People often ask how we could extricate ourselves from the morass of M2C and SITH. An article in the Wall St. Journal discusses a research paper that offers a lesson from product branding.
The Church's message is that the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored when the Church was established in 1830, with all that accompanies it (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, continuing revelation with apostles and prophets, etc.). That emphasis of origins can be considered "heritage branding," which has innate appeal.
But heritage branding comes with resistance against innovation. The authors explain the problem and offer a solution.
The problem: When you change an original product, it challenges why many people like the product in the first place, says Rosanna Smith, an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and one of the paper’s co-authors.
The solution: “Stressing the connection to the brand’s origins may have made the update seem more authentic,” says Smith.
In the context of the Restoration, a return to the roots (Joseph translated the plates, Cumorah is in New York) would appeal to both members and prospective members.
_____
The original paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352569390_The_Curse_of_the_Original_How_and_When_Heritage_Branding_Reduces_Consumer_Evaluations_of_Enhanced_Products
Abstract: Heritage branding is a common marketing strategy that has been shown to increase product appeal. Here, we find that certain forms of heritage branding can also have potentially negative consequences by leading consumers to react negatively to changes made to the brand's original, flagship product-even if those changes objectively improve it.
We demonstrate that when firms engage in heritage branding that emphasizes a brand's longevity, consumers evaluate enhanced products less favorably than the original versions of those same products due to decreased perceptions of continuity authenticity.
We demonstrate this effect across a variety of product domains (e.g., cosmetics, cookware, and food products), using online experiments as well as in-person product trials. Moreover, we provide a framework that distinguishes between types of heritage branding cues that lead to negative evaluations of enhanced products versus those that do not.
Finally, beyond identifying an important boundary condition based on specific aspects of heritage branding, we further show how the negative evaluations of enhanced products can be attenuated if brands reframe product changes as continuous with the brand's origins.
Together, these studies contribute to existing theory regarding heritage branding and authenticity, while also providing a number of practical recommendations for heritage brands.
Excerpts from WSJ article:
https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/iconic-brands-innovation-sales-9bf28ec3?st=NYJ7T9&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Why Iconic Brands Struggle With Innovation
When a company markets its product’s long, iconic heritage, consumers are reluctant to buy a new variation
Emphasizing a product’s heritage can be a powerful marketing tool. Think of brands like Coca-Cola or Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers.
But the strategy could have a big drawback, according to research. When a brand emphasizes its past, customers are less likely to buy its updates and innovations. A food company that heavily promotes its classic recipe, for instance, could have a tough time getting customers to buy a new variation on the product. The reluctance is particularly strong if people think the brand has stood the test of time and is authentic the way it is.
When you change an original product, it challenges why many people like the product in the first place, says Rosanna Smith, an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and one of the paper’s co-authors.
“We call it the curse of the original, and the question is how to update a product that is considered an icon without enraging your customers,” says Smith.
The shock of the new
In one part of the study, 418 participants read about a fictional hand-cream company and its top lotion. Participants were either told the company was established in 1917 with “deep roots in the old world French apothecary” or that it was established in 2017. Then the participants were either told the hand lotion was developed when the company was founded or was a new and improved version of the original.
... When it came to the 1917 company, people rated the classic formula much higher than the new one ...
Meanwhile, participants who were told the company started in 2017 rated the original and improved hand creams similarly.
“One big limitation of heritage branding is that it makes it harder to innovate,” says Smith. “But there are ways to lessen the effect.”
Back to basics
For instance, in another experiment, 602 participants read about Fratellino, a fictional Italian-food brand launched in 1911 when founder Martina Fratellino began selling tomato sauce from her front porch. The participants were told the brand would be improving its original tomato-sauce recipe.
The people were then divided into three groups. The control group was told the company was proud to introduce the new formula. The second group was told the new sauce was a bold departure from the original recipe, while the third was told the change was inspired by traditional techniques Martina used to create her tomato sauce in 1911 and that the change was a return to the company’s beginnings.
... participants in the control group rated the new tomato sauce less favorably than the original, giving it a score of 6.0, compared with 7.2 for the original. Simply doing something novel hurt the tradition-heavy company. The new product did even worse among people who heard that it was a bold departure...
But in the third group, where the change was framed as grounded in the product’s origins, the scores for the original and new tomato sauces didn’t significantly differ.
“Stressing the connection to the brand’s origins may have made the update seem more authentic,” says Smith.
