guid-
ing principle was to make equip-
ment to help every athlete in every
sport perform better.78 Today the
Adidas sports heritage division contains
Adidas ‘Originals’ products, which seek
to extend the unique and authentic
heritage of Adidas to the lifestyle
market. Brands with a tradition of
integrity and authenticity carry an
emotional fund of goodwill, for a
consumer searching for substance this is
a time when the real attributes of
a brand will convey integrity and
comfort.79 Brand heritage has become
one of the most valuable assets to help
348 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
create an image of authenticity and
integrity that is likely to appeal to
today’s consumers.80 The key elements
in the appeal of heritage are the
implications of money, authority and
nonconformity.81 Within the fashion
sector, for example, this movement has
paved the way for the resurgence of
British heritage brands such as Bur-
berry, Daks, Aquascutum and more
recently Pringle.82 These brands’ media
campaigns have played upon aris-
tocratic images, such as fashion shoots
in country homes.83 This is particularly
true of Burberry whose ads evoke the
indolent, privileged lifestyle of an
English country house party.84 It can
then be argued that, for a brand to be
prestigious, the notion of heritage has
become increasingly important, and the
communication power of a brand is
amplified by its history, its consump-
tion meanings and its accessibility.85
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This paper has discussed the role of
branding from a consumer behaviour
perspective. The objective of the paper
was to enhance and further illuminate
the changing nature of consumer
decision making — paying particular
attention to the use of brand image
within consumer choice. From the
critical and in-depth review of the
literature undertaken it is evident that
there has been a paradigm shift. Brands
once perceived to be lifeless, manipul-
able artefacts are now viewed as living
entities with personalities that act as
extensions to the self, offering aesthetic
identity and meanings and structure to
life. In order to sustain competitive
advantage, today’s serious brand or-
ganisations must now create and nur-
ture brand campaigns with increased

depth and breadth. As the market
becomes increasingly crowded with
competing brands and organisations,
there will be increased reliance on
phased decision-making strategies as
consumers suffer from choice fatigue
and become less likely to search out
more and more information. The
research has identified the considera-
tion set as a key component of these
phased strategies. However, brands
held within this downsized set from
which choice is made were seen to be
similar in terms of brand attributes.
The paper identified a lack of func-
tional or meaningful differentiation
between the brands held within the
consideration set, thus brand image
will provide differentiation between
products by offering individuality and
distinctiveness. Brand image will aug-
ment and distort consumer perceptions
of brand attributes, affecting overall
brand utility and ultimately brand
choice. The key for successful brands
in the future will be to develop a brand
image that encompasses elements of
heritage and authenticity. It must,
however, be stressed that consumers
should not associate the product with
being old-fashioned, but rather as
experts in their field that consumers
can trust.
In a visually-led and image-based
society, the implications for marketers
are clear:
— brand managers must move beyond
simply focusing on product at-
tributes as a means of creating
meaningful differentiation and at-
taching brand meaning;
— it is crucial that brand custodians
seek to convey the ‘correct’ image
of the brand and that this image is
conveyed clearly;
䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
— it is likely that those brands whose
image demonstrates the key facets
of heritage and authenticity are
more likely to succeed in develop-
ing symbolic and emotional attach-
ment with consumers — thus
gaining a share of both consumers’
hearts and minds;
— it is through the development and
refinement of this ‘correct’ brand
image that companies can make
their brand truly unique, thus creat-
ing added value to both the con-
sumer and the organisation.
The arena of brand image and choice
research is a fruitful one for research.
This paper has further illuminated the
relationship between the consumer and
the brand, and the evolving nature of
brand choice. In closing, the paper
seeks to encourage further research into
the area of brand image and choice. It
is evident that brand image is of sig-
nificant importance within consumer
research; moreover, it is reasonable to
assume its true significance is still to
be fully understood. Given this, it is
paramount that research efforts con-
tinue to further an understanding of
this truly dynamic construct and its role
within consumer decision making.
References
(1) Miller, G. (1956) ‘The magical number 7
plus or minus 2. Some limits on our
capacity for processing information’,
Psychology Review, Vol. 63, No. 2,
pp. 81–97.
(2) Stigler, G. (1961) ‘The economics of
information’, Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 213–225.
(3) Gutman, J. (1982) ‘A means-end chain
model based on the consumer
categorization process’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 60–72.
(4) Gurca, T. S. (1989) ‘Determinants of choice
set: An alternative method for measuring
349
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
evoked sets’, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 515–521.
(5) Howard, J. A. and Sheth, J. N. (1969) ‘The
Theory of Buyer Behaviour’, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY.
(6) Wright, P. and Barbour, F. (1977) ‘Phased
decision strategies: Sequels to initial
screening’, in Starr, M. and Zeleny, M.
(eds) ‘Multiple Criteria Decision Making:
TIMS Studies in Management Sciences’,
Vol. 6, North Holland Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 91–109.
(7) Bettman, J. (1979) ‘An Information
Processing Theory of Consumer Choice’,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
(8) Gutman, ref. 3 above.
(9) Gensch, D. H. (1987) ‘A two-stage
disaggregate attribute choice model’,
Marketing Science, Vol. 6, Summer,
pp. 223–231.
(10) Brown, J. and Wilt, A. R. (1992)
‘Consideration set measurement’, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20,
No. 3, pp. 235–243.
(11) Ben-Akiva, M. and Boccara, B. (1995)
‘Discrete choice models with latent choice
sets’, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 9–24.
(12) Bronnenberg, B. J. and Vanhonacker, W. R.
(1996) ‘Limited choice sets, local price
response and implied measures of price
competition’, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 163–173.
(13) Belonux, J. A. (1979) ‘Decision rule
uncertainty, evoked set size, and task
difficulty as a function of choice criteria and
information variability’, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 6, No. 6,
pp. 232–235.
(14) Brisoux, J. E. and Laroche, M. (1980) ‘A
proposed consumer strategy of simplification
for categorizing brands’, In Summey, J. H.
and Taylor, R. D. (eds) ‘Evolving
Marketing Thought for 1980’, Southern
Marketing Association, Carbondale, IL,
pp. 112–114.
(15) Nedungadi, P. (1990) ‘Recall and consumer
consideration sets: Influencing choice
without altering brand evaluations’, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, December,
pp. 263–276.
(16) Roberts, J. H. and Lattin, J. M. (1991)
‘Development and testing a model of
consideration set composition’, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 28, No. 4,
pp. 429–440.
(17) Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B.
and Nedungadi, P. (1991) ‘Consideration set
influences on consumer decision making
350 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
and choice: Issues, models and suggestions’,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 2, No. 3,
pp. 181–197.
(18) Kardes, F. R., Kalyanaram, G.,
Chandrashekaran, M. and Dornoff, R. J.
(1993) ‘Brand retrieval, consideration set
composition, consumer choice, and
pioneering advantage’, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 20, June, pp. 62–75.
(19) Shocker et al., ref. 17 above.
(20) Lynch, J. G., Jr. and Srull, T. K. (1982)
‘Memory and attentional factors in
consumer choice: Concepts and research
methods’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
9, June, pp. 18–37.
(21) Lynch, J. G., Jr., Marmorstein, H. and
Wegold, M. F. (1988) ‘Choices from sets
including remembering brands: Use of
recalled attributes and prior overall
evaluations’, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 15, September, pp. 169–184.
(22) Alba, J. W., Marmorstein, H. and
Chattopadhyay, A. (1992) ‘Transitions in
preference over time: The effects of
memory on message persuasiveness’, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp. 406–416.
(23) Shindler, R. M. and Berbaum, M. (1982)
‘The influence of salience on choice’,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,
pp. 416–418.
(24) Peiters, R., Warlop, L. and Hartog, M.
(1997) ‘The effect of time pressure and task
motivation on visual attention to brands’,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24,
pp. 281–287.
(25) Allenby, G. M. and Ginter, J. L. (1995)
‘The effects of in-store displays and feature
advertising on consideration sets’,
International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 67–80.
(26) Feldman, L. M. and Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988)
‘Self-generating validity and other effects of
measurement on belief, attitude, intention
and behaviour’, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 421–435.
(27) Hutchinson, J. W., Raman, K. and
Mantrala, M. K. (1994) ‘Finding choice
alternatives in memory: Probability models
of brand name recall’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 441–461.
(28) Kardes et al., ref. 18 above.
(29) Nedungadi, ref. 15 above.
(30) Brown and Wilt, ref. 10 above.
(31) Roberts, J. H. and Lattin, J. M. (1997)
‘Consideration: Review of research and
prospects for future insights’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 3,
pp. 406–410.

(32) Roberts, J. H. and Nedungadi, P. (1995)
‘Studying consideration in the consumer
decision process: Progress and challenges’,
International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 3–7.
(33) Brown and Wilt, ref. 10 above.
(34) Roberts and Nedungadi, ref. 32 above.
(35) Roberts and Lattin, ref. 31 above.
(36) Gensch, D. H. and Soofi, E. S. (1995)
‘Information-theoretic estimation of
individual consideration sets’, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12,
May, pp. 25–38.
(37) Jedidi, K., Kohli, R. and Desarbo, W. S.
(1996) ‘Consideration sets in conjoint
analysis’, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 364–372.
(38) Roberts and Lattin, ref. 31 above.
(39) Roberts and Lattin, ref. 16 above.
(40) Hauser, J. R. and Wernerfelt, B. (1990) ‘An
evaluation cost model of consideration sets’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, March,
pp. 393–408.
(41) Simonson, I., Nowlis, S. and Lemon, K.
(1993) ‘The effect of local consideration sets
on global choice between lower price and
higher quality’, Marketing Science, Vol. 2,
No. 4, pp. 357–377.
(42) Gensch, ref. 9 above.
(43) Manria, A. K. (1995) ‘Mathematical models
of brand choice behaviour’, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 82, April
pp. 1–17.
(44) Bagozzi, R. (1982) ‘A field investigation of
causal relations among cognitions, affect,
intentions and behaviour’, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 19, No. 4,
pp. 562–584.
(45) Gensch, ref. 9 above.
(46) Yokohama, S. A. and Aoyamagakuin, M. T.
(1989) ‘Is brand evaluation independent of
other brands?’, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 16, pp. 439–442.
(47) Laroche, M., Hui, M. and Zhou, L. (1994)
‘A test of the effects of competition on
consumer brand selection processes’, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 31, pp. 171–181.
(48) Doyle, P. (1990) ‘Building successful brands:
The strategic options’, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 2,
pp. 5–20.
(49) Foxall, G. and Goldsmith, R. (1995)
‘Consumer Psychology for Marketing’,
Routledge, London, UK.
(50) Levy, S. J. (1958) ‘Symbols by which we
buy’, Advancing Marketing Efficiency.
American Marketing Association,
December, pp. 409–416.
(51) Aaker, J. L. (1997) ‘Dimensions of brand
䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN LTD 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
THE EVOLUTION OF BRAND CHOICE
personality’, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 34, August, pp. 347–356.
(52) Levy, ref. 50 above.
(53) Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990) ‘In
search of brand image: A foundation
analysis’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
17, pp. 110–119.
(54) Fajar, M. T. and Schouten, J. W. (1995)
‘Breakdown and dissolution of
person–brand relationships’, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 663–667.
(55) Aaker, ref. 51 above.
(56) Korchia, M. (1999) ‘A new typology of
brand image’, European Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 4, pp. 147–154.
(57) McEnally, M. R. and de Chernatony, L.
(1999) ‘The evolving nature of branding:
Consumer and managerial considerations’,
Academy of Marketing Science, available
online, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 1–43.
(58) Timmerman, E. M. (2001) ‘Starting from
scratch: Rethinking brand image research
and identifying cues and context as
influential factors’, Asia Pacific Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 151–161.
(59) Ataman, B. and Ulengen, B. (2004) ‘A note
on the effect of brand image on sales’, The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.
12, No. 4, pp. 1–13.
(60) Fajar and Schouten, ref. 54 above.
(61) Arnould, E., Price, L. and Zinkham, G. E.
(2004) ‘Consumer Behaviour’, 2nd ed,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
(62) Graeff, T. R. (1997). ‘Image congruence
effects on product evaluation: The role of
self-monitoring and public/private
consumption’, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 13, No. 5, 13th August,
pp. 481–499.
(63) Arnold, ref. 61 above.
(64) Dobni and Zinkhan, ref. 53 above.
(65) Newman, J. W. (1957) ‘New insight, new
progress, for marketing’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 95–102.
(66) Levy, ref. 50 above.
(67) Reynolds, T. J. and Gutman, J. (1984)
‘Advertising is image management’, Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol. 24,
February–March, pp. 27–38.
(68) Bullmore, J. (1984) ‘The brand and its
image revisited’, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 235–238.
(69) Poiesz, T. B. C. (1989) ‘The image
concept: Its place in consumer psychology’,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10,
January, pp. 457–472.
(70) Timmerman, ref. 58 above.
(71) Muniz, A. M. (1997) ‘Consumers and
brand meaning: Brands, the self and others’,
351
BALLANTYNE, WARREN AND NOBBS
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 24,
pp. 308–309.
(72) Popcorn, F. (2004) ‘Faith Popcorn’s 2005
predictions’, available from <http://www.
faithpopcorn.com/trends/ trends.htm>
(accessed 14th January, 2004).
(73) Stark, M. (2002) ‘The state of the US
consumer 2002’, available from
<http://www. saatchikevin.com> (accessed
14th January 2004).
(74) Gatlin, G. (2003) ‘Product makers evolve,
survive’, Boston Herald, Business News, 24th
April, p. 3.
(75) Stark, ref. 73 above.
(76) Lewis, D. and Bridger, D. (2001) ‘The Soul
of the New Consumer’. Nicholas Brealey,
London, UK.
352 䉷 PALGRAVE MACMILLAN 1479-1803/06 $30.00 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 13, NO. 4/5, 339–352 JUNE 2006
(77) Stark, ref. 73 above.
(78) Adidas (2004) available from
<http://www.adidas-salomon.com/>
(accessed 5th January, 2004).
(79) Stark, ref. 73 above.
(80) Anon (2003) ‘It’s the heritage that counts’.
Textile View, Vol. 61, Spring, p. 47.
(81) Mintel (2001) ‘Men’s designerwear retailing
— UK’, Mintel Intelligence Group,
September.
(82) Ibid.
(83) Ibid.
(84) Alexander, H. (2003) ‘Testino’s bright
young things’, The Telegraph, 18th
December, p. 8.
(85) Macrae, C. (1996) ‘The Brand Chartering
Handbook’, Addison-Wesley, Devon, UK.