To appeal to the majority of consumers, winemakers may want to pay as much attention to what’s on the bottle as what’s in it.

A three-part experimental study led by Washington State University researchers found that women were more inclined to purchase wine that had labels with feminine gender cues. The more strongly the participants identified with other women, a phenomenon called “in-group identification,” the greater this effect was. A feminine label also influenced their expectation that they would like the wine better.

With women representing 59% of U.S. wine consumers, the male-dominated field of winemaking might want to pay attention to the perceptions of this understudied group, said Ruiying Cai, lead author of the paper in the International Journal of Hospitality Management.  

“When you look at the market segments, women are actually purchasing a lot of wine. They are a large group,” said Cai, an assistant professor with WSU’s Carson College of Business. “We found that feminine cues speak to women consumers. They have more favorable attitudes toward the label and the wine itself. They were also expecting their overall sensory experience to be better, and they were more likely to purchase the wine.”

Gender cues often rely on stereotypes, and in initial tests for this research, a group of 90 women rated wine labels as more masculine when they featured rugged animals like wolves and stags as well as portraits of men. They designated labels as feminine that had cute animals, flowers and female portraits. Labels with castles and bunches of grapes were seen as neutral.

In two online experiments, a total of 324 women were shown fictitious wines with labels designed with these gendered cues. The participants showed higher intention to buy wines with a feminine label, such as a woman holding flowers, as opposed to a wine with a masculine label, such as a bulldog in a spiked collar. When asked about the expected sensory experience, they rated their liking of every sensory aspect higher, including the color, taste, aroma and aftertaste.

The participant’s level of wine expertise moderated their taste expectations but surprisingly, not their purchase intentions.

“Whether they were knowledgeable or less knowledgeable about wine, when they saw those feminine cues, they had a higher intention to buy the wine. The gender cue influence was so strong, it trumped the effect of that knowledge,” said co-author Christina Chi, a professor at WSU’s Carson College of Business.

A third experiment with another set of 138 women involved a taste test—also with a surprising finding. Researchers gave bottles of the same red wine with one of the gendered labels. More women who tasted the feminine-labeled wine ranked it higher in fruit flavors such as red current and blueberry than those who tasted the same wine with a masculine-cued label—and despite the fact those flavors were not dominant components in that particular wine. Women connected more mineral flavors with the masculine-labelled wine.

However, the participants who tasted the feminine-labelled wine reported liking it less than the women who tasted the masculine-labelled wines. The authors said this could be a result of the incongruence between the expected flavor influenced by the feminine label and the actual taste of the wine sample, which had a medium body, tannin and alcohol level.

Few studies have focused on the perceptions of women wine consumers in a field where 82% of the winemakers are men. That lack of perspective is very apparent on wine aisles, said Chi, noting that many vintners seem to favor masculine imagery like stallions, bulls and roosters–and one brand even features a prisoner in a jail cell.

“When designing the labels, winemakers should involve more women in the process, and it’s highly advisable to pilot test the labels among consumers for gender cues,” she said.

In addition to Cai and Chi, co-authors on this study include recent WSU graduate Demi Deng now at Auburn University and Robert Harrington of WSU.

Super-spy James Bond is a prime example of ‘regressive nostalgia’ highlighting how certain consumer groups cling to idealised past versions of brands and resist attempts to move with the times, a new study reveals. 

Researchers examined the James Bond movie franchise – a cultural icon for over 70 years – and discovered that some ‘super-consumers’ react negatively to modern portrayals of the fictional British secret agent that reflect contemporary societal values.  

Whilst loyal to the brand, these consumers prefer traditional, more exclusionary, versions of Bond which most closely follow author Ian Fleming’s original 1950s and 1960s vision – characterised as an arrogant, misogynistic, and racist Imperial British male. 

Publishing their findings in International Journal of Research in Marketing, consumer behavior experts from the University of Birmingham and ESCP Business School, London note that regressive nostalgia is characterized by a preference for racial and cultural purity and heroic masculinity. The phenomenon harbors exclusionary and aggressive tendencies that pose significant threats to brands. 

The researchers have, therefore, produced a toolkit to help marketeers shield their brand’s contemporary positioning from the negative connotations associated with this form of nostalgia – allowing brands to evolve without alienating their core consumer base. 

Finola Kerrigan, Professor of Marketing at the University of Birmingham, commented: “The James Bond franchise is a perfect example of how ‘regressive nostalgia’ manifests. Whilst the brand has successfully adapted to changing times, a small but disproportionally vocal part of its fanbase is anchored in the past, highlighting the need for careful brand management. 

“These ‘super-consumers’ cling to Ian Fleming’s characterisation of Bond and the period during which the novels were written to justify their nostalgia. They actively resist attempts to modernise the franchise, dismissing as ‘woke nonsense’ recent movies such as ‘No Time to Die.” 

Chloe Preece, Professor of Marketing, ESCP Business School, London notes that these Super-consumers view Bond as a heroic, white, male icon providing a ‘safe space’ for those feeling threatened by contemporary discussion about creating a more inclusive society. The character’s ‘man-of-action’ persona allows this group of mostly male consumers to identify with the spy’s ‘heroic masculinity’ based on his ability to sleep with the ‘Bond girls’. 

While the study focuses on the Bond franchise, the researchers identify parallels with other groups’ appropriation of brand resources and associating them with anti-social causes. 

“Brands use nostalgia to connect with consumers – delighting and enchanting their customer base whilst connecting them to others – but this makes nostalgia potentially dangerous in drawing consumers to the past, when it creates a sense of loss combining a cherished past and a despised present,” said independent scholar Dr Daragh O’Reilly. 

“In order to minimize the negative impact of regressive nostalgia, it is important that the brand does not pander to the nostalgia displayed by a minority of super-consumers. Brand stewards must not be swayed by these loud voices and become exclusionary.”  

The researchers note that marketeers should be alert to the risk posed by regressive nostalgia and have devised toolkit comprising of a series of questions to help brand managers assess the level of threat.

Researchers from Western University, Stockton University, and University of Massachusetts Amherst published a new Journal of Marketing article that examines if firms benefit from adopting popular nicknames in their branding efforts. 

The study, titled “BMW is Powerful, Beemer is Not: Nickname Branding Impairs Brand Performance”, is authored by Zhe Zhang, Ning Ye, and Matthew Thomson. 

Many brands have popular nicknames that have become a part of daily conversations. BMW is commonly referred to as Beemer, Bloomingdale’s as Bloomie’s, Rolex as Rollie, Walmart as WallyWorld, and Starbucks as Starbies.

Given their popularity, some marketers have embraced these names in their own branding efforts. For instance, in 2021, Bloomingdale’s officially adopted “Bloomie’s” for its new store in Fairfax, Virginia; Target launched a style campaign in 2018 with the tagline “Fall for Tarzhay All Over Again;” and the Howard Johnson hotel chain slogan goes “Go Happy. Go HoJo.”

Do firms actually benefit from adopting popular nicknames in their branding efforts? This new study finds that nickname branding is actually detrimental to brand performance. This is because brand nicknames are usually given by consumers.

Zhang explains that “accepting a consumer-generated nickname suggests that a brand implicitly admits that consumers are ‘in charge’ and that they publicly accept and promote an altered identity bestowed by consumers. When a brand starts to accept and even adopt a nickname given by consumers, it makes the brand seem less powerful.”

Nickname Use by Customers Versus Nickname Use by Marketers

Many brands closely follow consumers’ language use, especially on social media. However, the purpose of this monitoring should be to generate insights, not to mechanically repeat what consumers say. Brand nicknames are indeed terms of endearment, but only when they are used by the right person (i.e., consumers). When used by marketers, nicknames do not bring consumers closer to the brand. In fact, copying what might be construed as consumers’ “intellectual property” makes the brand appear weak.

Marketers should recognize that there is a difference between a consumer using a nickname and companies using that nickname for branding. The research team says that because consumer nickname use does not signal that a brand submits to consumer influence, it is less likely to weaken perceptions of brand power. In fact, prior research has shown that brand nicknames may lead to desirable consequences when they are used by consumers. “Marketers should recognize the differences in nickname use by consumers versus by marketers,” says Thomson. “While one may want to avoid adopting a nickname for marketing, nickname use within the consumer community should not be discouraged.”

In addition, brands must carefully evaluate their brand stereotype (i.e., competent vs. warm) and message type (transactional vs. communal) before adopting a nickname. It seems plausible that some brands may benefit from using their nicknames under certain conditions. For example, when a small-town, family-owned restaurant adopts a popular nickname given by the locals for fundraising for the community library, people may not necessarily feel it is inappropriate because the business was not meant to be powerful and its motive is to benefit the community. Instead, the nickname may become an emotional tie that activates consumers’ community identity and could attract more donations for the local community.

Furthermore, it is important for marketers to evaluate the meaningfulness of their brand name change. For example, Apple Computer became Apple, IHOP temporarily became IHOb, and Dunkin’ Donuts became Dunkin’. These were meaningful name changes and part of the brands’ repositioning strategies. The new names clearly tell consumers what the brand wants to be: Apple offers more than personal computers, Dunkin’ offers more than just donuts, and IHOb burgers should be taken seriously. These are internally initiated alterations that signal the brand’s new identity and market position, unlike nickname branding activities that are initiated externally.

Thomson says that “if nickname branding is not accompanied by substantial changes to the brand’s core identity, it may appear to be a relatively superficial effort to flatter consumers.” For example, Radioshack’s adoption of a nickname (e.g., tagline: “Our friends call us the Shack”) was a high-profile example of explicitly submitting to consumer influence and credited with hastening the company’s trajectory towards bankruptcy.

Lessons for Chief Marketing Officers

• Marketers need to be careful about appropriating consumers’ language.
• Marketers should recognize the difference between consumer nickname use versus nickname branding. For example, when General Motors banned the use of the “Chevy” nickname within the organization in 2010, the company received enormous criticism for not being consumer-oriented. However, critics overlooked the fact that the policy was meant to reduce the internal use of the nickname (e.g., when a salesperson talks to consumers) and not to stop consumers from using it externally.
• Some brands may benefit from using their nicknames under certain conditions.
• Renaming a brand may be necessary as a brand grows. However, if nickname branding is not accompanied by substantial changes to the brand’s core identity, it may appear to be a superficial effort to flatter consumers.