The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice

Author(s): Jonah Berger, Michaela Draganska and Itamar Simonson

Source: Marketing Science , Jul. - Aug., 2007, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2007), pp. 460-
472
Published by: INFORMS

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40057175

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40057175?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Marketing
Science

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marketing Science infTTUTTH.
Vol. 26, No. 4, July-August 2007, pp. 460-472
issn 0732-2399 1 eissn 1526-548X 1 07 1 2604 1 0460 doi 10.1287/mksc.l060.0253
©2007 INFORMS

The Influence of Product Variety on

Brand Perception and Choice
Jonah Berger, Michaela Draganska, Itamar Simonson
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Memorial Way, Stanford, California 94305
(jberger@wharton.upenn.edu, draganska_michaela@gsb.stanford.edu, simonson_itamar@gsb.stanford.edu)

propose that the variety a brand offers often serves as a quality cue and thus influences which brand
consumers choose. Specifically, brands that offer a greater variety of options that appear compatible and
require similar skills tend to be perceived as having greater category expertise or core competency in the cate-
gory, which, in turn, enhances their perceived quality and purchase likelihood. Six studies support this propo-
sition and demonstrate that compared to brands which offer fewer products, (a) brands which offer increased
compatible variety are perceived as having higher quality; (b) this effect is mediated by product variety's impact
on perceived expertise; (c) the higher perceived quality produces a greater choice share of the higher vari-
ety brand, even among consumers who select options that multiple brands offer and (d) product variety also
impacts post-experience perceptions of taste. The findings suggest that in addition to directly affecting brand
choice share through influencing the fit with consumer preferences, product line length can also indirectly affect
brand choice through influencing perceived brand quality.
Key words: variety; consumer choice; quality cues; product line length
History: This paper was received November 9, 2005, and was with the authors 4 months for 2 revisions;
processed by Ravi Dhar.

A basic assumption concerning the depth associated

of a with higher quality will influence subse-
quent (perceived) experience with the chosen product.
brand's product assortment is that offering consumers
If these propositions are found to be true, it would
more options is superior to offering fewer options,
suggest that when determining optimal product line
for the simple reason that a greater variety of options
can cater to a wider range of tastes (e.g., Lancaster marketers should consider both the direct and
length,
1990). This basic assumption has been challenged indirect
by ways in which additional variety can influ-
recent research that has raised doubts about the wis- ence brand choice.

dom of offering consumers many options to choose We begin with a discussion of prior research on the
effect
from (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper 2000, Schwartz 2004). of the number of considered options on choice,
followed
For example, Iyengar and Lepper demonstrated that by an analysis of the role of variety in brand
consumers who were presented with a set of 24 evaluation and purchase. We then describe six stud-
iesof
jams were significantly less likely to purchase one that were designed to test our predictions and
these options compared to consumers presented withconditions under which greater product variety
the
is expected to enhance brand perceptions. We con-
just 6 jams. Other researchers (e.g., Dhar 1996, 1997;
Greenleaf and Lehmann 1995; Tversky and Shafir with a discussion of the theoretical and practical
clude
implications of this research.
1992) have shown that offering more options can
generate decision conflict and preference uncertainty,
leading to decision deferral. The Impact of Brand Product Variety
on Brand Evaluation and Choice
Although these studies have provided important
insights, we propose that the variety a brand offers Consider a consumer shopping at their local grocery
also often serves as a quality cue and thus influences
store who decides that they would like to buy some
which brand consumers choose. In particular, we sug- ice cream. They are confronted with an onslaught of
gest that a brand offering greater variety of compati-
options, with flavors ranging from Vanilla to Rum
ble options, that is, options that require similar skills,
Raisin and brands from Haagen Dazs to Breyers. On
is perceived as having greater category expertise and,
this particular day, Haagen Dazs offers more than a
consequently, is more likely to be selected. Further-dozen different flavors while Breyers only offers a
more, because true quality is often ambiguous, an
couple. Assuming the consumer has no prior brand
initial belief that brands offering more options are preference, which brand will they choose and how
460

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS 461

quality cue
will the variety the brand offered may play a their
influence key role deci-
particularly when
sion? If they know they want detailed Rum
attribute information
Raisinis and unavailable or under
only
Breyers offers it, the choicelow isinvolvement
easy. But (see, e.g., Kassarjian 1978). Further-
what if they
decide they want a flavor offered more, it may by play a role both
both brandswhen consumers
(e.g., eval-
Vanilla)? Could the amount uateofeach variety
brand separately, eachsuch asbrand
when consumers
offers influence their perception consider aof brand's
thoseend-of-aisle
brands displayand,or a brand
hence, their brand choice? that is sold through exclusive distributors, and when
These questions apply broadly two or more because most
brands' offerings pur-
are directly compared
chase situations involve brands that offer different (see, e.g., Nowlis and Simonson 1997).
levels of product variety, with the level of variety The notion that consumers rely on cues to assess
easily observed by the consumer. A good deal of
quality is well established and has been relied on
research has assumed that, other things being equal in both marketing (e.g., Allison and Uhl 1964, Olson
(e.g., costs, shelf space), offering more options is1977, bet- Mayzlin 2006, Purohit and Srivastava 2001) and
ter (e.g., Kekre and Srinivasan 1990, Lancaster 1990). economics (e.g., Klein and Leffler 1981, Nelson 1974).
Supporting the notion that consumers like variety, Forinexample, in the absence of other diagnostic infor-
certain product categories a reduction in assortment mation, consumers tend to rely on price as an indica-
has been shown to lead to reduced sales (Borle ettor al. of quality, particularly for experience goods. The
2005). reasons for using quality cues such as price, brand
At the same time, offering greater product variety is name, and manufacturer's reputation as proxies for
usually associated with higher costs (e.g., Draganska quality appear rather straightforward. In contrast, the
and Jain 2005, Lancaster 1979); a firm's production notion that consumers infer quality from the number
costs often increase with the length of their prod- of options offered by a brand is less obvious.
uct line. Furthermore, recent research has shown that We propose that offering greater variety with
more options can generate decision conflict, confu- finer distinctions among items in the product line -
sion, and frustration, leading to choice deferral or chocolates with different cocoa content levels, or
even no choice at all (e.g., Chernev 2003a, 2003b; yogurts representing both standard and more unusual
Dhar 1996, 1997; Greenleaf and Lehmann 1995; Iyen- flavors - is likely to convey category expertise. To be
gar and Lepper 2000). Paradoxically, people choosing precise, a firm that offers finer distinctions within a
from larger variety enjoyed the decision-making pro- product line, as indicated by its wider variety, com-
cess more, but they also felt greater frustration and municates that it has core competency in the cate-
difficulty with choice and were less likely to make a gory (Prahalad and Hamel 1990) and has invested
purchase (Iyengar and Lepper 2000). in learning the category details and dimensions on
In many situations, however, the relevant question which consumers' tastes vary. Given the investment
is not whether a choice will be made, but which involved in developing such category expertise and
brand consumers will select. When we go to the store the additional costs associated with offering greater
in search of yogurt or need to buy chocolate forvariety, a the firm has more to lose if buyers are
friend's birthday, we have often already decided to subsequently disappointed by actual product qual-
make a choice but may be uncertain about whichity. In addition, consumers likely employ a heuristic
brand to purchase. How would the variety a brand
whereby breadth of the product line tends to come at
offers influence which brand consumers choose? The
the expense of depth. Therefore, as long as the com-
literature on "too much choice" might indicate that position of the brand's product line sends a consis-
consumers would avoid high-variety brands in antic- tent message, e.g., variations of gourmet chocolates
ipation of the difficulty of choosing from a largeassetopposed to both gourmet chocolates and gourmet
of options. However, typical studies pertaining to cheeses,
the we expect greater variety within the specific
role of decision conflict (e.g., Dhar 1997, Tversky category
and to convey higher quality and, correspond-
Shafir 1992) and "too much choice" (e.g., Iyengar
ingly, affect brand choice.1
and Lepper 2000) have not addressed that question
As noted earlier, a positive effect of greater vari-
directly and have focused instead on whether a choice ety on brand choice may simply reflect the fact that
is made. Thus our focus is on a common situation in
more options can satisfy more varied tastes. That is,
which the relevant issue is not whether a choice will
a fit with preferences account indicates that offering
be made, but which brand will be selected (given greater
that variety increases brand choice through sales
the decision to buy has already been made).
In this context, we propose that the variety a brand
1 Although there are many expensive brands that offer few options
offers can act as an important quality cue, affecting and are seen as exclusive and high quality, their perceived quality
the inferences consumers make about the brand and
typically derives from their high price and features, rather than the
thus influencing which brand consumers choose. level
Thisof variety offered.

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
462 Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS

of unique options, or those that Study are 1: Product

offered Variety
only andby
the high-variety brand. If, however, Brand Choice consumers tend
to perceive brands that offerOur greater product vari-
first study provides an initial test of the impact of
ety more favorably, then they may select from high-
product variety on brand choice and perceived brand
variety brands even when choosing shared options,
quality. Participants selected a chocolate from one of
or items that are offered by both a high-variety
two chocolate and
brands that differed in the totala
number
low-variety brand. This prediction is expected to hold
of options they offered. They then tasted the selected
when the product variety applies to a compatible set
chocolate and rated the quality of both brands. Impor-
of options that conveys depth in a focused area, such
tantly, a subset of the options (the most popular
as variations of dark chocolate, mountain bicycles, or
chocolates based on a pilot study) were offered by
bird-watching binoculars.2 It is not expected to hold,
both brands (" shared options"). We expected that par-
and might even be reversed, when the broader variety
ticipants would be more likely to select the shared
contains options of different types, such as a product
options from the larger variety brand, even though
assortment that contains both ice skates and running
shoes. the same chocolates were offered by the smaller vari-
ety brand.
Product perceptions influenced by compatible prod-
uct variety are also expected to influence actual prod- Method
uct experience, particularly when the experience is A table was set up in front of the university book-
ambiguous. Consistent with work regarding influ- store, offering a "Free Chocolate Tasting." The thirty-
ences on perceived sensory experiences (e.g., Levin three participants were presented with two chocolate
and Gaeth 1988, Nowlis and Shiv 2005), we can expect
brands side-by-side and asked to select and taste
that the higher perceived quality of brands offering
a chocolate from the display. They were given a
greater variety might lead consumers to believe that
description of each brand and told that "the entire
the high variety brand actually tastes or performs bet-
set of chocolates offered by each brand appears on
ter. If such an effect occurs, it would imply that offer-
the table in front of you." Brand names (Au Due
ing high brand variety can have a long-term effect
de Praslin and Arnaud Soubeyran) and descriptions
by generating not only higher trial rates, but also a
were adopted from Chernev (2003a) and were rotated
higher likelihood of repeat purchase.
across participants to control for name /description-
Our predictions regarding the effect of product
specific effects. Because no brand-name effects were
variety on brand perception and choice were tested
found, the data reported below were pooled across
in six studies. The first study focuses on the effect of
brand presentations.
product set size on brand choice, holding the effec-
Chocolates were arranged in rows of five. One
tive choice set constant. The next two studies employ
brand offered 30 chocolates (larger variety) while the
a between-subjects design to test more directly the
other offered ten chocolates (smaller variety). The
effect of product variety on perceived brand quality
smaller variety brand offered the ten most popu-
(Study 2) and taste (Study 3). Study 4 examines our
lar chocolates, whereas the larger variety included
proposed causal path, investigating whether (a) vari-
20 additional, less popular items. Thus, participants
ety's influence on brand choice is mediated by qual-
who selected one of the ten popular chocolates tasted
ity perceptions and (b) variety's effect on perceived
the same chocolate regardless of which brand they
quality is mediated by the influence of variety on per- selected it from.
ceived category expertise. The last two studies inves-
Participants were asked to "write down the option
tigate key boundary conditions. Study 5 tests whether
you would be most likely to buy and the name of
the impact of product variety is still observed when
the brand offering this option." After tasting their
the available option set represents only part of the
selected option, they turned over the page and com-
brand's product line. Study 6 examines the moderat-
ing role of the option set compatibility.
pleted the dependent measures. Specifically, they
were told the experimenter was "interested in your
perceptions of both brands of chocolates (not the spe-
2 Compatibility differs from assortment alignability (Gourville and
Soman 2005) because it focuses on the inferences made from the cific chocolate you tasted)." For each brand, they rated
brand
consistency of the set rather than the difficulty of choice. Alignabil- quality (1 = Low Quality, 7 = High Quality), as
ity suggests that consumers may be less likely to choose brands well as likelihood of purchase ("If you were purchas-
whose options vary simultaneously along multiple noncompen- ing chocolates, how likely would you be to buy each
satory dimensions (e.g., a car with a sunroof versus a car with ofa the brands," 1 = Not Likely, 7 = Very Likely).
leather interior) because it makes choice between the options more
difficult. But regardless of whether the act of choice is easy or dif-
Results
ficult, we suggest that if the offered option set is compatible, con-
sumers may perceive the brand more favorably and be more likely Not surprisingly, participants were more likely to
to choose it relative to other brands. select an option from the brand offering more variety

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS 463

(79%) than the brand offering Method smaller variety (21%),

X2{1, N = 33) = 10.94, p < 0.01. The study
The was key
again conducted
test, in front of the uni-
however,
focused on the 73% of all participants versity bookstore. Respondents
who chose (N - 50) were
one invited
of the shared options. As expected, to participate inmorea "Free Chocolate Tasting" and were
participants
selected shared options from randomly
theassigned
brand to one of twooffered
that conditions. In the
larger variety, 71% versus smaller 29%, *2(1,
variety N =the
condition, 24)
brand=offered
4.17, 10 choco-
p < 0.04. Finally, quality ratings lates arranged on a table
were in two rows
higher for of five,
the whereas
the larger variety
brand offering greater variety (Mlarger variety = 6.50 ver- group saw 30 chocolates arranged in
six rows of
sus Hmaller variety = 5.56, f(33) = 3.01, p < 0.01), and five. Each item was labelled (e.g., "English
participants reported being Walnut
more Cluster").
likely In thetosmaller variety condition,
purchase
the larger variety brand (Mlarger variety = 6.03rotated
three groups of ten chocolates were versus such that
every
*U variety = 4.85, t (33) = 3.74, p < 0.001). chocolate in the larger variety also appeared in
one of the smaller variety rotations.
Discussion
Participants were informed that researchers were
The results of Study 1 demonstrate the impact of in consumer perceptions of the chocolate
interested
product variety on brand choice. Even when focusing
brand, and that the set of chocolates on the table
on identical options offered by both brands,represented
partici- all the chocolates that a particular brand
pants were more likely to choose a chocolate whenThey were told that they could taste any
offered.
it was offered by the high- variety brand. The results after which they were asked to complete a
chocolate,
also provide a preliminary indication thatshort greater
survey regarding their evaluations of the brand.
product variety is associated with higher perceived
Participants were first asked to "look at the names
quality. However, this finding of Study 1 might have
of the chocolates and the chocolates themselves and
rival explanations. In particular, the measuredwrite
differ-down which one you would buy for your-
ences in quality perceptions could have been dueAfter
self." to selecting the chocolate, they were invited
dissonance reduction and preference for consistency:
to taste that chocolate and were then asked to turn
participants tended to choose from the brand theoffer-
page and complete a number of dependent mea-
ing greater variety and justified their selection by rat-
sures. The first two measures referred to product qual-
ing their choice as having higher quality. Thisity,
finding
including (a) "quality of this chocolate brand"
might also be explained based on research regarding
(1 = Low Quality, 7 = High Quality), and (b) the pos-
focus-of-comparison effects (e.g., Dhar and Simonson
itivity of their brand perceptions (1 = Not At All Pos-
1992). Further, though we had no reason to believe
itive, 7 = Very Positive). The two brand perceptions
that Study 1 suffered from demand effects,measuresthe use were highly correlated (r = 0.72) and were
of a within-subject test does raise that possibility.
averagedTo to form a brand perception index.
deal with these alternative accounts, Study 2 uses Next,a participants answered questions about the
between-subjects design where participants see only
choice process itself (adopted from Iyengar and Lep-
one brand, offering either a smaller or larger perset of Specifically, participants rated the degree to
2000).
options. which the choice process was difficult ("Did you find
it difficult to make your selection of which chocolate
Study 2: Variety, Quality Perceptions, to pick?") and frustrating ("How frustrated did you
feel when making the choice?") on 7-point scales (1 =
and Choice Experience Not At All, 7 = Extremely).
As indicated, the proposition that greater product
variety enhances a brand's choice probability may ap- Results
pear inconsistent with evidence that larger choice sets Consistent with prior research, when the brand
create conflict and frustration and may thus diminish offered more options, choosing an option was
purchase likelihood (e.g., Iyengar and Lepper 2000). rated as more difficult (Mlarger variety = 4.16 versus
However, we propose that greater choice difficulty Hmaiier variety = 3.08, £(48) = 2.05, p < 0.05) and more
notwithstanding, in the typical case in which the rele- frustrating (Mlarger variety = 3.16 versus Msmaller variety =
vant question is which brand will be selected, higher 2.20, f(48) = 2.18, p < 0.05). However, as pre-
product variety enhances a brand's perceived qual- dicted, when the brand offered greater variety it
ity and thus also its purchase likelihood. Accordingly, was perceived as having higher quality chocolates
in Study 2 we simultaneously examine the impact of (Mlarger variety = 5.72 versus M^^ variety = 4.80, t (48) =
product variety on the choice experience, perceived 3.04, p < 0.05).
quality, and purchase likelihood. That is, Study 2 tests
whether offering more variety can enhance quality Discussion
perceptions even though a larger set makes choosing The finding that the variety a brand offers positively
from the set more difficult and frustrating. influences quality perceptions, even in a case where

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
464 Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS

it makes actual choice more difficult, underscores

the two groups the 30 chocolates or
were shown either
effect of product variety on13perceived brand
chocolates, but only qual-
(the same) ten items were actu-
allysuggest
ity. The results of Study 2 also available forthat
choice. quality
Thus the variety the brand
inferences based on variety canoffered differed in
occur between conditions, but the actual
situations
of single-brand evaluation, options suchthey as could
shopping
select from on a
did not.
brand's website. Furthermore, increasing the variety
Method
a brand offered enhanced quality evaluations of that
brand even after participants Participants were given were 90 theuniversity
oppor-staff and students,
tunity to experience actual quality. who were paid $20the
Thus, for completing
demoti- a "Chocolate Tast-
vating impact of large choice sets ing survey" and additional studies.
notwithstanding, it They were told
seems that offering increased variety that the experimenters
can enhance were "doing
the a market research
quality perceptions of a brand.study for a brand of chocolates that is consider-
This conclusion, however, does ingnot
expanding
addressinto the U.S. market"
the pos- and they were
sibility that participants perceived shown a display
the largecontaining the set of options offered
variety
brand as offering higher quality by that brand. Participants
because they were were randomly assigned
more likely to identify a chocolate to one that
of two matched
chocolate display
theirconditions. In the
specific taste from the larger set smaller
ofvariety
options. condition,
Wethe brand display included
exam-
ine this rival account in Study 3 13 by chocolates,
isolating arranged
the in two rows of five and one
effect
of perceived product variety, such row of three.
that In the
the larger variety condition, the brand
effective
set of options from which participants offered 30 chocolates, can arranged
make in asix rows of five
selection is held constant across conditions. In addi- chocolates. Chocolate were labelled, and a sign indi-
tion, Study 3 tests whether greater variety can affect cated that participants could "select from the top 2
not just perceived quality, but also purchase likeli- rows only." Thus participants in both groups had the
hood and post-consumption perceptions of taste. same effective choice set of ten options.
Participants received the chocolate they selected,
and after eating that chocolate, completed the depen-
Study 3: Product Variety and dent measures. Specifically, they rated the taste of
Sensory Experience their selected option ("How tasty was the chocolate
Brand quality can be a somewhat ambiguous term, you sampled," 1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely) and their
whereas the taste of a food product has a morepurchase con- likelihood ("How likely would you be to
crete meaning that involves one of the basic senses. purchase this brand," 1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely).
It is thus interesting to examine whether greater vari-
ety can also impact perceived taste after consumers Results

get an actual taste of the product. It is also note- As predicted, despite the fact that participants chose
worthy that real-world sensory experiences typically from the same effective set in both conditions, the
involve separate "between-subjects" evaluations. presented
For product variety offered by the brand pos-
example, although consumers may consider different itively affected the chocolate's taste ratings, f(88) =
brands at the store or different entrees on a restau-
2.45, p < 0.01. Participants rated the tasted choco-
rant menu, they often select just one and dolate not as more tasty when the brand offered larger
(M = 6.28), as opposed to smaller (M = 5.78) variety.
have the benefit of simultaneously experiencing mul-
Furthermore, consistent with the earlier studies, par-
tiple options. We therefore examine, using a between-
subjects design, whether selecting an option fromticipants
a who tasted one of the available ten items
indicated a higher purchase likelihood when these
brand that offers a large product assortment produces
more positive (perceived) sensory experiences. chocolates were part of the larger chocolate assort-
In addition, though we controlled for brand qual-
ment (Mlargervariety = 5.87 versus M^ier variety = 4.72,
ity in Study 2 and rotated the actual stimuli used,
t (88) = 3.43, p < 0.01).
one could argue that the observed effect of vari-
ety was due to the greater likelihood that the high Discussion

variety brand offered participants a more preferred The results of Study 3 are noteworthy in two respects.
option. To control for this rival explanation, Study First,
3 the positive effect of the brand's product variety
used a design that ensured that the available option was observed even though participants chose from
set was identical in the "larger" and "smaller" the set. exact same option set in both the "smaller" and
That is, in a between-subjects design we restricted "larger" variety conditions. Second, when the brand
the options participants could select, such that bothoffered greater variety, participants found the same
those shown the small set and those exposed tochocolates
the to be tastier and indicated a higher likeli-
hood of purchasing that brand. These results suggest
large set had the same effective choice set. Specifically,

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS 465

shown
that a brand offering a larger "the entire
variety isproduct
more line offered to
likely by an exist-
be sampled and, after actual ing company or a foreign
experience, company that is getting
consumers
ready to enter the U.S. market
are likely to perceive it as superior even on a concrete with one of their
dimension such as taste. product lines." Participants first received information
about the assortment offered by a brand of binocu-
The finding that variety affected brand perceptions
after tasting the chocolate is also important because (Bushnell), and after completing the dependent
lars
the impact of quality cues tends to be weakermeasures,
in were given information about a chocolate
brand (Au Due de Praslin). In the smaller [larger]
the presence of other cues. For example, the signif-
icance of price as a quality cue has been shown to variety condition, the binocular brand offered 4 [16]
be greatly diminished when additional information pairs of binoculars and the chocolate brand offered 10
[30]
(e.g., brand name) about the product is available (e.g., chocolates.
Olson 1977). Conversely, the variety cue "withstood" Brand descriptions were adapted from websites of
a source of quality information that is likely to be products in the category, and the two condi-
actual
tions differed only in the amount of variety the brand
more meaningful than extrinsic cues such as a brand
name - the actual taste of the product. offered. For the binoculars brand, participants read
that "Bushnell offers durable and affordable binocu-
lars, in compact to full-sized, with fully coated optics.
Study 4: Variety, Perceived Expertise, InstaFocus® system for fast focus on moving tar-
and Quality gets. Nonslip rubbergrip pads for secure grip in all
weather conditions. Available in 4 [16] different mod-
The first three studies provide convergent evidence
els, it's easy to see why Bushnell is a good choice."
that the product variety offered by a brand can influ-
ence quality perceptions and brand choice. How- For the chocolate brand, participants read "Created
in the 17th century, this chocolate confectionary was
ever, none of these studies has allowed us to directly
named after the Due De Praslin. Since then Due De
investigate the causal path by which these effects
Praslin chocolates have been a legendary symbol of
occur. In particular, our earlier analysis indicates that
'art de vivre.' These delectable chocolates are a mix-
(a) variety can impact brand choice through influenc-
ing brand quality perceptions, which is (b) dueture
to of distinction, frivolity, and improvisation. Avail-
able in 10 [30] different varieties, these chocolates are
the effect of variety on perceived category expertise.
the true taste of a historic creative culture" (adapted
Accordingly, Study 4 tests the effect of product variety
from Chernev 2003a). Participants were then pre-
in two categories, focusing on the mechanisms under-
lying these effects. sented with an array filled with images of the brand's
Participants received information about a few product offerings: rows of four options in the binocu-
lar
brands (first binoculars and then chocolates) and were category and rows of five options in the chocolate
asked to evaluate each brand on a number of dimen- category.
After reading the description and viewing the as-
sions, including product quality and the brand's
sortment, participants rated the brand on a number
category expertise. The only difference between con-
of dimensions with question order randomized to
ditions was the amount of variety offered by the
control for order effects. They rated product qual-
brand. They also then chose between this target brand
ity: "the likely quality of the company's binoculars/
and an alternative brand. We expected that (a) brands
chocolates" (1 = Very Low Quality, 7 = Very High
would be seen as having higher category expertise
Quality). Participants also rated the category expertise
when they offered greater variety, (b) expertise would
of the brand ("How much expertise do you think the
mediate the influence of variety offered on quality
company has in the product category," "How much
perceptions, and (c) quality perceptions would medi-
knowledge do you think the company has regard-
ate the influence of variety offered on brand choice. To
ing the product category," "How committed do you
test for a possible halo effect, we also included items
think the company is to success in the U.S. binoc-
(price and exclusivity) that were not expected to be
ulars/chocolates market," "How committed do you
influenced by product variety.
think the company is to the product category," and
Method "How invested do you think the company is in the
product category," all on 7-point scales).3 As expected,
Respondents (N = 76) completed a "Brand Percep-
the five items were highly correlated (a > 0.83) and
tion Study" over the Web in exchange for a $5 Ama-
were averaged to form an expertise index.
zon.com gift certificate. They were randomly assigned
to either the smaller or larger variety condition in
3 Perceptions of a brand's commitment to, investment in, and exper-
each category. They were told that the experimenterstise in the category are closely linked because the development
were "interested in how consumers evaluate com-
of expertise requires an investment in and commitment to the
panies and their brands," and that they would
category.be

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
466 Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS

As indicated, two additional measures were in- the brand offered greater variety (binoculars, £(74) =
cluded to test whether ratings were driven by a halo 2.56, p < 0.01; chocolates, t (74) = 2.93, p < 0.01). Vari
effect, whereby the larger variety brand would be ety also impacted positively perceived category exper
rated more favorably on all dimensions, including tise: when the brand offered larger variety, it was
those not implied by our theoretical analysis. Specifi- perceived as having greater expertise (t(74) = 4.34
cally, although it is conceivable that a brand offering p < 0.001 and £(74) = 3.37, p < 0.001). Finally, prod
a greater variety would be assumed to be more exclu-uct variety did not affect either perceived price (p's >
sive and /or cost more than a brand offering fewer0.14) or perceived exclusivity (chocolates, p > 0.25),4
items, that relation is likely to be weaker. Accordingly, indicating that a halo effect did not play a signifi-
respondents also rated the brand in terms of price cant role.
("What do you think the price of the brand is relative
to other binoculars /chocolates on the market/' 1 = Mediational Analyses. We next performed two
media tional analyses (Baron and Kenney 1986) to test
Much Cheaper, 7 = Much More Expensive) and exclu-
sivity ("How exclusive is the brand relative to the our hypothesized causal path. Specifically, we tested
typical U.S. binocular/chocolate brand," 1 = Much (a) whether quality perceptions mediated the influ-
ence of variety on brand choice, and (b) whether per-
Less Exclusive, 7 = Much More Exclusive). Finally, in
each category, respondents were told to imagine that ceived brand category expertise mediated the impact
they were looking to buy a certain type of binoc- variety on quality perceptions.
of
ulars/chocolate that was offered by both the tar- In our first set of analyses, all four conditions for
get brand (Bushnell/Au Due de Praslin) and anothermediation were met in both categories, suggesting
brand (Minolta /See's), and asked which brand theythat quality perceptions fully mediated the influence
would choose. of product variety on brand choice (see Figure 1).
Variety offered was correlated with brand choice
Results (binoculars j8 = 0.19, p < 0.10 and chocolates, j8 = 0.24,
p < 0.05, Step 1) and was also correlated with quality
Assortment Effects on Choice, Quality Percep- perceptions (J3 = 0.29 and p = 0.32, p's < 0.01). How-
tions, and Category Expertise. Table 1 summarizes ever, when both variety offered and quality percep-
the results. As predicted, the product variety offered
tions were simultaneously included in a regression
influenced brand choice; participants were more predicting brand choice, quality perceptions was a
likely to choose the target brand over the alterna-
significant predictor (0 = 0.43 and p = 0.25, p's < 0.05)
tive brand when the former offered greater variety.
but variety offered was not (j8 = 0.07 and j8 = 0.16,
Specifically, 65% of the respondents indicated they
ns). Finally Sobel tests (Sobel 1982) revealed signif-
would purchase the target binocular brand when
icant effects for both categories (binoculars z = 2.68
it offered larger variety, compared to 46% when it
p's < 0.01; chocolates z = 4.39, p's < 0.01), indicating
offered smaller variety, *2(1, N = 76) = 2.69, p < 0.10.
that the effect of variety offered on brand choice was
Similarly, 72% chose the target chocolate brand when
fully mediated by quality perceptions.
it offered larger variety, compared to 49% who chose
All four requirements were also met in our second
it when it offered smaller variety, ^2(1, N = 76) = 4.26,
set of analyses, indicating that perceived expertise
p < 0.04.
did, in fact, fully mediate the relationship between
As expected, product variety influenced quality per-
variety and quality perceptions (see Figure 1). Vari-
ceptions and perceived category expertise, whereas it
ety offered was correlated with quality perceptions
did not influence price or exclusivity. In both cate-
(binoculars, j8 = 0.29, and chocolates, ]8 = 0.32, p's <
gories, brand quality perceptions were higher when
0.01) and was also correlated with perceived exper-
tise (fi = 0.45 and ]3 = 0.37, p's < 0.001). However,
Table 1 Study 4: Influence of Variety Offered on Choice Share, when both variety offered and perceived expertise
Perceptions of Quality, and Category Expertise
were simultaneously included in a regression pre-
Choice share dicting quality perceptions, perceived expertise was
(%) Quality perceptions Category expertise a significant predictor (/3 = 0.77 and j8 = 0.61, p's <
Binoculars 0.001), whereas product variety was not (j8 = 0.08 and
Larger variety 65 5.62 (0.98) 6.09 (0.78) j8 = 0.10, ns). Both Sobel tests also revealed significant
Smaller variety 46 5.00 (1.12) 5.16(1 .04) effects (z's > 2.97, p's < 0.01), indicating that the effect
Chocolates
Larger variety 72 5.85 (0.81 ) 5.90 (0.62)
Smaller variety 49 5.08 (1 .40) 5.26 (1 .00) 4 Variety did have a marginally significant effect on perceived exclu-
sivity in the binocular category, t (74) = 1.83, p = 0.07, but the effect
was actually
Note. Cell values reflect choice share and means (standard deviations) in the opposite direction; perceived exclusivity was
on the
other dependent variables. higher in the low variety condition (M = 4.81 versus 4.31).

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS 467

Figure 1 Study 4: Mediational Analyses

Notes. The first coefficient on a given path represents the direct effect without the mediator in
when the mediator is included in the model. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, one-tailed.

of variety offered on quality should perceptions

be harder for was signifi-
consumers to infer brand quality
cantly decreased by the introduction of offered,
from the variety the mediator
and the impact of variety on
(i.e., expertise). brand choice share should be reduced or eliminated.
Study 5 examines this prediction.
Discussion
Similar to Study 1, participants were shown choco-
Study 4 again demonstrated that offering greater
lates sold by two chocolate brands, offering smaller
variety positively influences brand choice share
or and
larger variety, and asked to select a chocolate from
perceived brand quality. There was also no one
corre-
of the brands. We also manipulated the abil-
sponding effect of variety on measures we did not
ity to infer brand quality differences from variety:
expect it to influence: price and exclusivity. Further-
half the participants were informed that the choco-
more, the results support our analysis regarding the
lates displayed were the complete product assort-
mechanism underlying these effects, showing that the
ment each brand offered ("complete" assortment
impact of brand variety on choice is mediated by
condition), while the other half were told the dis-
quality perceptions, and that the impact of variety on
played products were the chocolates that were avail-
quality perceptions is mediated by brand expertise.
able at the time ("partial" assortment condition). We
expected that the ability to infer quality differences
Study 5: The Moderating Role of from variety would be greater in the former condi-
the Ability to Infer Quality tion, leading to stronger effect of assortment size on
brand choice.
Though Studies 1-4 demonstrate a robust positive
effect of product variety on brand choice and per-
Method
ceived quality, one would not expect this effect to
Respondents
hold under all conditions, and it might even reverse in (N = 70) were paid three dollars to par-
some situations. Thus Studies 5 and 6 examine some ticipate in a choice study. They sat next to a round
important boundary conditions for this effect. table on which the product offerings of two chocolate
brands were displayed. Brand names, descriptions,
The proposition that variety influences choice
through its impact on perceived quality impliesand thatcounterbalancing were identical to those used in
Study
the ability to infer quality differences from the offered 1.
variety is essential for the variety-brand quality andParticipants were randomly assigned to condition.
hence variety-brand choice link. The distinction In can
the complete assortment [partial assortment] con-
be made between produced variety, i.e., the dition set of they were told, "All [Some] of the chocolates
options produced by the brand, and offered variety,offered by each brand appear on the table in front
of you. For each brand, the selection provided is the
or the particular set of produced options that happens
to be available in a given shopping context. In thefull range [some] of chocolates they offer, that is, all
first
the different options they make [the particular options
four studies, participants were told that all the options
made by the brand were in front of them, andshown thusare those that happened to be available in the box
size we could purchase]" (italics added).
offered variety equaled produced variety and partici-
pants could form inferences about brand quality from They were then asked to "write down which choco-
late you would buy for yourself." After tasting the
the variety offered. In contrast, if the offered variety
is less informative about produced variety, then it chocolate, they turned the page and rated
selected

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
468 Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS

the quality of both brands (1Figure

= Low2 Study 4:Quality, 9 =
Influence of Perceived Highon
Assortment Brand Choice
Quality).
After completing the study, participants were
thanked for their participation and offered the follow-
ing gift options: "As a compensation for participating
in the study, you can choose to receive either three
dollars or a box containing four preselected chocolates
from Au Due de Praslin or a box containing four pre-
selected chocolates from Arnaud Soubeyran. Which
would you prefer?" Boxes of chocolates were visible
behind the chocolate display for each brand, and par-
ticipants indicated their decision.

Results

Assortment Effects on Quality Perceptions andAs predicted, the influence of perceived assortment
Choice. We expected that participants would per-
on brand choice was fully mediated by difference
ceive smaller quality differences between the highin
and
quality perceptions between the brands. Perceived
low variety brands in the partial than in the com-
assortment was correlated with brand choice (j8 =
plete assortment condition. A 2 (Perceived Assort-
0.26, p < 0.03) and was also correlated with differ-
ment: complete versus partial) x 2 (Variety Offered: ence in quality perceptions between the brands (j8 =
Smaller versus Larger) repeated measures ANOVA 0.28, p < 0.02). However, when both perceived assort-
was performed on brand quality perceptions. Consis- ment and difference in quality perceptions between
tent with the earlier studies, there was a main effect of
the brands were simultaneously included in a regres-
Variety Offered (F(l, 67) = 5.44, p < 0.05), indicating
sion predicting brand choice, difference in quality per-
that participants rated the chocolate brand offering ceptions was a significant predictor (/3 = 0.40, p <
greater variety as having higher quality (Mlarger variety =
0.001), whereas perceived assortment was not (/3 =
6.96 versus Mealier variety = 6.48). This effect, however,
0.15, p > 0.20). The Sobel test also revealed a signifi-
was qualified by a significant Perceived Assortment x effect, z = 1.99, p = 0.05, indicating that the effect
cant
Variety Offered interaction (F(l, 67) = 6.14, p < 0.05).
of perceived assortment on brand choice was fully
As expected, participants perceived a significant qual-
mediated by the difference in quality perceptions.
ity difference between the brands in the "com-
Actual Purchase. We also tested the effect of
plete" assortment condition (Mlarger variety = 7.11 versus
brand variety in the partial and complete conditions
Hmaller variety = 6.11 F(l, 67) = 12.58, V < 0.001) but not
Because most participants (76%) preferred the three
in the "partial" assortment condition, (Mlarger variety =
dollars to chocolates, the effective sample sizes were
6.84 versus A^maller variety = 6.84, F < 1).
small. However, selections of those who did choose
We next examined whether the reduced ability to
chocolates paralleled the above brand choice results.
infer quality differences affected brand choice (Fig-
ure 2). As expected, participants were more likely That
to is, participants who selected chocolates over
select the brand that offered more options 0f2(l, N = tended to purchase chocolates from the brand
money
offering greater variety (x2(l,N = 14) = 4.57, p <
70) = 14.63, p < 0.01), but this effect was moderated
0.05). All of the chocolate purchasers in the complete
by perceived assortment (^2(1,N = 70) = 4.50, p <
assortment condition chose the brand offering greater
0.05). Specifically, although participants in the com-
variety, compared to only 57% of those in the partial
plete assortment condition were significantly more
assortment condition (*2(1, N = 14) = 3.82, p = 0.05).
likely to select an option from the brand that offered
greater variety (84%) than the brand that offeredDiscussion
less
variety (26%), *2(1,N = 37) = 16.89, p < 0.01, the
Consistent with our prediction that the effect of vari-
effect was less pronounced and not statistically signif-
ety on brand choice is in part driven by quality
icant in the partial assortment condition (61% versus
inferences, the results of Study 5 demonstrate the
39%, *2(1, N = 33) = 1.48, p > 0.2).
moderating impact of the ability to infer quality dif-
Mediational Analysis. Participants were more ferences on the variety-brand choice link. The product
likely to choose the greater variety brand invariety the offered only influenced which brand partici-
complete assortment condition, but we also exam- pants chose when they could use it to infer produced
ine whether, as we hypothesized, this differences variety
was and thus form brand quality inferences. Fur-
driven by changes in the difference between quality thermore, difference in quality perceptions between
perceptions of the two brands. the brands fully mediated the relationship between

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS 469

perceived assortment and brand choice.

The brands differed inFinally,
both the number theof options
they offered
results suggest that inferences based and whether
on the the variety
productwas compat-
variety offered by a brand ible.
can Specifically,
affect oneactual
brand offered two road bikes
purchase
(made
behavior with real consequences. with different frame materials); a second brand
offered the same two road bikes as well as five addi-
tional road bikes (compatible high variety); a third
Study 6: The Moderating Role
brand (incompatible highofvariety) offered the same
two road bikes plus five bikes for different use types,
Option Set Compatibility
including mountain bikes and city cruisers. Respon-
Study 5 identified one boundary condition regarding
dents were then asked to guess how the magazine
the positive effect of product variety on brand per-
rated the quality of each brand (1 = Low Quality,
ception, indicating that this effect applies only when
7 = High Quality). On the next page, they also rated
the observed set of options is informative with respect
each brand on the same expertise items used in Study
to the entire variety produced by the brand. Study 6
4 (a = 0.88, averaged to form an index).
examines a second boundary condition that relates
Results
to the composition of the product variety. Specifi-
Responsesof
cally, offering a greater variety were analyzed using a 3 options
compatible (Variety Offered:
Low versusin
that reflect a depth of expertise High
a Compatible
particular versusarea
High Incom-
patible)bicycles)
(e.g., dark chocolate, mountain repeated measures is ANOVA.
expected We first exam-
to have a positive effect onined responses on the
perceived expertise measure.
quality. Con- As expected,
the variety offered
versely, offering a wide variety of what influenced perceptionsbe
might of exper-
seen as incompatible options,tise such
(F(2, 20) =as
12.98,
bothp < 0.001); however, relative to
Japanese
and Chinese food, may signal the low
lackvariety
ofcondition
focus (M =
and4.62) offering
raise greater
doubts about the quality ofvariety
the increased
brand's perceptions
productof expertise only when
line.
That is, the basic notion of itspecialization
was compatible (M = and6.15 F(l,21)
exper-= 10.98, p <
0.005). When the variety
tise implies doing a few things very well, without try-
was incompatible, it slightly
decreased brand perceptions (M = 4.29 F < 0.5; p >
ing to cover the entire spectrum. Although a company
0.2).
may excel in a wide range of related product types -
Offering increased variety only increased percep-
road and mountain bikes, Japanese and Chinese food,
tions of expertise when it was compatible, so we
or ice skates and running shoes - consumers are likely
expect offering more options should only increase
to employ a heuristic whereby breadth tends to come
quality perceptions under those conditions. Consis-
at the expense of depth, especially when
tent with this prediction, there
there isof lim-
was an effect
ited information about quality.
product variety on quality perceptions (F(2, 20) =
To test whether the positive15.78,effect of product
p < 0.001), but greater vari-
variety only enhanced
ety on perceived brand quality
quality perceptions when the set of options was the
is eliminated when
variety is less focused, we gave
focusedparticipants
(M = 6.27 versus 4.82,informa- F(l,21) = 13.31,
tion about the product offerings
p < 0.005). of Whendifferent
the options offered bicycle
were unfo-
brands and asked them to cused,
rate each
offering morebrand's quality
variety slightly decreased qual-
and category expertise. Theitybrands differed
perceptions (M in F(l,
= 4.05 versus 4.82, both
21) = 3.21,
the number of options theyp =offered
0.09). and whether the
variety was compatible. We expect that greater prod-
Discussion
uct variety will enhance perceived quality and exper-
Results of Study 6 demonstrate an important bound-
tise only when the set of options offered by the brand
ary condition: The positive effect of greater product
is compatible.
variety is observed only when the options are com-
Method patible, representing category expertise. A follow-up
study extended these findings using a between-
Sixty-four consumers, who are members of a Web-
subject design. Participants in that study rated the
based subject pool, completed a "Brand Perceptionquality of a restaurant that offered either low vari-
Study" in exchange for a chance to win a $20 online
ety (i.e., a few Thai food options), greater compatible
gift certificate. They were given information about
variety (the same options plus five other Thai food
different bicycle brands and rated each one. Respon-
options), or greater incompatible variety (i.e., a few
dents were told that a number of bike brands had
Thai options plus five non-Thai options, such as egg
recently been rated by a cycling magazine androlls).
that Replicating the results of Study 6, participants
the experimenters were interested in whetherperceived
they the brand more favorably (both in terms of
could predict the overall quality rating given to these
expertise and quality) only when the options included
brands. in the expanded set were compatible.

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
470 Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS

General Discussion particularly high cocoa content chocolate, are likely to

The number of product variants offered by ahave
firm greater
in impact on perceived quality than more
a category is a key marketing mix variable. mundane
Recent product variants. Even if few consumers
research has provided evidence for both the bene- actually choose such items, their presence can create
fits and downsides of offering greater product vari-aura and enhance the brand's perceived cat-
a certain
ety. On the one hand, more options allow the egory
firm expertise (also see Chernev 2005; Gourville and
to offer a better match to varied customer tastes and Soman 2005 for ways in which assortment structure
segments. However, offering more options can also can influence choice).
be frustrating and demotivating (e.g., Chernev 2003a,Although we have focused on the impact of the
2003b; Iyengar and Lepper 2000), leading to deci- number of options, the structure and presentation
of the offered product assortment can also affect
sion deferral. The present research suggests a separate
route through which the variety offered may influence
the brand's perceived quality by influencing the per-
which brand consumers choose: brand quality infer- ceived product variety (Broniarczyk et al. 1998, Hoch
ences. The present research is particularly relevant et al. 1999, Kahn and Wansink 2004). Research sug-
gests, for example, that large varieties may be harder
to common situations in which the relevant question
is which brand a consumer will choose, rather thanto see when they are disorganized, whereas disor-
ganization may benefit smaller assortments because
whether a choice from a given set of options will be
it obscures the fact that few options are available
made. In this section, we review the key findings and
(Kahn and Wansink 2004). Consequently, brands that
discuss their theoretical and practical implications.
offer large assortments might be perceived as higher
Summary of Findings
quality when their assortments are organized, but
the opposite might occur for brands that offer fewer
The present research demonstrates a robust effect
options.
of compatible product variety on brand quality per-
Future research might investigate additional ways
ceptions and brand choice, even when the effective
in which the variety of options from which an indi-
option set is held constant. The evidence indicates
vidual makes a selection affects the perception of the
that product variety influences perceived brand qual-
chosen option. In particular, in addition to influencing
ity both when evaluating a single brand (Studies 2-4)
perceived quality, the variety offered might affect the
and when choosing between brands (Study 1 and 5).
perceived fit between the option consumers select and
This effect is observed despite the fact that variety
their tastes. Specifically, holding the "true" fit between
makes the act of choice itself more difficult and frus-
an option and an individual's (often malleable) tastes
trating (Study 2). In addition, the effect of productconstant, the mere fact that an option was selected
variety on perceived quality and on a concrete dimen-from a large set of varied options may enhance
sion such as taste persists even after consumers expe-
the perceived match between that option and the
rience the product (Studies 1-3 and 5), suggesting that
consumer's preferences. For example, a strawberry-
product variety can also enhance repeat purchase rate.
banana yogurt might be seen as providing a better
The influence of product variety on brand choice mir-fit to one's ideal yogurt preference when that option
rors its effect on quality perceptions, which, in turn, is
is selected from a set of 60 yogurts than when it is
mediated by the effect of variety on perceived brand selected from a set of just three yogurts.
category expertise (Study 4). Future research might also examine the implica-
We identified two boundary conditions regardingtions of the present findings for recent research that
the effects of product variety. First, consistent withhas emphasized the disadvantages of offering large
our analysis, the positive effects of variety occur only
choice sets. This issue can be viewed as reflecting pro-
when the observed set of options is informative with cesses that arise at different stages in the decision
respect to the entire variety offered by the brand process (e.g., Kahn and Lehmann 1991, Sood et al.
(Study 5). Second, the composition of the product 2004). Consumers often decide both which brand,
variety, in particular, the degree to which it is seen or
as assortment, to choose as well as which option
to select from that brand, and these decisions can
compatible and reflecting specialization, is a key mod-
erator of the impact of variety on perceived quality be made sequentially or simultaneously.5 Too many
(Study 6). In fact, unfocused variety may sometimes
backfire and negatively affect perceptions of expertise
5 Of course, one can decompose the decision process based on other
in a well-defined product category. dimensions as well. For example, consumers may first select a
subtype (e.g., plasma HDTV) and then make a specific choice based
on other attributes. However, in the context of this and many other
Theoretical and Practical Implications
consumer studies, the brand cue is particularly important, because
Other aspects of the composition of the set of options
it is reasonable to make inferences about a brand based on its offer-
a brand offers might also moderate the effect of prod-ings, and it thus provides an effective way to decompose the deci-
uct variety. For example, unique, exotic flavors, orsion
a process.

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS 471

options can lead to choice deferral

size of a brand'sat either
assortment can bestage of
a potent quality
the process, and althoughcue.theThus, variety
marketers will be well advised to may
offered consider
make the choice from a given
and tryassortment more
to measure both the direct dif-con-
and indirect
ficult, our findings suggest it can also help simplify
tribution of individual products to consumers' per-
the choice between assortments
ception of the or brands
product (seeofalso
line and likelihood brand
Chernev 2006). Especially choice.
in categories where con-
sumers have little prior knowledge, they may use
the variety brands offer as a heuristic to resolve
References
brand choice. Thus, although larger product variety
Allison, R. I.,the
may enhance choice difficulty, K. P. Uhl.reliance
1964. Influence of beer
on brand identification
sim-
ple heuristics, such as "choose on taste
the perception.
brand /. Marketing Res. 1(3) 36-39.
offering the
greatest variety of options,"Baron,is R. M., D. A. Kenny. to
likely 1986. The moderator-mediator
increase as variable
distinction in social psychological research.: Conceptual, strate-
well, consistent with the concept of effort-accuracy
gic, and statistical considerations. /. Personality Soc. Psych. 51(6)
tradeoffs (e.g., Bettman et al. 1998). Consequently, a
1173-1182.

brand's decision to offer greater

Bettman, J. R.,product variety
M. F. Luce, J. W. Payne. may
1998. Constructive consumer
have the dual impact of both increasing
choice processes. /. Consumerthe Res. 25(3)overall
187-217.
effort necessary to choose Borle,
and S., P. providing
Boatwright, J. B. Kadane,a heuristic
J. C. Nunes, G. Shmueli. 2005.
The effect of product assortment changes on customer reten-
cue that simplifies at least the choice between brands.
tion. Marketing Sci. 24(4) 616-622.
Though there are many cases in which consumers
Broniarczyk, S. M, W. D. Hoyer, L. McAlister. 1998. Consumers'
are unwilling to defer choice, forof the
perceptions cases
the assortment offeredinin a which
grocery category:
deferral is an option, it would The beimpact interesting to exam-
of item reduction. /. Marketing Res. 35(May)
166-176.
ine the conditions under which offering more variety
has an overall positive effect.
Chernev, A.The present
2003a. Product assortment and research
individual decision pro-
cesses. /. Personality Soc. Psych. 85(1) 151-162.
did not force consumers to make a choice, but it also
Chernev, A. 2003b. When more is less and less is more: The role
did not explicitly provide the option to defer choice.
of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice.
Future research might examine how
/. Consumer Res. the
30(September) variety a
170-183.
brand offers influences the overall choice likelihood.
Chernev, A. 2005. Feature complementarity and assortment in
One might expect that offering variety may be like choice.
a /. Consumer Res. 31(March) 748-759.
common dilemma, where it is better for each individ-
Chernev, A. 2006. Decision focus and consumer choice among
ual brand to offer more options, but each additionalassortments. /. Consumer Res. 33(June) 50-59.
Dhar, R. 1996. The effect of decision strategy on the decision to
offering hurts overall customer satisfaction with their
defer choice. /. Behav. Decision Making 9(December) 265-281.
choice from the category and increases the likelihood
of choice deferral. Dhar, R. 1997. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. /. Con-
sumer Res. 24(September) 215-231.
Though prior research has discussed how supplyDhar, R., I. Simonson. 1992. The effect of the focus of comparison on
and demand considerations influence the optimal consumer preferences. /. Marketing Res. 29(November) 430-440.
product line breadth (e.g., Draganska and Jain 2005, Draganska, M., D. Jain. 2005. Product line length as a competitive
Kekre and Srinivasan 1990), our research suggests tool. /. Econom. Management Strategy 14(1) 1-28.

marketers should also consider the potential benefits Gourville, J., D. Soman. 2005. Overchoice and assortment type:
When and why variety backfires. Marketing Sci. 24(3) 382-395.
of greater variety with respect to consumers' brand
Greenleaf, E. A., D. R. Lehmann. 1995. Reasons for substantial delay
perceptions. A typical line extension decision involves
in consumer decision making. /. Consumer Res. 22(September)
estimating market share gained from serving more 186-199.

consumers and comparing it to the production costsHoch, S. J., E. T. Bradlow, B. Wansink. 1999. The variety of an assort-
(e.g., product design, development, and manufactur- ment. Marketing Sci. 18(4) 527-546.
ing) as well as possible cannibalization of existingIyengar, S. S., M. R. Lepper. 2000. When choice is demotivating:
sales. Such a decision is usually focused on the partic- Can one desire too much of a good thing? /. Personality Soc.
Psych. 79 995-1006.
ular option to be added: Does the market share gained
Kahn, B., D. R. Lehmann. 1991. Modeling choice among assort-
from offering that option outweigh the costs of pro- ments. /. Retailing 67(Fall) 274-299.
ducing it? Our findings, however, suggest that it isKahn, B., B. Wansink. 2004. The influence of assortment structure
also important to consider the broader impact of offer- on perceived variety and consumption quantities. /. Consumer
ing greater product variety; offering more options can Res. 30(March) 519-533.
enhance the perceived quality of the entire line and Kassarjian, H. 1978. Presidential address 1977: Anthropomorphism
and parsimony. Adv. Consumer Res. Association for Consumer
the brand, more generally. Research.
In summary, the present research adds to the exist-
Kekre, S., K. Srinivasan. 1990. Broader product line: A necessity to
ing evidence regarding the impact of product assort- achieve success? Management Sci. 36 1216-1231.
ments on consumer preferences (e.g., Simonson 1999),Klein, B., K. B. Leffler. 1981. The role of market forces in assuring
but going beyond prior research, it indicates that the contractual performance. /. Political Econom. 89(Fall) 615-639.

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Berger et al.: The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice
472 Marketing Science 26(4), pp. 460-472, ©2007 INFORMS

Prahalad,
Lancaster, K. 1979. Variety, Equity, and C. K., G. Hamel.Columbia
Efficiency. 1990. The core competence
Univer- of the cor-
sity Press, New York. poration. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(May-June) 79-91.
Lancaster, K. 1990. The economics of product
Purohit, variety:
D., J. Srivastava. Amanufacturer
2001. Effect of survey. reputation,
Marketing Sci. 9 189-206. retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judg-
ments of productare
Levin, I. P., G. J. Gaeth. 1988. How consumers quality.affected
/. Consumer Psych.
by 10(3)
the123-134.
framing of attribute informationSchwartz,
before and
B. 2004. after
The Paradox consuming
of Choice. Why More is Less. Harper
the product. /. Consumer Res. 15(3) 374-378. Collins, New York.
Mayzlin, D. 2006. Promotional chat on the internet. Marketing Sci.
Schwarz, N., G. L. Clore. 1983. Mood, misattribution, and judg-
25(2) 155-163.
ments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of
Nelson, P. 1974. Advertising as information. /. Political Econom. 81 affective states. /. Personality Soc. Psych. 45 513-523.
729-754.
Simonson, I. 1999. The effect of product assortment on buyer pref-
Nowlis, S., B. Shiv. 2005. Influence of consumer distractions on
erences. /. Retailing 75 347-370.
the effectiveness of food sampling programs. /. Marketing Res.
42(May) 157-168. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in struc-
tural equations models. S. Leinhart, ed. Sociological Methodol-
Nowlis, S., I. Simonson. 1997. Attribute-task compatibility as a
ogy. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 290-312.
determinant of consumer preference reversals. /. Marketing Res.
34(May) 205-218. Sood, S., Y. Rottenstreich, L. Brenner. 2004. On decisions that lead
Olson, J. C. 1977. Price as an informational cue: Effects on product
to decisions: Direct and derived evaluations of preference. /.
evaluations. A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sheth, P. D. Bennet, eds. Con- Consumer Res. 31(June) 17-25.
sumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. Elsevier, North-Holland, Tversky, A., E. Shafir. 1992. Choice under conflict: The dynamics of
New York, 267-286. deferred decision. Psych. Sci. 3 358-361.

This content downloaded from

45.119.30.225 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 19:46:31 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms