You are on page 1of 12

An executive summary for managers and

Comparing double executive readers can be found at the end of


this issue
jeopardy effects at the
behavioral and Introduction

attitudinal levels Brands with a small market share tend to suffer from
lower levels of repeat purchase behavior than do
high-market-share brands. This well-known
Subir Bandyopadhyay and phenomenon in competitive markets was termed
Kunal Gupta “double jeopardy” by McPhee (1963) to highlight
the plight of less popular comic strips. McPhee
(1963) showed that, vis-à-vis the more popular
comic strips, the less popular ones were not only read
by fewer people, but were also read less frequently by
this smaller number of readers. The term “double
jeopardy” was used to express this twin disadvantage
faced by the less popular comic strips.
In recent years, several researchers (e.g.
The authors
Ehrenberg, 2002; Dall’Olmo Riley et al., 1997;
Subir Bandyopadhyay is an Associate Professor of Marketing Chaudhuri, 1995; Donthu, 1994; Ehrenberg et al.,
at the Indiana University Northwest, School of Business and 1990; Fader and Schmittlein, 1993; Kahn et al.,
Economics, Gary, Indiana, USA. 1988) have contributed to DJ literature. Their studies
Kunal Gupta is a Senior Consultant at Burke, Inc., Cincinnati,
have shown that the double jeopardy phenomenon
Ohio, USA.
extends to many branded packaged goods
(toothpaste, coffee, etc.), the media (radio and TV
Keywords
programs), and distribution networks (e.g. individual
Brands, Brand identity, Brand image stores) across various geographical markets. (See
Ehrenberg and Goodhardt (1979) and Ehrenberg
Abstract (1987) for more details on research findings.)
The marketing phenomenon known as the double jeopardy (DJ) The pioneering work in the field of double
effect has continued to intrigue marketing scholars and jeopardy (see, for example, Ehrenberg et al., 1990)
practitioners over the last four decades. It is often found that, has explained DJ as a simple statistical phenomenon,
vis-à-vis the more popular brands, the less popular brands not related to the size structure of the market. It has been
only attract fewer customers but these customers buy these empirically shown that all things being equal, the
brands less frequently. The term “double jeopardy” is used to larger brands of a product category are bought more
express this twin disadvantage faced by the less popular brands.
frequently vis-à-vis the smaller brands of the same
Marketing researchers have shown that the DJ effect extends to
category. Ehrenberg et al. (1990) also argue that
many product categories (e.g. toothpaste or coffee), media (e.g.
radio and television), and distribution channels (e.g. individual marketing inputs, e.g. price, promotion, advertising,
stores). Attitudinal measures are developed for both brand distribution, and product formulation do not
penetration and its frequency of use: two key elements used to influence DJ directly, but influence the sales and the
measure the DJ effect. It is also empirically demonstrated, using market share of the brand. Thereafter, it is the
attitudinal and behavioral data supplied by a large multinational market shares of the various brands that determine
company, how attitudinal measures unravel strengths and these brands’ purchase frequency.
vulnerabilities of individual brands and how these insights can One important characteristic of the research is
help managers in accurate brand positioning. that barring a few exceptions (see Barwise and
Ehrenberg, 1985, 1987, 1988), most researchers
Electronic access have treated the DJ effect as a purely behavioral
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is phenomenon. Even though the phenomenon of
available at double jeopardy has been extensively observed and
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
We thank Procter & Gamble of Canada for supplying
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is the data used in this study. We also thank Soumita
available at Banerjee for background research. The first author
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the
Indiana University Northwest grant-in-aid program,
Journal of Product & Brand Management Research and University Graduate School of Indiana
Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · pp. 180-191 University, Procter & Gamble, Canada, and the
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 1061-0421 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
DOI 10.1108/10610420410538078 Canada Grant No. 410-95-0732.
180
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

studied from a behavioral perspective, it is Our study aims to compare the DJ effect at the
surprising that the phenomenon has been hardly attitudinal (i.e. psychological) and the behavioral
understood at the attitudinal level. Ehrenberg et al. level for the same respondent for a given product
(1990) alluded to attitudinal double jeopardy category. By measuring DJ at these two levels, we
when they explained that because a small brand try to study the shift in DJ patterns. Since
has a higher proportion of infrequent buyers, it marketing inputs such as product availability,
receives fewer average positive attitudinal pricing, advertising support, and promotion
responses from its customers than a more popular activities might influence the intended repeat
brand receives from its more frequent customers. purchase behavior, we expect more deviations
Their argument highlights a distinct advantage of from the double jeopardy pattern at the behavioral
measuring double jeopardy at the attitudinal level level as compared to the attitudinal level[1].
since attitude scores provide a valuable insight into Studying individual brand level attitudinal
how and which attributes influence behavior. In performances offers several advantages. One such
spite of the obvious advantages of attitudinal advantage is that it can shed more light on the
measures, few researchers have ventured to possible reasons for the high usage rate of
develop reliable measures of both penetration and dominant brands. For example, if a dominant
frequency. In addition, a smaller number of studies toothpaste brand such as Crest Original scores well
(see, for example, Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1985, on functional attributes (e.g. “cleans teeth well”,
1987, 1988) have indeed used a combination of “leaves mouth fresh”, “removes stains” etc.), we
attitudinal frequency measure and a behavioral have a better appreciation of why the brand has a
penetration measure, few researchers have studied high usage rate. Conversely, if a smaller toothpaste
the double jeopardy effect using purely attitudinal brand such as Macleans scores poorly on “value-
measures of both penetration and frequency. oriented” attributes (e.g. “good value for money”,
Our research addresses this important issue in “has a low price” etc.), it gives a signal to its brand
double jeopardy research. We will develop manager as to why the brand is not doing well.
attitudinal measures of both penetration and We will demonstrate this unique advantage of
frequency, and compare the DJ effects at the the attitudinal measures of DJ using the data for
behavioral and attitudinal level. We will also the toothpaste category. In addition, we will
identify a set of attributes (Barwise and Ehrenberg identify four factors or categories of attributes –
(1985) refer to these attributes as “descriptive functional, disease/health, quality and value – for
factors”) that influences the attitudinal measures all toothpaste brands. Then, we will compare the
of penetration and frequency. This knowledge will average factor scores for all brands to unravel the
help brand managers to identify the strengths and relative “strengths” and “vulnerabilities” for each
vulnerabilities of their brands, and thus orchestrate brand. Also, we will discuss how this insight can
effective marketing and communication strategies. help a brand manager to design an effective
Such managerial insight is not readily available marketing strategy that builds on its strengths and
using a purely behavioral approach. guards against vulnerabilities.
The behavioral DJ approach may have other The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
limitations as well. For example, Hofmeyr and First, we develop attitudinal measures of the DJ
Bennett (1994) argue that brand loyalty could not effect. Specifically, we formalize the measures of
be equated solely with purchase propensity, since attitudinal penetration and frequency, drawing on
such a model cannot anticipate changes that should the literature on mere exposure effect and
be measured to study the psychological shifts in consumer memory. Next, we outline the measures
attitude that precede behavioral shifts in brand of behavioral penetration and behavioral
purchases. They suggest a study of psychological frequency. Subsequently, we outline the
factors that bind consumers to brands, instead of hypothesis developed, and the methodology for
the hitherto conventional approach of looking only hypothesis testing. Then, we describe the data
at brand size and behavioral loyalty. They develop a used for empirical testing, present the research
“conversion model” to measure brand findings, and discuss the implications of the results
commitment. This model divides the users of a obtained. Finally, we conclude by outlining future
brand into categories ranging from very strongly areas of research, and the limitations of this study.
committed users, to convertible users, to non-users,
in terms of how available these users are for
conversion to the brand. The number of committed
versus available users defines the psychological Attitudinal measures of the double
strength of a brand, and therefore the possibility of jeopardy effect
the brand defying the DJ effect. Besides these few
studies, there are no other notable publications that We will develop the attitudinal measures of
have studied DJ at the attitudinal level, and this is frequency and penetration: two phenomena that
where our research contributes useful information. together determine the extent of double jeopardy
181
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

effect at this attitudinal level. To develop these (2) Low involvement everyday exposure to the
measures, we will begin by highlighting current brand or its communication casts doubt on
understanding of the exposure effect and its the accuracy of the self-reported frequency
applicability to marketing studies, how the effect scores of the respondents.
translates into (attribute) information storage in
memory, and finally, how the stored information Thus, if a researcher were to ask a respondent
can be developed into recognition and frequency about how many times he or she has been exposed
measures at the attitudinal level. to, for example, Pantene shampoo or its
communication over the last month, the
respondent has a high chance of erring while
Mere exposure effect cumulating his or her personal (e.g. usage) and
Starting with the pioneering work of Maslow other passive (e.g. TV advertisement) exposures to
(1937), researchers have long observed that the shampoo.
repeated, unreinforced exposure results in an On the other hand, the researcher will have more
increased positive attitude towards a stimulus. confidence in respondents’ answers to questions if
Although these early studies broached a
they are familiar with a brand, or if they believe a
conceptually novel idea, they often lacked the
certain attribute (property) to be associated with a
methodological rigor to establish unequivocal
brand. In a typical situation, a researcher might list
support for their results. However, through a more
all major attributes of the product category and all
careful study, Zajonc (1968) demonstrated the
major brands of the same category. The researcher
“mere exposure effect” as the enhancement of the
could then ask the subjects to respond to a “yes/no”
attitude of an individual towards a stimulus through
type question if they know that one of the brands
mere repeated exposures. Zajonc (1968) defined
possesses one or more of these attributes. If a
“mere exposure” as a condition that makes the
consumer highlights any brand-attribute pair, this
stimulus available to an individual’s perception.
can be an indication that the respondent recognizes
A typical exposure effect study was carried out
in a laboratory setting, where the subject was the associated brand.
exposed to neutral stimuli such as foreign words or Further, if the consumer confirms, for instance,
ideographs (see, for example, Zajonc et al., 1972; five affirmations for Brand A, and three for Brand
Stang and O’Connell, 1974). The advantage of B, then a marketer would be interested in knowing
selecting neutral stimuli in all these studies has if five versus three affirmations is any indication of
been the assurance of the absence of any pre- Brand A being liked more than Brand B within the
existing favorable or unfavorable attitudes. sample. In this paper, we explore the development
Further, the laboratory settings have made of reliable measures of two important issues: brand
possible accurate monitoring and control over the recognition and brand liking, especially for low-
exposure and the frequency of exposure. This involvement products.
precision has enabled researchers to confidently
support their hypothesis that a higher frequency of Information storage in memory
exposure does indeed result in a more positive First, it is important for us to understand how the
attitude towards a stimulus. information about the presence or absence of a
Beyond the laboratories, the relationship brand-related attribute is stored in the memory.
between exposure frequency and liking has also The issue can be resolved by understanding the
been established in naturalistic studies, with stimuli debate between the proponents of the “strength
such as the names of public figures and common hypothesis” and the “multiple-trace hypothesis”.
products. In these studies (see, for example, In brief, if a customer believes that, for example,
Bornstein, 1989), the exposure frequency has been Pantene shampoo has five positive attributes,
estimated through either self-reported scores or an strength hypothesis suggests that these five would
unobtrusive index such as the Thorndike and Lorge be stored together as one strong trace in the
(1944) word frequency count. memory of the customer. On the other hand,
multiple-trace hypothesis suggests that these
Mere exposure effect in marketing attributes would be stored as five individual and
The use of such naturalistic studies is, however, different traces in memory. Extensive research
likely to have shortcomings from a marketing (e.g. Hintzman and Block, 1971) has established
perspective, especially for those studying the superiority of the multiple-trace theory, and
frequently bought product categories. This can researchers now use this theory to explain richer
occur for two reasons: phenomena (Hintzman, 1984, 1986).
(1) Unobtrusive indices such as those used by Another understanding necessary for our
Thorndike and Lorge (1944) are unavailable research is in the case when, for instance, one of
to give word frequency counts for brands of the five positive attributes of Brand A is
such product categories. highlighted multiple times by the respondent.
182
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

Does each exposure result in a separate trace for subconsciously. Thus, it is very likely that for low-
each encounter, or do multiple encounters involvement product categories, frequency
strengthen the already existing memory trace of information may be used as a decision criterion
that attribute? Despite both schools of thought, the employed by the customer to reduce cognitive
balance seems to be in favor of the recent work by load. That is to say, an average respondent likes
Shiffrin et al. (1990) and by Murnane and Shiffrin Brand A more than Brand B if he or she believes
(1991). These researchers demonstrated, using Brand A has a higher number of net positive
word-repetition exercises, that a repeated stimulus attributes than Brand B has.
results in the same trace being multiplexed, rather To summarize, we support the “multiple-trace”
than stored as a redundant trace[2]. Their hypothesis that each brand attribute is stored as an
conclusion seems to be somewhat in line with Petty individual trace in the memory of the respondent.
and Cacioppo (1984) who argued that for low- We also agree with the argument that the more
involvement brands, argument number (i.e. the positive attributes the brand is believed to have, the
number of memory traces) is more important than greater the number of memory traces of the brand
argument importance[3]. in the consumer’s memory is. Brand familiarity
(we also call it attitudinal penetration) entails
Brand recognition and brand liking coming in contact with any such attribute, and for
In continuation with the multiple-trace hypothesis, low-involvement product categories, brand liking
how can a marketer assume that a respondent has (or attitudinal frequency) can be equated with the
recognized a certain brand? Is there a threshold number of positive attributes a respondent believes
number of attribute-brand affirmations, above the brand to have[4]. Thus, we define attitudinal
which the researcher can say with confidence that penetration and attitudinal frequency in the
the particular respondent recognizes the brand? following manner:
An answer to this question has been provided in .
Attitudinal penetration – the ability to
earlier works of Anderson and Bower (1972) and recognize any one memory trace (or an
Hintzman and Block (1971). Both studies attribute) for a brand that has penetrated the
demonstrated that the recognition of an item respondent’s memory.
entails contact with any one trace among the .
Attitudinal frequency – the number of affirmed
multiple traces that remained in the consumer’s memory traces (or attributes) for the same
memory. In line with these studies, we would thus brand[5].
use the affirmation of any one attribute-brand We argue that there is a positive relationship between
pairing as the necessary condition for brand any one memory trace for a brand and between the
recognition (or attitudinal penetration from the total number of traces for the same brand. The
perspective of the double jeopardy phenomenon).
positive relationship is supported by past research on
For a low-involvement product category, brand
mere exposure effect, where more frequent exposure
liking has been linked to the concept of attribute
has been shown not only to develop effective
frequency (Bettman and Park, 1980; Russo and
responses towards the brands, but also to enhance
Dosher, 1983). Petty and Cacioppo (1984)
brand image as being more trustworthy and reliable.
demonstrated that argument number can dominate
We also agree with Harris et al. (1980) who review
argument importance if subject involvement is low;
past studies and state that “frequency estimates are
thus attribute frequency may be considered a
subsequent to and dependent on recognition
peripheral route to persuasion. This hypothesis was
decisions”. Thus, if we were to extend the argument
further supported by Alba and Marmorstein (1987)
of double jeopardy (McPhee, 1963; Ehrenberg et al.,
who stated that in absence of the encoding of any
1990) to the attitudinal level, we would hypothesize
other information, the net number of positive
that there should be a positive and significant
attributes towards a brand can influence judgment
correlation between attitudinal penetration and
and choice. They suggested that according to the
attitudinal frequency.
theory of automation (see Hasher and Zacks, 1979,
1984) frequency information:
.
acts continually;
.
cannot be improved by practice;
Behavioral measures of the double
.
cannot be inhibited;
. does not require conscious awareness; and jeopardy effect
.
drains minimal cognitive resources.
At the behavioral level, we use “number of
These characteristics make the frequency heuristic purchasers in the last year” and “frequency of
very different from other consumer decision purchase in the last year” as measures of
heuristics as the frequency information may be penetration and frequency, respectively. Similar
acquired either with minimum effort or even behavioral measures are widely used in the DJ
183
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

literature, for example, in the studies done by (1) Pearson correlation coefficients; and
Fader and Schmittlein (1993) and Kahn et al. (2) the w(1-b) model[6].
(1988). Table I summarizes the measures of
Larger correlation coefficients between penetration
penetration (bx) and frequency (wx) at the
and frequency indicate stronger DJ effects. We also
attitudinal and at the behavioral level.
use Ehrenberg’s w(1-b) model to compare the
intensity of the double jeopardy effect at the two
levels. Several researchers (see, for example,
Hypothesis Ehrenberg et al. (1990) and Hofmeyr and Bennett
(1994)) have used the w(1-b) model to measure the
We hypothesize that the presence of DJ at the double jeopardy effect. To be specific, we observe
attitudinal level will be stronger than at the the penetration (bx) and the frequency (wx) for all
behavioral level. The more the number of the brands in a product category at each of the two
respondents believe that a given brand has a key levels. The mean w(1-b) (or w0) is then calculated
attribute, the larger the average number of for all brands in the category put together.
attributes checked by these respondents for the Thereafter, the value of w0/1-bx is computed for
brand should be. This is in line with McPhee’s each of the brands. Finally, the fit between the
(1963) observation that a better-known brand is observed value of frequency (wx) and the predicted
liked more. Similarly, low awareness about the key value of wx for a given bx (w0/1-bx) is observed to
attribute of the brand should result in check if smaller values of “b” also gave smaller
disproportionately lower scores for this brand on values of “w”, thereby exhibiting the double
various attitudinal attributes. jeopardy effect (Ehrenberg et al., 1990).
The logic for the hypothesized (high) strength of At the behavioral level, we hypothesize that
this attitudinal correlation can be understood by an there are likely to be a lot of shifts between the
argument made by Bower (1967). He stated that if, intended and the actual purchase behavior. These
over a span of time, any single trace is successfully shifts could be caused by one or more of the
recalled, then what is retained each time is some attitude behavior moderators, such as situational
increasing fraction of the components recalled on cues (Borgida and Campbell, 1982; Snyder and
the previous occasion. Forgotten components (i.e. Kendzierski, 1982), personality factors (Bettman
forgotten positive attributes) are likely to be recalled and Park, 1980), manner of attitude formation
with a bias that is consistent with the remembered (Fazio and Zanna, 1981), temporal stability of the
components, and the recalled pattern will change attitude (Schwartz, 1978) and the confidence with
progressively over the recall series. Retention of any which the attitude is held (Sample and Warland,
unique trace would thereby result in the 1973). These effects are likely to influence the
respondents assigning positive (i.e. present) value to purchase probabilities of individual brands that
the forgotten information, thus progressively should be expected from observance of pure DJ
increasing their liking for the brand. phenomenon at the attitudinal level.
Thus, for our product category, the correlation The result of these deviations would be a weaker fit
for the brands at the attitudinal level will between the observed purchase frequency (wx) and
progressively develop over time in a fashion the frequency suggested by the DJ effect (w0/1-bx) at
consistent with that suggested by DJ. This should the behavioral level compared to that at the attitudinal
thus strengthen the attitudinal-level correlation for level. Thus, we test the following hypothesis:
the observed brands. It is this relationship that may H1. The presence of the double jeopardy effect
produce higher trial and repeat buying behavior would be stronger at the attitudinal level than
(Rindfleisch and Inman, 1998), and is likely to at the behavioral level.
undergo deviations at the behavioral level because
of a gamut of marketing mix, and personal, and
situational variables. The result is a weakening of
the hypothesized correlation. Data
The analysis has been carried out for two product
Measuring the DJ effect categories: toothpaste and laundry detergent; the
We use two methods to compare the strength of the data contain ten and eight popular brands
DJ effect at the attitudinal and behavioral levels: respectively. The survey data were provided by a

Table I Definitions of penetration and frequency


Level Penetration (bx) Frequency (wx)
Attitudinal level Percentage of respondents checking any attribute Average number of attitudinal attributes checked
Behavioral level Number of purchasers in the last year Frequency of purchase in the last year

184
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

multinational company specializing in packaged Table II Correlation matrix


consumer goods. The data set contains the Observed frequency
responses of 1,096 subjects (for toothpaste) and Attitudinal Behavioral
1,431 subjects (for laundry detergent) residing in
two major North American cities. The survey Toothpaste
includes ten behavioral questions to measure the Predicted frequency Attitudinal 0.939*
respondents’ usage patterns and their satisfaction Behavioral 0.666
Penetration Attitudinal 0.952*
towards the various brands, and 30 attitudinal
Behavioral 0.773
questions to measure the respondents’ beliefs
Laundry detergent
about these brands. For the toothpaste category,
Predicted frequency Attitudinal 0.970**
these 30 attitudinal questions are broadly
Behavioral 0.950
categorized under four factors:
Penetration Attitudinal 0.939**
(1) Functional (e.g. “cleans teeth well”, “leaves
Behavioral 0.918
mouth fresh”, “removes stains”, etc.).
Notes: *significant at 1 per cent level; **significant at 10 per cent level
(2) Disease/health (e.g. “reverses tooth decay”,
“suitable for children”, “prevents root
cavities”, etc.). our hypothesis that the DJ effect at the attitudinal
(3) Quality (e.g. “recommended by the dentist”, level is stronger compared to the behavioral level.
“brand I can trust”, “good for teeth that are The Pearson correlation coefficients between
sensitive to heat/cold”, etc.). predicted and observed frequency at the
(4) Value (e.g. “good value for money”, “has a low attitudinal and the behavioral levels are 0.939 and
price”, etc.). 0.666 respectively, for toothpastes; and 0.97 and
Although the behavioral measures in the data set 0.95 respectively, for laundry detergents. These
are “recalled measures” rather than actual correlation coefficients are statistically different
from one another at the 1 per cent significance
behavior, the potential lack of reliability in such
level for toothpastes but only marginally significant
measures is minimized because of the use of a free-
for laundry detergents. Moreover, individually,
choice as opposed to a forced-choice questionnaire
these correlation coefficients are statistically
format. This is in congruence with Barnard and
different from zero. The magnitudes of the
Ehrenberg (1990) who argued that the DJ effect
correlation coefficients support our hypothesis that
should occur for free-choice data:
the double jeopardy effect at the attitudinal level
Double Jeopardy effects occur for the free-choice has less deviation than it does at the behavioral
data but possibly not for the two forced-choice
[scaling and ranking] techniques, because forcing a
level. Also, the positive sign of the correlation
response should or could undermine the statistical coefficients indicates that the brands with a low
selection effect basis for DJ that occurs in free- penetration level generally have low levels of
choice questioning (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990, frequency. These results demonstrate the existence
p. 479). of the double jeopardy effect at both levels.
Also, all our attributes are positively framed to
circumvent the problem of low response rates for Observed and predicted frequencies
negative attributes (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990). We compare the actual frequencies (wx) and the
predicted frequencies (w0/1-bx) from the w(1-b)
model. The values of wx and w0/1-bx are
summarized in Tables III-VI for both
Results and discussion measurement approaches and the two product
categories. These values can be easily interpreted
Correlation coefficients by considering the case for any one brand. Let us
We compare the Pearson correlation coefficients take Colgate Original as an example.
between penetration and observed frequency and Among the 1,096 respondents, about 63 per
the predicted and the actual frequency (see Table cent (see Table III) affirmed the presence of at
II for the correlation coefficients). We expect that least one positive attribute for the brand Colgate
the correlation under both scenarios will be Original. This gives the brand an attitudinal
stronger at the attitudinal level compared to that at penetration of 0.63. For this level of penetration,
the behavioral level. the respondents associated Colgate Original with
Pearson correlation coefficients between 3.22 positive attributes on average. This is the level
observed penetration and observed frequency at of the observed frequency for Colgate Original as
the attitudinal and the behavioral levels are 0.952 defined in Table I. The corresponding frequency
and 0.773 respectively, for toothpastes; and 0.939 derived from the w(1-b) model (i.e. w0/1-bx) is
and 0.918 respectively, for laundry detergents. 3.20. This figure is a close approximation of the
Both sets of correlation coefficients clearly support actual frequency of 3.22 reported by the sample.
185
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

Table III Penetration and frequencies at the attitudinal level (toothpastes)


Penetration Observed frequency Predicted frequency Deviation
Brand bx wx wo/12bx wx-w0/12bx
1. Crest Original 0.76 4.87 4.88 20.01
2. Crest Tartar 0.66 4.30 3.46 +0.84
3. Colgate Original 0.63 3.22 3.20 +0.02
4. Colgate Tartar 0.45 2.79 2.15 +0.64
5. Aquafresh Original 0.44 2.20 2.13 +0.07
6. Aquafresh Tartar 0.36 1.93 1.86 +0.07
7. Macleans 0.39 1.67 1.93 20.26
8. Sensodyne 0.42 1.41 2.04 20.63
9. Close Up 0.42 2.00 2.05 20.05
10. Arm & Hammer 0.35 1.57 1.83 20.26

Table IV Penetration and frequencies at the behavioral level (toothpastes)


Penetration Observed frequency Predicted frequency Deviation
Brand bx wx wo/12bx wx-w0/12bx
1. Crest Original 0.26 3.96 3.54 +0.42
2. Crest Tartar 0.54 3.99 5.70 21.71
3. Colgate Original 0.18 3.29 3.20 +0.09
4. Colgate Tartar 0.11 3.39 2.95 +0.44
5. Aquafresh Original 0.15 3.26 3.08 +0.18
6. Aquafresh Tartar 0.06 3.14 2.78 +0.36
7. Macleans 0.12 3.27 2.96 +0.31
8. Sensodyne 0.06 2.71 2.78 20.07
9. Close Up 0.11 2.91 2.94 20.03
10. Arm & Hammer 0.02 2.00 2.68 20.68

Table V Penetration and frequencies at the attitudinal level (laundry detergents)


Penetration Observed frequency Predicted frequency Deviation
Brand bx wx wo/12 bx wx-w0/12bx
1. Ultra Cheer 0.56 4.94 4.25 +0.69
2. Liquid Tide 0.44 3.29 3.28 +0.01
3. Ivory Snow 0.61 4.11 4.74 20.53
4. Tide 0.78 10.46 8.28 +2.18
5. Wisk 0.49 3.28 3.66 20.38
6. ABC 0.57 4.20 4.29 20.09
7. Arctic 0.43 1.84 3.24 21.60
8. Sunlight 0.64 6.43 5.12 +1.31

Table VI Penetration and frequencies at the behavioral level (laundry detergents)


Penetration Observed frequency Predicted frequency Deviation
Brand bx wx wo/12 bx wx-w0/12bx
1. Ultra Cheer 0.22 1.01 1.05 20.04
2. Liquid Tide 0.15 1.08 0.96 +0.12
3. Ivory Snow 0.10 0.71 0.91 20.20
4. Tide 0.51 1.91 1.68 +0.23
5. Wisk 0.18 1.20 1.01 +0.19
6. ABC 0.25 1.12 1.10 +0.02
7. Arctic 0.05 0.57 0.86 20.29
8. Sunlight 0.43 1.63 1.43 +0.20

At the behavioral level, about 18 per cent of the level of penetration is 0.18. Given this penetration
sample had bought Colgate Original within the level, the w(1-b) model suggests that each of those
past year (see Table IV for more details). Thus, the respondents who bought Colgate Original in the
186
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

last year should have bought it about 3.20 times repositioning strategy to leverage a positive image
during the year. This value is marginally smaller (or rectify a negative image).
than the actual purchase frequency of 3.29
reported by those respondents who bought the
brand. Hence, for both attitudinal and behavioral Niche brands
levels, Colgate Original marginally outperforms It is interesting to find that a niche brand[7] such
the expected frequency level. as Aquafresh Tartar has clearly exhibited a higher
Table IV results also show that the predicted purchase frequency than is suggested by the
frequencies (w0/1-bx) of most of the larger brands w(1-b) model (3.14 vs 2.78 as shown in Table IV)
(e.g. Crest Original, Colgate Original, and Colgate thereby suggesting a high usage rate among a small
Tartar) are lower than their observed frequencies number of loyal customers. Similar figures are also
(wx). This result is in line with the findings of found for Colgate Tartar (3.39 vs 2.95 as shown in
Fader and Schmittlein (1993) who show, using Table IV). These results are in line with the
behavioral measures, that larger brands can have findings of an earlier study by Kahn et al. (1988)
higher repeat purchase rates than those predicted. who showed that niche brands often tend to defy
Regarding Crest Tartar, the lower-than-expected the DJ pattern.
frequency may be attributable to a scaling factor. It As regards attitudinal penetration, niche brands
is obvious that the penetration rate for Crest Tartar score lower than regular brands because the select
(bx ¼ 0.54) is disproportionately higher than that customers of a niche brand form only a small
of a comparable brand such as Colgate Tartar portion of the overall customer base. Table III
(bx ¼ 0.11). As a result, its predicted frequency results support this characteristic of niche brands.
(wo/1-bx ¼ 5.70) is also disproportionately higher All tartar variants of Crest (0.66 vs 0.76), Colgate
than that of Colgate Tartar (wo/1-bx ¼ 2.95), as (0.45 vs 0.63) and Aquafresh (0.36 vs 0.44) show
well as its own observed frequency (wx ¼ 3.99). smaller attitudinal penetration than do the original
Results for laundry detergents, as shown in formulae. Results for the behavioral penetration
Tables V and VI, also show that most major brands follow the expected pattern except for Crest
(e.g. Ultra Cheer, Liquid Tide and Tide) Tartar, which has an unusually high penetration of
outperform their expected usage frequency level at 0.54 as compared to 0.26 for Crest Original (see
the attitudinal level. The only exception is Ivory Table IV for details).
Snow; it underperforms both at the attitudinal Our analysis has been able to shed more light on
(4.11 vs 4.74) and at the behavioral levels (0.71 vs the possible reasons for the high attitudinal
0.91). Of all the smaller brands, only Sunlight has performance scores of individual brands. Table VII
been able to defy the DJ effect both at the shows the mean scores of the four categories of
attitudinal (6.43 vs 5.12) and the behavioral levels attributes (i.e. functional, disease/health, quality,
(1.63 vs. 1.43). and value) on which 30 attitudinal questions were
Interestingly, Ultra Cheer outperforms expected asked. It is evident that all the “tartar” brands
frequency at the attitudinal level (4.94 vs 4.25) but perform better than their corresponding “original”
falls short at the behavioral level (1.01 vs. 1.05). formulae under the “functional” category. On the
Thus, it is evident that Ultra Cheer has failed to other three factors, the performance of the tartar
translate the positive attitude of consumers to variants is comparable with the original variants
increased usage frequency. Thus, brand managers despite the fact that the tartar brands, with the
of Ultra Cheer should re-evaluate the distribution, exception of Crest Tartar, have much lower
pricing, and promotion strategies to achieve a purchase penetrations (as shown in column bx in
desired level of brand usage commensurate with Table IV).
consumer attitude towards the brand. Exploring in still greater detail, in Table VIII we
highlight the possible causes for the high scores in
these two categories. The tartar variants
Research implications performed exceptionally well on a few attributes
Based on our analysis, we suggest that the double (e.g. “removes stains from teeth”, “leaves mouth
jeopardy effect be measured both at the behavioral
and attitudinal levels. While behavioral measures Table VII Attribute category scores for the six major toothpaste brands
(e.g. brand usage rate and brand penetration) are
Attribute category
simple and easily available with most sales data,
Crest Colgate Aquafresh
attitudinal measurements unravel important brand
Original Tartar Original Tartar Original Tartar
strengths (e.g. positive perceptions) and brand
vulnerabilities (e.g. negative perceptions). A better Disease/health 8.7 8.6 6.3 5.7 4.6 3.5
understanding of the positive (or negative) Functional 11.5 13.0 9.3 9.8 8.5 8.9
consumer perceptions about the brand will help Quality 6.6 6.0 4.1 3.7 2.6 2.6
the brand manager to devise a suitable Value 2.2 10.6 6.8 6.0 4.6 4.4

187
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

Table VIII Attribute scores for the six major toothpaste brands
Attribute
Crest Colgate Aquafresh
Original Tartar Original Tartar Original Tartar
Removes stains from teeth 3.8 16.7 1.8 11.9 1.3 9.0
Leaves mouth refreshed 8.8 13.6 6.8 9.7 4.8 7.9
Is a brand I can trust 5.2 5.7 2.8 3.4 1.8 2.4
Is gentle on teeth 3.1 4.1 1.9 2.9 1.3 2.3
Prevents gum disease 3.8 4.0 2.2 2.4 1.2 1.6

refreshed”, etc.); these high attribute scores result from the panel of respondents during or
in a high overall rating for the entire attitudinal immediately after the purchase using scanners and
category. Thus, the observance of DJ defiance by then collect attitudinal data from the same panel
niche brands becomes much clearer when one through a survey.
links the high usage frequency of these brands to The survey used a two-point (yes/no) scale to
the attitudinal-level beliefs of customers. measure if respondents felt that a given brand had
However, despite demonstrating a strong link each of the 30 attributes. Unfortunately, this type
between consumer behavior and attitudes through of scale cannot accurately capture the degree of
the example of niche brands, we are still confidence in the response. In future, a seven-
confounded by the unusual usage figures for Crest point Likert-type scale should be used to provide
Tartar. This niche brand shows a lower usage richer data for better understanding of the
frequency than is predicted by the w(1-b) model attitude-behavior relationship.
(3.99 vs 5.70 as shown in Table IV). However, it is In conclusion, our research may be seen as a
interesting to note that for the purely attitudinal starting point in exploring DJ effects at the
measures, Crest Tartar performs much better than attitudinal level. Further support for our work
the predicted frequency (4.30 vs 3.46 as shown in across other product categories and different
Table III). Brand managers for Crest Tartar would markets should make marketers think about the
do well to increase the usage frequency of their possible causes for the deviations from the DJ
brand commensurate with its attitudinal strength. effect at the behavioral level vis-à-vis the attitudinal
level. Understanding these deviations could lead to
valuable insights into consumer attitude and
behavior, and various marketing input variables
Future research and limitations that influence consumer attitude leading to
desirable consumer behavior.
We have developed measures of attitudinal
penetration and attitudinal frequency based on a
psychological theory of memory and cognition. We
have also demonstrated, for two product Notes
categories, that the DJ effect is more predominant
when we use attitudinal level measures, compared 1 Specifically, the price of a given brand and the price,
to behavioral measures. In the process, we also advertising, and promotions of competing brands will
influence deviation from double jeopardy at the behavioral
showed how attitudinal measures provide
level. In general, we expect the pricing cues to cause more
interesting insights with regard to strengths and deviations from DJ at the behavioral level as compared to
weaknesses of individual brands (e.g. niche advertising cues which can affect both behavior as well as
brands). attitude.
However, our study has several limitations. In 2 Furthermore, it must be mentioned that in keeping with
the survey, behavioral measures for both earlier research (Ratcliff et al., 1990), we do not expect a
penetration and frequency were based on the positive-list strength effect for our “yes/no”-type
responses. That is, we do not expect strengthening one
respondents’ recall of their purchase history, and trace to harm the memory of other traces, because of the
hence may not be completely accurate. For “yes/no” nature of the questions. In addition, conditions
example, a respondent may accurately recall the that might generate the positive-list strength effect
attributes they recognize about different brands, (Murnane and Shiffrin, 1991) are absent for low-
but not as accurately the number of purchases of involvement brand communication.
that brand in a year. However, as stated earlier, free 3 The coexistence of strength hypothesis (for a repeated
attribute) and multiple-trace hypotheses (for distinct
recall measures used in the survey questionnaire
attributes) in no way contradicts the research of Hintzman
overcome the possible demerits of this and Block (1971). These authors had explicitly stated that
shortcoming (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990). it is not mandatory for the two hypotheses to be mutually
Future studies should try to collect purchase data exclusive.
188
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

4 An alternative approach to measure brand liking is to use Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1987), “New brands and the existing
actual attitudinal measures of brand liking instead of market”, CMaC working paper, London Business School,
attitudinal frequency. However, given our data limitations, London.
we were unable to explore this measure. We propose this Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (2002), “Double jeopardy revisited, again”,
as a possible future extension of our work. Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 40-2.
5 Again, past theoretical support is given by studies such as Ehrenberg, A.S.C. and Goodhardt, G.J. (1979), Understanding
those undertaken by Hintzman and Block (1971) and Buyer Behavior, J. Walter Thompson and MRCA,
Anderson and Bower (1972), who define frequency as the New York, NY.
number of memory traces contacted. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Goodhardt, G.J. and Barwise, P.B. (1990),
6 The w(12 b) model outlines the relationship between the “Double jeopardy revisited”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54,
penetration bx and frequency of usage wx for brand X with July, pp. 82-91.
the corresponding values of by and wy of brand Y. The full Fader, P.S. and Schmittlein, D.C. (1993), “Excess behavioral
form of the model is wx(12bx) ¼ wy(12by)¼ wo where loyalty for high share brands: deviations from the Dirichlet
wo (a constant) is the estimated average value of w(12 b) model for repeat purchasing”, Journal of Marketing
across all brands in the category. Research, Vol. 30, November, pp. 478-93.
7 A niche brand caters to a distinct segment of the market Fazio, R. and Zanna, M. (1981), “Direct experience and attitude-
(or market niche) with a distinct set of needs. Customers in
behavior consistency”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
a market niche are willing to pay a premium for a brand
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 14, Academic Press,
specially designed for them.
New York, NY, pp. 162-202.
Harris, G., Begg, I. and Mitterer, J. (1980), “On the relation
between frequency estimates and recognition memory”,
Memory and Cognition, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 99-104.
Hasher, L. and Zacks, R. (1979), “Automatic and effortful
References processes in memory”, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, Vol. 108, September, pp. 356-88.
Alba, J.W. and Marmorstein, H. (1987), “Frequency information
Hasher, L. and Zacks, R. (1984), “Automatic processing of
as a dimension of consumer knowledge”, Journal of
fundamental information”, American Psychologist, Vol. 39,
Consumer Research, Vol. 14, June, pp. 14-25.
pp. 1372-88.
Anderson, J.R. and Bower, G.H. (1972), “Recognition and
Hintzman, D.L. (1984), “MINERVA 2: a simulation model of
retrieval processes in free recall”, Psychological Review,
human memory”, Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 79, pp. 97-123.
Instruments and Computers, Vol. 16, pp. 96-101.
Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1990), “Robust measures
Hintzman, D.L. (1986), “‘Schema abstraction’ in a multiple trace
of consumer brand beliefs”, Journal of Marketing
memory model”, Psychological Review, Vol. 93 No. 4,
Research, Vol. 27, pp. 477-84.
Barwise, T.P. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1985), “Consumer beliefs pp. 411-28.
and brand usage”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Hintzman, D.L. and Block, R.A. (1971), “Repetition and memory:
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-49. evidence for a multiple-trace hypothesis”, Journal of
Barwise, T.P. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1987), “The liking and Experimental Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 297-306.
viewing of regular TV programs”, Journal of Consumer Hofmeyr, J. and Bennett, R. (1994), “Double jeopardy and
Research, Vol. 14, June, pp. 63-70. consumer commitment”, Canadian Journal of Marketing
Barwise, T.P. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1988), Television and its Research, Vol. 13, pp. 12-20.
Audience, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA and London. Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U. and Morrison, D.G. (1988), “Niching
Bettman, J. and Park, W. (1980), “Effects of prior knowledge and versus change-of-pace brands: using purchase frequencies
phase of the choice process on consumer decision process: and penetration rates to infer brand positionings”, Journal
a protocol analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, November, pp. 384-90.
December, pp. 234-48. McPhee, W.N. (1963), Formal Theories of Mass Behavior,
Borgida, E. and Campbell, B. (1982), “Belief relevance and Free Press, New York, NY.
attitude-behavior consistency: the moderating role of Maslow, A.H. (1937), “The influence of familiarization on
personal experience”, Journal of Personality and Social preference”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 21,
Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 239-47. pp. 162-80.
Bornstein, R.F. (1989), “Exposure and affect: overview and meta- Murnane, K. and Shiffrin, R.M. (1991), “Word repetitions in
analysis of research, 1968-1987”, Psychological Bulletin, sentence recognition”, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 19
Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 265-89. No. 2, pp. 119-30.
Bower, G.H. (1967), “A multi-component theory of the memory Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1984), “The effects of involvement on
trace”, in Spence, K.W. and Taylor Spence, J. (Eds), responses to argument quantity and quality: central and
Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 1, Academic peripheral routes to persuasion”, Journal of Personality
Press, New York, NY. and Social Psychology, Vol. 46, January, pp. 69-81.
Chaudhuri, A. (1995), “Brand equity or double jeopardy?”, Ratcliff, R., Clark, S.E. and Shiffrin, R.M. (1990), “The list
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, strength effect: I. Data and discussion”, Journal of
pp. 26-32. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Dall’Olmo Riley, F., Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Castleberry, S.B., Barwise, Cognition, Vol. 16, pp. 163-78.
T.P. and Barnard, N.R. (1997), “The variability of attitudinal Rindfleisch, A. and Inman, J.J. (1998), “Explaining the familiarity-
repeat-rates”, International Journal of Research in liking relationship: mere exposure, information availability,
Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 437-50. or social desirability?”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 9 No. 1,
Donthu, N. (1994), “Double jeopardy in television program pp. 1-15.
choice”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Russo, J. and Dosher, B. (1983), “Strategies for multi-attribute
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 180-5. binary choice”, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
189
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 9, October, behaviour emerging from statistical analysis or
pp. 676-96. whether the effect reflects psychological factors at
Sample, J. and Warland, R. (1973), “Attitude and prediction of the level of the individual consumer. What
behavior”, Social Forces, Vol. 51, pp. 292-304.
Bandyopadhyay and Gupta do is to look at
Schwartz, S. (1978), “Temporal instability as a moderator of the
attitude-behavior relationship”, Journal of Personality and consumer behaviour and consumer attitudes to
Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 715-24. assess whether the “double jeopardy” effect
Shiffrin, R.M., Ratcliff, R. and Clark, S. (1990), “The list-strength derives from the manner in which consumers
effect: II. Theoretical mechanisms”, Journal of absorb, assess and store information about brands.
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and In making this assessment the authors recognise
Cognition, Vol. 16, pp. 179-95. that debate continues as to the way in which
Snyder, M. and Kendzierski, D. (1982), “Acting on one’s attitude:
procedures for linking attitude and behavior”, Journal of
individuals store memories and information.
Experimental Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 165-83. Clearly, this debate is important to marketers since
Stang, D.J. and O’Connell, E.J. (1974), “The computer as it helps to determine the manner in which we
experimenter in social psychology research”, Behavior present our message. Nevertheless, research does
Research Methods and Instrumentation, Vol. 6, pp. 223-31. show that the normal assumptions about
Thorndike, E.L. and Lorge, I. (1944), The Teacher’s Word Book of promotional actions are robust – repetition does
30,000 Words, Teachers College, Columbia University,
increase awareness and stimulates positive
New York, NY.
Zajonc, R.B. (1968), “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure”, attitudes to the brand, consumers store repeated
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, exposures to a given brand attribute as well as
Vol. 9, pp. 1-27. information about different attributes associated
Zajonc, R.B., Shaver, P., Tavris, C. and Van Kreveld, D. (1972), with a particular brand.
“Exposure, satiation, and stimulus discriminability”, The question that the authors ask here is,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 21, accepting the limitations of current research in
pp. 270-80.
consumer psychology, whether the “double
jeopardy” effect shows more strongly at the
attitudinal level that at the behavioural level. If this
Further reading is the case, then marketers can be confident that
the effect derives from the consumer’s memory
Hawkins, S.A. and Hoch, S.J. (1992), “Low involvement learning: and psyche rather than being a statistical quirk. At
memory without evaluation”, Journal of Consumer the same time we can also begin to examine ways in
Research, Vol. 19, September, pp. 212-25. which our strategies might change in response to
the “double jeopardy” effect.

Bigger brands get more attention from the consumer


Brand managers have often thought and talked
Executive summary about “share of mind” when they consider the
individual consumer. This piece of “cod”
This executive summary has been provided to allow
psychology helps practitioners to appreciate that,
managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the
while we tend to look at markets and market
content of this article. Those with a particular interest
segmentation in the aggregate this must be
in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to
constructed from a series of individual consumer
take advantage of the more comprehensive description
behaviours and attitudes. Bigger brands, by
of the research undertaken and its results to get the full
securing a larger share of mind, get more attention
benefit of the material present.
than smaller brands. Thus the consumer of the
smaller brand is more likely to recall positive
attitudes associated with the larger brand. But the
Double jeopardy – it is all in the consumer’s consumer of a market leading brand, where the
mind same situation exists, is less likely to recall positive
The “double jeopardy” effect (where brands with a attributes associated with the smaller brand. The
greater market share not only have more customers small brand user is therefore more likely to switch
but these customers are more loyal to the brand) to a larger brand than vice versa.
presents a challenge to marketers. Once we have The result of this psychological situation is,
got over our initial depression about the effect, we when consumer actions are aggregated, that larger
need to consider how to develop strategies that brands not only have more consumers but those
respond to our brand’s market position, market consumers are less likely to switch. The double
share and performance. jeopardy effect results from larger brands having a
At the theoretical level it is also important that greater number of stored “traces” of positive
we begin to understand whether the “double attributes and, at the same time, a greater range of
jeopardy” effect is a function of aggregate positive attributes. The strength of bigger brands
190
Comparing double jeopardy effects Journal of Product & Brand Management
Subir Bandyopadhyay and Kunal Gupta Volume 13 · Number 3 · 2004 · 180-191

lies in the ubiquity of the brand message rather messages require heavy media spend which further
than in market share per se. underlines the advantages enjoyed by bigger
brands.
Strategies to gain share of mind To succeed therefore, marketers of smaller
If it was that case that “share of mind” derived
brands need to concentrate their investment. Two
from the number of different attributes associated
routes open up – focusing on a given region or
with a given brand then it is unlikely that the
looking at a particular niche market. In the latter
“double jeopardy” effect would be so prevalent. In
most consumer goods markets there are a number case there is plenty of evidence (support by the
of brands each having a set of positive attributes authors here) that identifying a niche market
that may be stored by consumers. What the protects smaller brands from larger brands. The
“double jeopardy” effect suggests is that the mind niche only appeals to a limited group of consumers
stores the same information as many times as that so it is possible that the smaller brand can achieve a
information is received. leading position within the minds of this
In making a brand choice we draw on the deliberately limited selection of consumers.
information about the different brands and, since Regional focus does not often arise in thinking
we have more pieces of data about one brand about brand strategies especially in a world where
compared to another, we are more likely to recall a things are seen as “global” and some media (e.g.
positive attribute about that brand. The challenge the Internet) do not have recognised boundaries.
for the marketer is to place the brand in the Nevertheless, most brand messages are received on
situation where the consumer’s mind is more likely a very local basis through broadcast and printed
to recall a positive attribute for our brand media and through point-of-sale promotion,
compared to one for a competing brand. packaging and merchandising. Perhaps a
This leads us to develop strategies based on concentrated focus on a given geographical market
repetition of the message across time and the full could provide a strong basis for a brand to achieve
range of communications media. And this message a stronger position without having to find similar
needs to focus on a small number of positive levels of promotional spend as the big international
attributes – it seems not to matter as much about brands.
the range of positives but about the number of
times any positive message reaches the consumer. (A précis of the article “Comparing double jeopardy
This situation reinforces the difficulty faced by effects at the behavioral and attitudinal levels”.
smaller brands with smaller budgets – repeated Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

191