Marketing Letters 14:3, 143–157, 2003

 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Creating Meaningful Brands: The Relationship

Between Brand Name and Brand Mark
RICHARD R. KLINK rklink@loyola.edu
The Joseph A. Sellinger, S.J. School of Business and Management, Loyola College in Maryland,
4501 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21210-2699, USA

Abstract

Marketing theorists espouse that the long-term success of a brand is contingent upon the proper selection and
operationalization of brand meaning prior to market entry. Nevertheless, prior research has not addressed how to
design multiple branding elements that together can convey consistent brand meaning. Results of the first study
support a relationship between structural characteristics of the brand name (e.g., front vs. back vowels) and the
brand mark’s size, shape, and color. The second study found that brands with marks that are consistent in design
with the brand name better communicate intended brand meaning. An important implication is that a properly
operationalized brand may require fewer marketing expenditures to create brand image.

Keywords: brand names, brand marks, sound symbolism

Brands can be among a company’s most valuable assets. In their classic paper, Gardner
and Levy (1955) contend that the long term success of a brand is contingent upon the
proper selection and operationalization of brand meaning prior to market entry. Brand
meaning can be conveyed by both brand name (Keller et al., 1998; Robertson, 1989) and
brand mark (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Robertson, 1989; Vartorella, 1990). However, no
research to date has looked at how to create branding elements that together communi-
cate consistent brand meaning. Failure to convey consistent information about the brand
can pose a number of significant problems including: (1) future information or associa-
tions about the brand may be perceived as weaker and possibly less favorable; (2) con-
sumers’ existing brand associations may be more easily changed by competitive actions;
and (3) consumers will be more likely to discount or overlook some potentially relevant
brand associations in decision-making (Keller, 1993).
The purpose of this paper is to examine how to convey consistent brand meaning through
design characteristics of the brand name and brand mark. Specifically, this paper will in-
vestigate the relationship between structural characteristics of the brand name (e.g., front
vowels vs. back vowels), and characteristics of the brand mark (e.g., shape and color).
Support for these relationships will draw primarily from the literature on sound symbolism
and synaesthesia. Sound symbolism is defined as “the direct linkage between sound and
meaning” (Hinton et al., 1994). To illustrate, the popular press contends that the Prozac
brand name communicates efficacy through the letter z (Erlich, 1995). Synaesthesia refers
144 KLINK

to “when stimulation of one sensory modality automatically triggers a perception in a sec-

ond modality, in the absence of any direct stimulation to this second modality” (Harrison
and Baron-Cohen, 1997, p. 3). For example, a color might automatically and instantly
trigger the perception of sound, or vice versa.
In terms of the organization of this paper, I begin with a discussion on the guidelines for
creating effective brand names and brand marks. These guidelines espouse that both the
name and the mark should convey meaning. Furthermore, brand name sounds can convey
shapes, colors, shades, and sizes. To the extent that the name and mark are coordinated,
one would expect that the influence on perceptions of meaning would be synergistic (i.e.,
more than additive). To illustrate this idea, Study 1 examines the relationship between
brand name and brand mark characteristics. Study 2 examines whether the consistency
in design between the name and the mark can enhance intended brand meaning. The final
section of the paper discusses the results and limitations of the studies, suggests managerial
implications, and proposes directions for future research.

1. Background

A brand can be defined as “the name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of
them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to
differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kotler, 1991, p. 442). Often considered the
centerpiece for introductory marketing campaigns (Keller et al., 1998), the brand name is
typically chosen before selecting visual elements to represent the brand – i.e., brand mark.
As such, I begin with a discussion of guidelines for creating effective brand names with a
focus on the meaning inscribed in brand names.

1.1. Guidelines for Creating an Effective Brand Name

Marketing scholars have identified certain desirable properties of effective new brand
names – e.g., distinctiveness, easily recalled, easily pronounced, etc. (Robertson, 1989).
Marketers also commonly espouse that the brand name should be meaningful or sugges-
tive – i.e., the name should convey relevant information about product features or bene-
fits (Keller et al., 1998; Pavia and Costa, 1993).
Meaning can be ascribed to a brand in two ways (Klink, 2001). First, marketers can
impute semantic meaning by imbedding entire words (e.g., “craft” in Craftmatic) or mor-
phemes (i.e., fragments of words like ‘accu’ in Accutron) in the brand name. While pop-
ular, imbedding words and morphemes has several drawbacks. First, use of words and
morphemes may compromise the distinctiveness of the name. Some product categories are
characterized by countless brands of similar sounding names (e.g., Netscape, Netguide,
Profnet, Netcom, UUNet, etc.). Further, securing trademark protection is considerably
more difficult for brand names that contain descriptive terms (Cohen, 1986). Simply put,
brand names with descriptive terms are less distinctive and accordingly have less protec-
tion from trademark infringement. Finally, the ability to derive meaning from semantic
imbeds in a brand name is dependent upon consumers’ language abilities. It is unlikely,
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 145

for instance, that individuals unfamiliar with English would derive semantic meaning from
the brand name ChapStick. This issue is particularly pertinent for brands competing in
international markets.
Given these limitations, marketers may imbed meaning in a brand name through sound
symbolism. As mentioned, sound symbolism directly links sound and meaning (Hinton
et al., 1994). The concept of linking sound with meaning can be traced back to an-
cient Greek philosophy. In the dialogue Cratylus, for instance, Plato offers that “the
letter r appears to me to be the general instrument expressing all motion” (p. 460).
Sound symbolism research has been performed on languages from around the world –
e.g., French (Peterfalvi, 1970), Japanese (Hamano, 1986), African languages (Samarin,
1967), and American Indian (Nichols, 1971). Evidence suggests that sound symbol-
ism cuts across languages. For instance, Ultan (1978) reports that in almost 90% of
the languages sampled, words representing diminutive form are similar in their vowel
sounds.
In terms of marketing-related research, Heath et al. (1990) found that, as consonant
hardness and vowel frequency increased in fictitious brand names for toilet paper and
household cleansers, consumer perception of the harshness of the product also increased.
Klink (2000) found that brand names containing relatively higher frequency sounds com-
municate a number of product-related messages – e.g., smaller size, lighter color, lighter
weight, milder, thinner, weaker, softer, faster, colder, prettier, more bitter, friendlier, and
more feminine.

1.2. Guidelines for Creating an Effective Brand Mark

While receiving relatively less research attention, the brand mark is also an important ele-
ment of the brand. Brand marks are considered a critical in-store recognition aid, speeding
selection of the preferred product (Morrow, 1992). Aside from the product package, they
can appear on television, print advertisements, letterhead, business cards, signs, annual
reports, and even product designs (e.g., Oreo cookies) (Henderson and Cote, 1998). Fur-
thermore, the fastest-growing segment in advertising is corporate giveaways (e.g., t-shirts,
coffee mugs, pens, etc.) that often carry nothing more than the company logo (Hayes,
1995).
In terms of existing guidelines for brand mark development, the literature espouses that
an effective brand mark should be recognizable, familiar, evoke positive affect, and elicit
meaning (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Cohen, 1986; Robertson, 1989; Vartorella, 1990). In
terms of meaning, prior work suggests that if the brand mark has a clear meaning it can
be linked more easily to the company or product (Henderson and Cote, 1998; Durgee and
Stuart, 1987). Janiszewski and Meyvis (2001) offer that stimuli that are meaningful (such
as brand marks) are more likely to enhance “conceptual fluency” – i.e., “when exposure to
a stimulus creates meaning-based representation of a stimulus that facilitates encoding and
processing of the stimulus at a later time” (p. 20).
146 KLINK

2. Theory and Hypotheses

Common to both sets of guidelines is the importance of communicating meaning. How-

ever, little is known about how to relate the brand name and brand mark to communicate
consistent brand meaning. Several visual properties of brand marks are identified below
that may be related to the meaning inherent in brand names.

2.1. Color and Shade

Color is perhaps one of the most widely used visual elements in product and brand identity,
as it appears in advertising, packaging, distribution, and even on the product itself to illicit
positive feelings or communicate intended meaning. Regarding meaning, for example, the
use of gold on beverage packaging communicates caffeine-free to many consumers. In
terms of evoking feelings, the fashion industry frequently witnesses changes in dominant
colors, particularly with season changes (Gimba, 1998).
While these changes imply shifts in consumer tastes, the meaning conveyed by colors
may transcend tastes, industries, and cultures. The English philosopher and political theo-
rist, John Locke was perhaps the first to recognize colored-hearing synaesthesia:
A studious blind man who had mightily beat his head about a visible object, and
made use of the explanations of his books and friends, to understand those names of
light and colors, which often came his way, brayed one day, that he now understood
what scarlet signified. Upon which, his friend demanded what scarlet was? The
blind man answered, it was like the sound of a trumpet. (1690, p. 4)
Subsequent research supports that higher frequency sounds are associated more with
lighter colors and also lighter shades of the same color (Chastaing, 1958; Fónagy, 1963:
Gombrich, 1961; Grammont, 1913; Newman, 1933; Marks, 1997; Jacobson and Waugh,
1987). In terms of marketing-related research, Klink (2000) found that products containing
brand names with higher frequency sounds are perceived as lighter in terms of color.
One can create brand names of higher frequency through selection of certain vowels and
consonants. Concerning vowels, the letters i and e generally produce front vowel sounds
that are of a higher frequency than the back vowel sounds typically produced by the letters
o and u (MacKay, 1978).1
The letter a produces sounds more toward the middle on the front/back vowel contin-
uum. With respect to consonants, fricatives (i.e., the letters f , s, v, and z) produce higher
frequency sounds than stops (p, t, b, g, d, and k or hard c) (Ladefoged, 1975).2
Taken together, this suggests:
H1a: Brand names containing front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, will be associated
more closely with brand marks of lighter color.
H1b: Brand names containing fricatives, as opposed to stops, will be associated more
closely with brand marks of lighter color.
H2a: Brand names containing front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, will be associated
more closely with brand marks of lighter shades of the same color.
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 147

H2b: Brand names containing fricatives, as opposed to stops, will be associated more
closely with brand marks of lighter shades of the same color.

2.2. Shape

In addition to color and shade, shape is also a critical design property of brand marks (Hen-
derson and Cote, 1998). Sound symbolism suggests that higher frequency sounds
may be associated more closely with “less-rounded” (or straighter) lines and angular
shapes (Davis, 1961; Köhler, 1947). As such, one expects:
H3a: Brand names containing front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, will be associated
more closely with more angular-shaped brand marks.
H3b: Brand names containing fricatives, as opposed to stops, will be associated more
closely with more angular-shaped brand marks.

2.3. Size

Marketers also vary the prominence or size of the brand mark displayed on the commu-
nication medium or space. For example, the Nike “swoosh” is frequently displayed larger
on apparel or billboards than other brand marks for apparel such as the Ralph Lauren Polo
brand mark. One might expect that the size of a displayed brand mark may communicate
information about the brand.
In terms of sound symbolism, research suggests that words from many languages which
convey “smallness” tend to have a disproportionate number of vowels and/or consonants
of a higher frequency (Ohala, 1984). With respect to marketing-related research, products
containing brand names of a higher frequency are associated more with “smallness” (Klink,
2000). This suggests:
H4a: Brand names containing front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, will be associated
more closely with smaller displayed brand marks.
H4b: Brand names containing fricatives, as opposed to stops, will be associated more
closely with smaller displayed brand marks.

3. Study 1

3.1. Procedure

Subjects were 134 undergraduate business students from a Mid-Atlantic university and
averaged 19.7 years of age. Before receiving a survey booklet, a greeter told subjects that
a research firm was interested in gathering their reactions to some potential brand names
and brand marks (or logos) that a pharmaceutical company and internet-service provider
are considering for their various products and services. These product categories were
primarily selected because they have witnessed a number of new brand introductions (e.g.,
148 KLINK

Claritan or Erols) over the last several years and that these introductions have included
non-semantic or “non-dictionary” names.
The first page of the survey booklet oriented subjects to the task and informed subjects
of the product categories of interest. On each of the next 4 pages of the booklet appeared
pairs of hypothetical brand names and associated pairs of hypothetical brand marks. While
the brand names varied in terms of vowels and consonants, the brand marks varied in color,
shade, size, and shape. The procedure involved a “matching” task. That is, for a given pair
of brand names and brand marks, subjects were asked to write underneath the brand mark
the brand name that is better suited for the respective brand mark. Such a methodological
procedure is similar to prior work (e.g., Davis, 1961). The procedure took approximately
10–12 minutes.

3.2. Stimuli

Each of the 8 hypotheses was tested with 4 different brand name-pairs. Also, the order in
which the brand names appeared in the brand name-pair was altered, resulting in 8 versions
of the survey booklet. While each subject evaluated 8 name-pairs, 32 name-pairs were
needed. As in prior research, names in a given pair were created to be identical except for
the vowels or consonants being contrasted. With respect to vowel sounds, the letters i and e
were contrasted with o and u to produce a total of 4 contrasts – i.e., i vs. o, i vs. u, e vs. o,
and e vs. u. As mentioned, the letters i and e produce sounds that are considered toward
the front on the front/back continuum, while o and u produce sounds considered toward
the back on this continuum (MacKay, 1978). To compare fricatives with stops, f and v
were contrasted with g and k.
The names were created in the form of either one or two syllables. For two syllable
names, the contrast letters appeared in the first syllable. The names were pre-tested on a
different set of subjects to eliminate any names that consistently reminded subjects of real
words or existing brand names. The final set of name-pairs is given in Table 1.
It should be noted that studies on sound symbolism have presented subjects word-pairs to
evaluate both orally and visually (Marks, 1997). This study presented name-pairs visually
mainly because it is quite feasible that the consumer may never hear a brand name during
the consumption process. That is, there is an absence of broadcast advertisement and word-
of-mouth influence. On the other hand, the consumer will likely encounter the brand name,
at a minimum, visually on the product package. Also, a speaker may bias subjects in his or
her pronunciation by altering intonation or volume. While mechanization exists to control
for these variations, such control may restrict the natural variation that occurs with different
sounds. Finally, deviations also occur in the pronunciation of words, including well-known
brand names – e.g., Nike is commonly pronounced as either a one or two syllable word.
These natural deviations would be constrained in a study with orally presented stimuli.
Regarding the brand marks, 8 different pairs were needed. All of the brand marks con-
sisted of overlapping geometric shapes that varied according to the hypothesis of interest.
Specifically, to test H1a and H1b, the brand marks were geometric shapes with the only
difference within a pair being the color contained within the shape – i.e., red and blue
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 149

Table 1. Stimuli, Results and Analysis for Study 1

Hypo- Brand mark paira Name Name Name Name Subjects matching Z-value p-value Effect
thesis pair 1 pair 2 pair 3 pair 4 brand name with (1-tailed)c sized
brand mark
as hypothesizedb

H1a Color (yellow/blue) Renep Menom Rinder Nidax 65.7% 3.821 0.000 0.157
Runep Monom Runder Nodax
H1b Color (yellow/red) Fobal Fovem Vanup Velim 62.7% 3.037 0.001 0.127
Kobal Govem Kanup Gelim
H2a Shade (light/dark blue) Ecker Detil Fipple Inik 53.0% 0.692 0.245 NA
Ucker Dotil Fupple Onik
H2b Shade (light/dark yellow) Folb Fuxir Velix Valp 54.5% 1.041 0.149 NA
Kolb Guxir Kelix Galp
H3a Shape (circles/squares) Detal Geleve Lipush Kifave 73.1% 6.042 0.000 0.231
Dutal Goleve Lupush Kofave
H3b Shape (ellipses/rectangles) Fazz Folaw Vitav Volud 56.0% 1.392 0.082 NA
Kazz Golaw Kitav Golud
H4a Size (small/large) Esab Teyag Flimut Gidan 73.1% 6.042 0.000 0.231
Usab Toyag Flumet Godan
H4b Size (small/large) Furlay Fupay Velom Vetib 61.9% 2.847 0.007 0.119
Kurlay Gupay Kelom Getib
a Contrasts indicated in parentheses.
b Each number listed in this column is out of a possible 134.
c p-value obtained from corresponding Z-value.
d As per Cohen (1988), the effect size index (g) is the absolute value of the difference between the percentage of
interest and the null (50%). Expressed as decimals, g-values that are between 0.05 and 0.149 are considered
“small,” between 0.15 and 0.249 are considered “medium,” and greater than 0.249 are considered “large.”

(dark) were contrasted with yellow (light). For H2a and H2b, the difference within pairs
was lighter vs. darker blue and also lighter vs. darker yellow. To examine H3a and H3b,
the more angular brand marks consisted of overlapping squares and overlapping rectangles,
while the less angular (or more rounded) brand marks consisted of overlapping circles and
overlapping ellipses. For H4a and H4b, the only difference within a pair was the displayed
size.

3.3. Results

For each question, data was aggregated across the four word-pairs and then analyzed with
a binomial test based on the Z-approximation. Table 1 summarizes results of this study.

3.3.1. Color and shade As reported in Table 1, both H1a and H1b received support.
In short, brand names with front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, and brand names
containing fricatives, as opposed to stops, are more closely related to lighter colored brand
marks. Regarding shade, H2a and H2b are not supported.
150 KLINK

3.3.2. Shape As shown in Table 1, support is found for H3a. The results suggest that
brand names containing front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, and brand names con-
taining fricatives, as opposed to stops, are associated more with angular brand marks. With
respect to H3b, the results were in the hypothesized direction and approaching significance.

3.3.3. Size Table 1 reveals that both H4a and H4b are supported. Brand names con-
taining front vowels, as opposed to back vowels, and brand names containing fricatives, as
opposed to stops, are more closely related to smaller displayed brand marks.

4. Study 2

4.1. Research Issue

Study 1 supported theory relating brand name and brand mark design. Park et al. (1986)
offer that the relationship between marketing executions can affect intended brand mean-
ing. As mentioned, both the brand name and brand mark are known to communicate
information about the brand. To the extent that these elements are related to each other,
communication of the intended message is likely to be reinforced and hence facilitated.
Using related elements can have “synergistic” effects (Park and Zaltman, 1987) – i.e., the
influence of the branding elements on brand meaning can be more than additive.
To illustrate with brand creation, given the relationship between lower frequency sounds
and perceived darkness, a marketer might wish to position a new brand of beer as “dark,”
by incorporating back vowels into the brand name. Conveying this message (i.e., darkness)
may be further facilitated by using a mark that is consistent in design (e.g., in terms of color,
shape, and size) with the brand name. In short, Study 2 examines whether the consistency
in design between the name and the mark can indeed enhance intended brand meaning.

4.2. Design

Study 2 used a 2 × 2 design with the following between-subjects factors: (1) brand mark
(angular shape/light color/small size vs. rounded shape/dark color/large size) and (2) brand
name (front vowel vs. back vowel).

4.3. Procedure

Subjects were 82 graduate business students from a Mid-Atlantic university and averaged
29.0 years of age. Subjects for Study 2 did not participate in the first study. Before re-
ceiving a survey booklet, a greeter told subjects that a research firm was interested in
gathering their reactions to some potential new brands of dark beer. This product category
was selected because it frequently witnesses new introductions (e.g., microbrews) that of-
ten include non-semantic names (e.g., Zima). Furthermore, this category often competes
on the attribute of color – a characteristic that has been strongly linked with sound in the
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 151

sound symbolism literature. The first page of the survey booklet oriented subjects to the
task. On the next page, subjects read that “the following is a new brand of dark beer.”
The brand was then presented in the form of a brand name and brand mark. After viewing
the brand, subjects answered questions about the brand. The procedure took approximately
5 minutes.

4.4. Stimuli

For the brand name-pair, Detil/Dotil was used because stronger support has been found
for sound symbolism contrasting vowel sounds relative to consonant sounds (Klink, 2000).
Concerning the brand mark-pair, an overlapping ellipses/blue/larger displayed brand mark
was contrasted with an overlapping squares/yellow/smaller displayed brand mark. A pre-
test again insured that neither the names nor marks consistently reminded subjects of real
brands in the marketplace.

4.5. Measures

The perceived darkness of the brand was assessed with two 7-point items: (a) “How dark
do you perceive this brand of beer to be?” Not at all Dark = 1/Very Dark = 7 and (b) “How
light (in terms of color) do you perceive this brand of beer to be?” Not at all Light = 1/Very
Light = 7 (reverse coded). The 2 items had a correlation of 0.77 and were averaged into
a measure of darkness.
Prior research has found that lower frequency sounds are also related to other character-
istics that are consistent with the positioning of a dark beer – i.e., heaviness and strength
(of taste). To gain further insight on the information conveyed by the brands, “heaviness”
and “strength of taste” were assessed using 1-item measures (“How heavy do you perceive
this brand of beer to be?” Not at all Heavy = 1/Very Heavy = 7 and “How strong of a taste
do you believe this brand of beer would have?” Not at all Strong = 1/Very Strong = 7).
To gain insight into response on other variables of interest, affect toward the brand was
assessed (“Relative to other dark beers, how favorable do you feel toward this brand?” Not
at all Favorable = 1/Very Favorable = 7 and “Compared to other dark beers, how much
do you like this brand?” Not at all Likeable = 1/Very Likeable = 7). The 2 items had a
correlation of 0.86 and were averaged into a measure of brand liking.

4.6. Results

The mean values for the dependent measures are summarized in Table 2. Univariate tests
were conducted on the three dependent measures that assess brand perceptions – i.e., dark-
ness, heaviness, and strength of taste. As shown in Table 3, the main effects of brand
name and brand mark are significant for each of the 3 dependent variables. Regard-
ing the interactions, a significant effect of name x mark was found for strength of taste
152 KLINK

Table 2. Dependent Variable Means for Study 2

n Darkness Heaviness Strength Brand

of taste liking

Condition 1 21 3.45 3.29 3.67 2.86

Front vowel namea and
Angular/Light/Small Mark

Condition 2 21 3.76 3.57 3.71 2.64

Back vowel name and
Angular/Light/Small Mark

Condition 3 20 3.95 3.45 3.65 2.93

Front vowel name and
Rounded/Dark/Large Mark
Condition 4 20 5.20 4.85 5.00 3.73
Back vowel name and
Rounded/Dark/Large Mark
Average 4.08 3.78 3.96 3.03
Standard deviation 1.55 1.56 1.46 1.27
a Detil (Dotil) is the front (back) vowel brand name used in Study 2.

(F = 4.66, p = 0.039). While the effect of the interaction on darkness was not sig-
nificant (F = 2.196, p = 0.142), this effect was approaching significance for heaviness
(F = 3.008, p = 0.087).
To gain further insight on brand perceptions, the 3 dependent variables were averaged
into one composite dependent variable (coefficient alpha = 0.83). A factor analysis in-
volving the 3 dependent variables revealed only one factor. An ANOVA was run with the
composite measure as the dependent variable. As reported in Table 4, both main effects
of name and mark have a significant effect on the composite dependent variable. Further-
more, the name x mark interaction is also significant (F = 4.577, p = 0.036). In short,
the significant interaction effects found in Study 2 support that the consistency in design
between the name and the mark can enhance intended brand meaning.
To shed more light on the interaction effects, separate ANOVAs were run for each of the
4 simple main effects on the composite dependent variable: (1) within the “dark” brand
mark condition, brand name had a significant effect (F = 14.445, p = 0.001); (2) within
the “light” brand mark condition, brand name did not have a significant effect (F = 0.308,
p = 0.582); (3) within the back vowel brand name condition, brand mark had a significant
effect (F = 15.806, p < 0.001); and (4) within the front vowel brand name condition,
brand mark did not have a significant effect (F = 0.287, p = 0.595). In short, com-
parisons on the composite dependent variable from the 4 simple main effects tests can be
summarized as (a) condition 4 > condition 3, (b) condition 1 = condition 2, (c) condition
4 > condition 2, (d) condition 1 = condition 3. One possible explanation for these results
is that synergy is most likely to occur when all information about the brand is consistent –
i.e., from the brand mark, brand name, and supplementary information (recall that sub-
jects were told that the brand was a dark beer). Taken together, results of Study 2 support
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 153

Table 3. Univariate Tests for Study 2

Source Dependent variable Type III sum df Mean square F Sig.

of squares

Corrected model Heaviness 31.120a 3 10.373 4.906 0.004

Strength of taste 26.498b 3 8.833 4.735 0.004
Darkness 35.823c 3 11.947 5.788 0.004

Intercept Heaviness 1176.712 1 1176.712 556.505 0.000

Strength of taste 1316.298 1 1316.298 705.633 0.000
Darkness 1371.607 1 1371.607 664.869 0.000

NAME Heaviness 14.555 1 14.555 6.883 0.010

Strength of taste 10.005 1 10.005 5.363 0.023
Darkness 12.457 1 12.457 6.038 0.016

MARK Heaviness 10.663 1 10.663 5.043 0.028

Strength of taste 8.249 1 8.249 4.422 0.039
Darkness 19.192 1 19.192 9.303 0.003

NAME × MARK Heaviness 6.360 1 6.360 3.008 0.087

Strength of taste 8.688 1 8.688 4.657 0.034
Darkness 4.530 1 4.530 2.196 0.142

Error Heaviness 164.929 78 2.114

Strength of taste 145.502 78 1.865
Darkness 160.912 78 2.063
Total Heaviness 1368.000 82
Strength of taste 1484.000 82
Darkness 1561.250 82

Corrected total Heaviness 196.049 81

Strength of taste 172.000 81
Darkness 196.735 81
a R squared = 0.159 (adjusted R squared = 0.126).
b R squared = 0.154 (adjusted R squared = 0.122).
c R squared = 0.182 (adjusted R squared = 0.151).

Table 4. ANOVA (Composite Dependent Variablea ) for Study 2

Source Type III sum df Mean F Sig.

of squares square

Corrected model 30.553b 3 10.184 7.268 0.000

Intercept 1286.878 1 1286.878 918.393 0.000
NAME 12.268 1 12.268 8.755 0.004
MARK 12.293 1 12.293 8.773 0.004
NAME × MARK 6.414 1 6.414 4.577 0.036
Error 109.296 78 1.401
Total 1421.361 82
Corrected total 139.849 81
a The composite dependent variable is the average of perceived darkness, heaviness, and strength of taste.
b R squared = 0.218 (adjusted R squared = 0.188).
154 KLINK

that the consistency in design between the name and the mark can enhance intended brand
meaning.
Because prior research suggests that individuals respond more favorably to schematic
elements with a high degree of fit (Boush and Loken, 1991; Fiske, 1982), one might expect
that subjects would evaluate the brands in condition 4 more favorably. With respect to
brand liking, Table 2 reports results that are consistent with this expectation. With brand
liking as the dependent variable, an ANOVA using planned contrasts found significant
differences between condition 4 and (a) condition 1 (p = 0.025), (b) condition 2 (p =
0.006), and (c) condition 3 (p = 0.041).

5. Discussion

Creating an effective brand is a challenging endeavor, as evidenced by the consider-

able number of new brand names being introduced into an already crowded marketplace.
Adding to the challenge is the lack of research on brand name and brand mark development.
One marketer’s frustration with naming is captured in the following passage: “It’s hard to
name any product . . . branding decisions are still made by the seat of the pants” (WSJ,
1994). With respect to brand marks, little empirical research has tested the “various rules
of thumb propagated in the trade press” (Henderson and Cote, 1998). Furthermore, no
theory or research to date has addressed how to relate the brand name and brand mark to
convey consistent brand meaning.
Results of the first study conducted here confirm that the brand mark may be designed
to be inherently related to the brand name. Given that a fundamental goal of branding is
product identity, one important managerial implication is that fewer marketing expendi-
tures may be required for consumers to associate branding elements. Better association
between branding elements may lead to a more cohesive brand schema, which can serve
as a platform for future brand extensions (Boush and Loken, 1991).
Results of the second study confirm that the consistency in design between the brand
name and mark can help communicate intended brand meaning. One implication is that
fewer marketing expenditures may be needed to position the brand in consumers’ minds.
Another implication is that proper selection of branding elements – i.e., ones that are con-
sistent in design, – may facilitate product trial for a given brand. More specifically, prior
work contends that the information conveyed by a brand can facilitate trial by reducing
product risk or uncertainty (Smith and Park, 1992). Relative to a brand whose elements
send “mixed” or unrelated messages, a brand whose elements convey consistent (and rele-
vant) information should carry less uncertainty and hence facilitate trial.
Limitations of this study include the usual concerns regarding the use of students as sub-
jects. Some comfort in using student subjects comes from the goal of this paper – i.e., to
test theory relating brand names and marks. It should be noted that use of student subjects
for theory testing does appear appropriate (Calder et al., 1983). Another limitation is that
subjects made evaluations based on limited cues (i.e., name and mark). The impact of these
cues on evaluations may be diminished when other cues such as advertising become avail-
able (Peterson, 1970). Future research may wish to investigate whether the relationship
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 155

between brand mark and brand name is critical in the presence of additional marketing in-
formation. Directions for future research would include assessing which brand mark char-
acteristics are more or less critical to enhancing information conveyed by the brand name.
In addition to brand name sound, other brand name characteristics (e.g., such as number of
syllables, displayed font type and size) should be investigated in relation to the brand mark.
Finally, future research may wish to examine whether the congruence between branding
elements and other marketing program executions, such as shape of packages, color in
advertising, and sound of jingles and slogans, affects brand image.

Notes

1. The front/back vowel sound distinction refers to the general location of the tongue during pronunciation.
Vowel sounds where the highest point of the tongue is in the front of the mouth during pronunciation are
considered front vowels (e.g., “bin”). Back vowels, on the other hand, are those vowel sounds produced where
the highest point of the tongue is in the back of the mouth (e.g., “bun”).
2. Fricatives and stops differ in their manner of articulation – i.e., the degree to which the oral tract of the mouth is
closed off by articulators (teeth, tongue, and lips). Unlike fricatives, stops have complete closure of articulators
so that the airstream cannot escape the mouth during pronunciation.

References

Boush, David M. and Barbara Loken. (1991). “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 28(February), 16–28.
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout. (1983). “Beyond External Validity,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 10(1), 112–114.
Chastaing, M. (1958). “Le symbolisme des voyelles: significations des ‘I”, I & II, Journal de Psychologie, 55,
403–423, 461–481.
Cohen, Dorothy. (1986). “Trademark Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 50(January), 61–74.
Cohen, Jacob. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Davis, R. (1961). “The Fitness of Names to Drawings: A Cross-Cultural Study in Tanganyika,” British Journal
of Psychology, 52(3), 259–268.
Durgee, Jeffrey F. and Robert W. Stuart. (1987). “Advertising Symbols and Brand Names that Best Represent
Key Product Meanings,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4(Summer), 16–23.
Erlich, Julie. (1995). “Giving Drugs a Good Name,” The New York Times Magazine, (September 3), 36–37.
Fiske, Susan T. (1982). “Schema-Triggered Affect: Applications to Social Perception.” In Margarest S. Clark and
Susan T. Fiske (eds.), Affect and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 171–190.
Fónagy, I. (1963). Die Metaphern in der Phonetik. The Hague.
Gardner, Burleigh B. and Sidney J. Levy. (1955). “The Product and the Brand,” Harvard Business Review,
33(March–April) 33–39.
Gimba, J. Greg. (1998). “Color in Marketing: Shades of Meaning,” Marketing News, (March 16), 6.
Grammont, M. (1913). Le vers francais: ses moyens d’expression, son harmonie. Paris.
Hamano, Shoko. (1986). “The Sound-Symbolic System of Japanese.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
Harrison, John and Simon Baron-Cohen. (1997). “Synaesthesia: An Introduction.” In Simon Baron-Cohen and
John E. Harrison (eds.), Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub-
lishers, Inc.
Hayes, John R. (1995). “As Long as It’s Free . . . ,” Forbes, 155(January 30), 72–73.
156 KLINK

Heath, Timothy B., Subimal Chatterjee, and Karen Russo France. (1990). “Using the Phonemes of Brand Names
to Symbolize Brand Attributes.” In William Bearden and A. Parasuraman (eds.), The AMA Educators’ Pro-
ceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Henderson, Pamela J. and Joseph A. Cote. (1998). “Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos,” Journal of
Marketing, 62(April), 14–30.
Hinton, Leanne, Hohanna Nichols, and John Ohala. (1994). “Introduction: Sound Symbolic Processes.” In L. Hin-
ton, H. Nichols, and J. Ohala (eds.), Sound Symbolism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobson, Roman and Linda R. Waugh. (1987). The Sound Shape of Language, 2nd edition. New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Janiszewski, Chris and Tom Meyvis. (2001). “Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition and Spacing on
Processing Fluency and Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 18–32.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal
of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.
Keller, Kevin Lane, Susan E. Heckler, and Michael J. Houston. (1998). “The Effects of Brand Name Suggestive-
ness on Advertising Recall,” Journal of Marketing, 62(January), 48–57.
Klink, Richard R. (2000). “Creating Brand Names with Meaning: The Use of Sound Symbolism,” Marketing
Letters, 11(1), 5–20.
Klink, Richard R. (2001), “Creating Meaningful New Brand Names: A Comparison of Semantic and Sound
Symbolism Imbeds,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, (Spring), 27–34.
Köhler, Wolfgang. (1947). Gestalt Psychology: An Introduction to New Concepts in Modern Psychology. New
York: Liverlight Publishing Corp.
Kotler, Philip H. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control, 7th edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ladefoged, Peter. (1975). A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Locke, John. (1690). An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, Vol. III. London: Basset.
MacKay, Ian R. A. (1978). Introducing Practical Phonetics. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., Inc.
Marks, Lawrence E. (1997). “On Colored-Hearing Synesthesia: Cross-Modal Translations of Sensory Dimen-
sions.” In Simon Baron-Cohen and John E. Harrison (eds.), Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Read-
ings. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Morrow, David J. (1992). “An Image Makeover,” International Business, 5(3), 66–68.
Newman, Stanley S. (1933). “Further Experiments in Phonetic Symbolism,” American Journal of Psychology,
45, 53–75.
Nichols, J. (1971). “Diminutive Consonant Symbolism in Western North America,” Language, 47, 826–848.
Ohala, John. (1984). “An Ethological Perspective on Common Cross-Language Utilization of FO of Voice,”
Phonetica, 41, 1–16.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah MacInnis. (1986). “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Manage-
ment,” Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 135–145.
Park, C. Whan and Gerald Zaltman. (1987). Marketing Management. Chicago: The Dryden Press, Inc.
Pavia, Teresa and Janeen Arnold Costa. (1993). “The Winning Number: Consumer Perceptions of Alpha-Numeric
Brand Names,” Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 85–98.
Peterfalvi, J. M. (1970). “Recherches expérimentales sur le symbolisme phonétique,” American Journal of Psy-
chology, 65, 439–473.
Peterson, Robert A. (1970). “The Price-Perceived Quality Relationship: Experimental Evidence,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 7(November), 525–528.
Plato. (1985). In Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the
Letters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Robertson, Kim. (1989). “Strategically Desirable Brand Name Characteristics,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,
6(Fall), 61–71.
Samarin, W. J. (1967). “Determining the Meanings of Ideophones,” Journal of West African Languages, 4, 35–
41.
Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park. (1992). “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising
Efficiency,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 296–313.
CREATING MEANINGFUL BRANDS 157

Ultan, R. (1978). “Size-Sound Symbolism.” In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 2:
Phonology. Stanford: University Press.
Vartorella, William. (1990). “Doing the Bright Thing with Your Company Logo,” Advertising Age, 61(February
26), 31.
Wall Street Journal. (1994). “Too Many Computer Names Confuse Too Many Buyers,” (June 29), B1.