1、Dalman, M. Deniz& Junhong MinAbstractThis research investigates that brand differentiation creating superior values can be achieved not only by adding meaningful attributes but also meaningless attributes, which is called trivial attribute effect. Two studies provided empirical evidences as followin
2、g; first, trivial attribute effect creates a strong brand differentiation even after subjects realize that trivial attribute has no value. Second, trivial attribute effect is more pronounced in hedonic service category compared to the utilitarian category. Last, the amount of willingness to pay is h
3、igher when trivial attribute is presented and evaluated in joint evaluation mode than separate evaluation mode. Finally, we conclude with discussion and provide suggestions for further research.Keywords: brand differentiation, evaluation mode, service industry, trivial attributeIntroduction Problem
4、DefinitionPerhaps the most important factor for new product success is to create the meaningful brand differentiation that provides customers with superior values beyond what the competitors can offer in the same industry （Porter, 1985）. Not surprisingly, more than 50 percent of annual sales in cons
5、umer product industries including automobiles, biotechnology, computer software, and pharmaceuticals are attributed to such meaningful brand differentiation by including new or noble attributes （Schilling &Hill, 1998）. However, the brand differentiation that increases consumer preference is not only
6、 by introducing meaningful attributes but also meaningless attributes. Forexample, it is not unusual to see brands differentiating themselves in the marketplace by adding some non-important attributes to their offerings （e.g., Coca-Colas S shape bottle, Pantene shampoo with vitamins or Folgers coffe
7、e changing the shape of coffee particles）. These non-important or trivial attributes as the marketing literature suggests are attributes that appears valuable but, on closer examination, is irrelevant or trivial to creating the implied benefit （Carpenter, Glazer, &Nakamoto, 1994, p. 339）.In marketin
8、g, the successful brand differentiation by trivial attributes has been discussed and explained by three different research streams. First, research on trivial attributes has shown that offering these attributes increase brands buying likelihood by giving consumers reasons or rational for choice （Bro
9、wn &Carpenter, 2000）. Interestingly, even after consumers realized that the brand differentiation by trivial attribute didnt create any meaningful differentiation, their brand choice was the same （Carpenter et al., 1994）. Second, Miljkovic, Gong, and Lehrke （2009） find that this trivial attribute ef
10、fect on brand differentiation depends on the choice set. Specifically, they find that when the choice set consists of at least three brands-where each brand is strong on certain attributes and it is difficult for consumers to make a choice, offering a trivial attribute serves as a tie-breaker and th
11、us increases the buying likelihood of that brand. Last, literature reveals that brand differentiation can be obtained by how competing brands are presented and evaluated either separately or jointly which is called the evaluation mode effect. Hsee, Loewenstein, Blount, and Bazerman （1999） introduce
12、the two types of evaluation modes: separate evaluation and joint evaluation. Separate evaluation describes the evaluation context in which brands are evaluated one at a time. Joint evaluation means that the brands are evaluated simultaneously. In particular, joint evaluation increases transparency w
13、hen competing brands are evaluated （Chatterjee, Heath, &Min, 2009）. Thus, when a brand with trivial attribute is presented and evaluated jointly with another brand without trivial attribute, consumers are easy to identify uniqueness of the brand with trivial attribute, which results in brand differe
14、ntiation and brand preference. Studies in the evaluation modeliterature continue to provide strong empirical evidences that the evaluation mode effect is particularly strong when consumers need to evaluate brands with uncertainty （Chatterjee et al., 2009; Hsee et al., 1999）.The Purpose of This Resea
15、rchAlthough our knowledge of trivial attribute effect has been greatly enhanced, how the trivial attribute affects brand evaluation has never been studied from the perspective of product development and marketing strategy. Our research aims to fill the gap by offering empirical evidences from two st
16、udies. The goals of this paper is fourth folds; 1） Can brands increase their choice likelihood by adding some trivial attributes, 2） Does this effect depend on the nature of the category （i.e. hedonic vs. utilitarian）, 3） Does the type of trivial attributes （hedonic vs. utilitarian） affect the consu
17、mer response to these trivial attributes, and finally 4） How can marketing managers effectively communicate a brand with trivial attribute? To reach these goals, in the first study, we review trivial attribute effect, and test how it creates the brand differentiation in service sector. Then, in the
18、second study, we discuss about the evaluation mode literature, and test that the effect whether trivial attribute is more salient in joint evaluation or separate evaluation mode. Finally, we conclude with discussion and provide suggestions for further research.Theoretical BackgroundTrivial Attribute
19、 Effect on Service ChoiceTrivial attributes are defined as the attributes that do not create meaningful differentiation in evaluation of alternatives （Broniarczyk &Gershoff, 2003; Miljkovic et al., 2009）. Consumers treat this trivial information in the advantage of brands that offer them even when t
20、hey are informed before decision-making about the triviality （Carpenter et al., 1994）. Brown and Carpenter （2000） explain this advantage with the reasons based account. They argue that consumers prefer to choose on the basis of easily justified, cognitively available reasons （Brown &Carpenter, 2000）
21、. Thus, when the options cannot be chosen based on important attributes, consumers need to rely ontrivial attributes that create brand differentiation （Shafir, Simonson, &Tversky, 1993）.The question about what to add to the offering to increase its value is especially important for services （Devlin,
22、 1998）, as it ismore difficult to create a competitive advantage in service industries （Storey &Easingwood, 1998）. The main reason is that unlike physical goods, services are intangible and consumers often face a problem of identifying the necessary attributes in services for evaluation. Thus, they
23、end up only relying on brand comparisons on the basis of selected attributes （Gabott &Hogg, 1994; Rust &Chung, 2006）. Therefore, services create more uncertainty for consumers than physical goods at the purchase stage. When a decision cant be justified on relevant attributes, consumers form argument
24、s based on trivial attributes even after they are told about the triviality of the attribute （Albrecht, Neumann, Haber, &Bauer, 2011）.Therefore, with the amount of uncertainty in services and the difficulty of evaluating attributes as mentioned above, consumers are likely to use trivial attributes w
25、hen they are faced with an ambiguous choice set even after they are told about the triviality.We posit the hypothesis as follows;H1: The choice likelihood of service provider that offers a trivial attribute will be higher than that does not offer.Compared to physical goods, services are based on inf
26、ormation processing （Rust &Chung, 2006） and how the information is processed depends on whether the service is utilitarian or hedonic （Hirschman &Holbrook, 1982）. According to Batra and Ahtola （1991）, consumers have these two motives in a choice context. Hedonic services are related to fun and pleas
27、ure （Babin, Darden, &Griffin, 1994） whereas utilitarian services are related to functionality （Strahilevitz &Myers, 1998）. In a choice context, the outcomes of these two types of services are valued differently as the utilitarian outcome depends on objective standards whereas hedonic ones depend on
28、subjective （discretionary） standards （Botti &McGill, 2010）. Moreover, Botti and McGill （2010） argue that hedonic motives are sought as an end itself whereas utilitarian motives are used to reach a higher-level goal. We argue that utilitarian services are more anxiety provoking than hedonic services
29、as they include important,harder to achieve, and uncertain goals （Lazarus, 1991）. And in situations, when goals are anxiety provoking, trivial attributes are more influential （Xiao, Dacin, &Ashworth, 2011）. Therefore, we expect the effect of trivial attributes to be more pronounced in a hedonic serv
30、ice category than in a utilitarian service category. We posit the hypothesis as follows:H2: The advantage of service provider that offers a trivial attribute will be more pronounced for the hedonic services compared to utilitarian services.Marketing Communication Strategy Using Trivial Attribute Eff
31、ectPrior literature has suggested that comparison is a natural and powerful strategy that consumers often rely on （Cooke, Janiszewski, Cunha Jr, Nasco, &De Wilde, 2004; Dhar, Nowlis, &Sherman, 1999）. Hsee and Leclerc （1998） suggest that consumer preference changes depending on how products are prese
32、nted and evaluated, specifically, whether they are evaluated separately （separate evaluation mode） or jointly （joint evaluation mode）. For example, in separate evaluation when one is asked to rate the importance of supporting government intervention for saving dolphins over preventing skin cancer among farm works, the number of pe
