IDENTITY BRANDING The Effect of Packaging Design for Eco-Conscious - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

IDENTITY BRANDING

The Effect of Packaging Design for Eco-Conscious Cleaning Products

• n Consumer Self-Expression

and Brand Identity

Tate Ragland

SLIDE 2

the premise.

SLIDE 3

Buyers adopt products, not just as consumer choices, but as conscious expressions

• f their identities.
• Rob Walker (2008)

SLIDE 4

Buyers adopt products and brands, not just as consumer choices, but as conscious and unconscious expressions of their identities.

SLIDE 5

FRAMEWORK

PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY

PACKAGE DESIGN

physical cognitive emotional social

BRAND IDENTITY

value propositions image

• rganizational

associations

CONSUMER IDENTITY

performing displaying creating

position track consume incorporate appropriate execute (Saren, 2007) (Aaker, 1996)

SLIDE 6

SIGNIFICANCE 32%

eco-friendly household cleaners

• brands face increasing competition
• greater need for understanding consumers
• consumers’ decisions increasingly complicated
• rganic

meat

• rganic

supplements eco-friendly fibers and apparel eco-friendly personal care items

RECENT GROWTH

(Meyers, 2008)

SLIDE 7

the questions.

SLIDE 8

What consumer and brand profiles can be developed from this investigation? How do packages reflect intangible attributes of consumer identity? How do packages communicate intangible attributes of brand identity to consumers? What are the roles of brand and consumer value propositions in the production of a visual language to communicate identity? Which physical elements of packaging have the most impact on brand and consumer identity?

SLIDE 9

the brands.

SLIDE 10

GREEN WORKS™

■ Established in 2008 ■ Subsidiary brand of Clorox

BRAND STATEMENT: We learned there was a great deal of interest in natural cleaning products but that there were four big issues in the way: 1 When people tried natural cleaners, they were often disappointed – they found natural cleaners didn’t work as well as conventional cleaners; 2 Worse, natural cleaners were expensive, sometimes with a price premium of 100 percent compared to regular cleaners; 3 On top of that, natural cleaners were hard find, available mostly in specialty stores or perhaps online; 4 And people weren’t sure about all of the new brands they were

• seeing. Could they trust them?

SLIDE 11

METHOD™

■ Established in 2000 ■ Efficacy, Safety, Environment, Design, Fragrance

BRAND STATEMENT: At Method, we call ourselves “people against dirty.” Method isn’t

• nly about cleaning up your home or your body; it’s about cleaning

up the way we clean. things we’re for: * cleans on contact * derived from plants * biodegradable * fresh lavender * bare hands * recyclable packaging * pro-clean things we’re against: * kills on contact * derived from chemical plants * biohazard * fake pine * rubber gloves * reckless packaging * anti-bacterial

SLIDE 12

SEVENTH GENERATION™

■ Established in 1989 ■ Self-described “socially responsible” company

BRAND STATEMENT: Seventh Generation is committed to becoming the world’s most trusted brand of authentic, safe, and environmentally-responsible products for a healthy home. For 20 years, the closely held Burlington, Vermont-based company has been at the forefront of a cultural change in consumer behavior and business ethics. Seventh Generation is a business that operates according to a new and different set of principles and values that in many ways are a marked departure from those long considered “traditional.”

SLIDE 13

the methods.

SLIDE 14

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

(Robson, 2002; O'Leary, 2004)

SLIDE 15

■ questionnaire administered

• n www.SurveyMonkey.com

■ participants solicited from

• nline postings on each

brand’s website ■ respondents were familiar with the brands and their packaging ■ data collected over two weeks in late January 2009

GREEN WORKS

19

METHOD

20

SEVENTH GENERATION

16 55 PARTICIPANTS

SLIDE 16

■ consumption practices ■ package design ■ brand perceptions ■ consumer self-expression ■ demographics (optional)

36 QUESTIONS

P a g e 1 GreenWorks GreenWorks GreenWorks GreenWorks

• 1. How often do you shop for household cleaning products?
• 2. Where (what specific stores, websites, etc.) do you typically shop for these products?
• 3. What brand(s) of household cleaning supplies do you typically purchase? Why?
• 4. Do you participate in any activities that you consider to be socially responsible? If so, what are

they? (i.e. recycling, volunteering, etc.)

• 5. Would you say that the cleaning products you purchase are a reflection of you and your values
• r are they simply a means to an end?
• 6. How would you rate your interest in sustainable or "eco-conscious" products and practices in

general?

• 7. When shopping for household cleaning products, which factors do your actively consider when

deciding what to purchase? 1 . G e n e r a l C

• n

s u m p t i

• n

P r a c t i c e s : Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. This questionnaire is divided into 4 pages -- general consumption practices, package-specific q u e s t i

• n

s , b r a n d-specific questions, and self- e x p r e s s i

• n

q u e s t i

• n

s . * Daily Weekly Bi-Weekly M

• n

t h l y Quarterly Yearly Frequency

• *

1 2 3 * * * r e p r e s e n t m e are a means to an end M y P r

• d

u c t s :

• *

1 Least Interested 2 3 4 5 M

• s

t I n t e r e s t e d Level of Interest

• *

Brand

• Price
• F

u n c t i

• n

a l i t y

• Past Experience With the Product
• Package Design
• Product Familiarity
• P

a g e 3 G r e e n W

• r

k s G r e e n W

• r

k s G r e e n W

• r

k s G r e e n W

• r

k s Page 6 G r e e n W

• r

k s G r e e n W

• r

k s G r e e n W

• r

k s G r e e n W

• r

k s

• 28. What do you think the products that you currently purchase say about your

personality/values/lifestyle?

• 29. What would you like them to say?
• 30. Do you get satisfaction from purchasing brands that have values similar to your own?
• 31. How much background research do you do about the products or brands that you buy?
• 32. When purchasing products, do you tend to rely on information presented by the brand itself or
• n third-party reviews/information?
• 33. Would you prefer a brand with a strong aesthetic appeal or a brand that upholds values similar

to your own?

• 34. What words would you use to describe your “Top 3” concerns when purchasing household

cleaners?

• 35. What would you consider to be your “Top 3” concerns with the world today?
• 36. What do you think is your role in the sustainability movement?

* * * * From the Brand N e i t h e r From Other Sources S

• u

r c e

• f

I n f

• :
• *

Strong Aesthetic Appeal N e i t h e r Similar Values Would you prefer:

• *

1 2 3 * 1 2 3

SLIDE 17

PHOTO JOURNAL

(Collier & Collier, 1986)

SLIDE 18 5 Exposures: Example _____________________________________________________BRAND______________ Why_____________________________________________________________________________ Frame 16_____________________________________________________BRAND______________ Why_____________________________________________________________________________ Frame 17_____________________________________________________BRAND______________ Why_____________________________________________________________________________ Frame 18_____________________________________________________BRAND______________ Why_____________________________________________________________________________ Frame 19_____________________________________________________BRAND______________ Why_____________________________________________________________________________ Frame 20_____________________________________________________BRAND______________ Why_____________________________________________________________________________ Additional Info: How would you rate your level of interest in eco-conscious cleaning products? (1 - least interested, 5 - most interested) 1 2 3 4 5 How would you rate your level of concern for the environment? (1 - not concerned, 5 - very concerned) 1 2 3 4 5 Age:__________________________Gender:_______________________ all-purpose cleaner Method Please shoot 5 images of branded packages that you feel represent your personality or values in some way. For example, you might photograph a bottle of Coke because you feel that the Coke brand is re ective of your personal values, beliefs, or life experiences in some way. For each image, please identify the brand name, a description of the product, and a brief explanation for why you selected each product. the bottle is simple, and Method is eco friendly CAMERA EXERCISE For this exercise you will be asked to shoot 20 images based on the prompts below. Use this sheet as a notepad for the images you take. For each section please write down a short description of the corresponding image. When you are  nished, please email your images to tate@asu.edu and either return this form to CDN66 or email it along with the pictures. If you have any questions, please contact Tate Ragland at tate@asu.edu. 10 Exposures: Shoot ten frames of things in your home that represent some aspect of your sustainable lifestyle. Please also indicate how your possession of this item makes you feel. (i.e. objects that have been recycled, reused, or repurposed, etc.) Example _________________________________________________________________________ Frame 1__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 2__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 3__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 4__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 5__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 6__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 7__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 8__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 9__________________________________________________________________________ Frame 10_________________________________________________________________________ How does your ownership of these items make you feel? _________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Exposures: Shoot  ve frames of any cleaning agents you have in your home right now. (i.e. dishwashing liquid, soap, detergent, etc.) Include a short description and brand name for each. Frame 11______________________________________________________BRAND_____________ Frame 12______________________________________________________BRAND_____________ Frame 13______________________________________________________BRAND_____________ Frame 14______________________________________________________BRAND_____________ Frame 15______________________________________________________BRAND_____________ NOTE: Your responses will remain anonymous. However, please be conscious of what you are photographing and ensure and that you do not inadvertently capture con dential material that you do not want to share with the researcher. compact  uorescent light bulbs

20 PROMPTS

“items that represent your commitment to sustainable lifestyle practices” “cleaning products currently in your home” “branded packages that represent your identity in some way” 10 5 5

SLIDE 19

19 PARTICIPANTS

■ self-professed, eco-conscious consumers with an interest in sustainable lifestyle practices ■ ASU graduate student listserv ■ message boards at local

• rganic grocery stores

SLIDE 20

DIY PACKAGE DESIGN

(Sanders, 2000)

SLIDE 21 2 TATE RAGLAND / Design Researcher / Arizona State University PACKAGE DESIGN EXERCISE Participant Number................................................... For Researcher Use ONLY Date.............................................................................................. Comments .............................................................................. ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ DIY 1 TATE RAGLAND / Design Researcher / Arizona State University PACKAGE DESIGN EXERCISE Participant Number................................................... For Researcher Use ONLY Date.............................................................................................. Comments .............................................................................. ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................ D I Y PACKAGE DESIGN EXERCISE P a r t i c i p a n t N u m b e r ................................................... F

• r

R e s e a r c h e r U s e O N L Y D a t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C

• m

m e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TATE RAGLAND / Design Researcher / Arizona State University DIY

PACKAGE DESIGN KIT

■ 3 shape templates ■ 4 font styles ■ construction paper ■ markers ■ 50 images in five categories

• animals
• people
• nature
• lifestyle
• cleaning

SLIDE 22

11 PARTICIPANTS

■ recruited by “snowball” strategy ■ began with a core group of individuals very involved in local sustainability efforts ■ no formal design background ■ respondents were self-described "eco-conscious" consumers

SLIDE 23

the analysis.

SLIDE 24

CODE

SLIDE 25

SORT & CLUSTER

SLIDE 26

VISUALIZE

SLIDE 27

the findings.

SLIDE 28

VALUES

What are the roles of brand and consumer value propositions in the production of a visual language to communicate identity?

Frequency of Value Propositions Connecting Packages and Consumer Identity:

SLIDE 29

■ the visual language used by brands in their packaging designs determines consumer understanding of brand value propositions ■ overlapping brand and consumer values play a strong role in the incorporation of brands into consumer identity

PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY

PACKAGE DESIGN physical cognitive emotional social BRAND IDENTITY value propositions image

• rganizational

associations CONSUMER IDENTITY performing displaying creating position track consume incorporate appropriate execute (Saren, 2007) (Aaker, 1996)

SLIDE 30

■ the visual language used by brands in their packaging designs determines consumer understanding of brand value propositions ■ overlapping brand and consumer values play a strong role in the incorporation of brands into consumer identity

PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY

PACKAGE DESIGN physical cognitive emotional social BRAND IDENTITY value propositions image

• rganizational

associations CONSUMER IDENTITY performing displaying creating position track consume incorporate appropriate execute (Saren, 2007) (Aaker, 1996)

SLIDE 31

fair trade practices ■ US company ■ ethical treatment of workers ■ local business ■ avoid animal testing ■

Brand Values Connection

SLIDE 32

nostalgic ■ happy ■ refreshed ■ responsible ■ proud ■ confident ■

Emotional Connection

SLIDE 33

sleek ■ simple ■ color ■ graphics ■ funky ■ classic ■

Form Connection

SLIDE 34

easy to grasp ■ efficient ■ effective ■ safe ■

Functional Connection

SLIDE 35

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES

Which physical elements of packaging have the most impact on brand and consumer identity?

Green Works Method Seventh Generation

SLIDE 36

■ the attributes that reflect brand promises: simple, honest, natural

PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY

PACKAGE DESIGN physical cognitive emotional social BRAND IDENTITY value propositions image

• rganizational

associations CONSUMER IDENTITY performing displaying creating position track consume incorporate appropriate execute (Saren, 2007) (Aaker, 1996) COLOR FONT SHAPE SIMPLICITY

SLIDE 37

BRAND IDENTITY

How do packages communicate intangible attributes of brand identity to consumers?

Green Works Method Seventh Generation

Package Attributes That Communicate Brand Identity:

SLIDE 38

■ attributes are interpreted by consumers and those interpretations are incorporated into the

• verall brand identity

PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY

PACKAGE DESIGN physical cognitive emotional social BRAND IDENTITY value propositions image

• rganizational

associations CONSUMER IDENTITY performing displaying creating position track consume incorporate appropriate execute (Saren, 2007) (Aaker, 1996)

SLIDE 39

CONSUMER IDENTITY

How do packages reflect intangible attributes of consumer identity?

Green Works Method Seventh Generation

• verlapping attributes
• f brand and

consumer identity...

SLIDE 40

■ aspects of consumer identity are reflected in the package attributes that communicate overlapping brand value propositions

PRODUCTION OF IDENTITY

PACKAGE DESIGN physical cognitive emotional social BRAND IDENTITY value propositions image

• rganizational

associations CONSUMER IDENTITY performing displaying creating position track consume incorporate appropriate execute (Saren, 2007) (Aaker, 1996)

SLIDE 41

PROFILES

What consumer and brand profiles can be developed from this investigation?

SLIDE 42

ROUTINE

■ high level of concern for product function ■ generally low level of engagement in eco-lifestyle practices ■ just want to get the job done ■ do not see products as a reflection of their identity ■ see cleaners as inconsequential purchases

PROFILES

SLIDE 43

TASK-ORIENTED

■ moderate level of concern for product function and aesthetics ■ generally high level of engagement in eco-lifestyle practices ■ have a strong concern for value and safety ■ do moderate product research ■ tend to overlook or ignore product aesthetics

PROFILES

SLIDE 44

DISCERNING

■ high level of concern for product aesthetics ■ generally high level of engagement in eco-lifestyle practices ■ research products ■ have a clear idea of what they want ■ see products as reflection

• f their identity

■ take their purchases seriously

PROFILES

SLIDE 45

BRAND SNOB

■ high level of concern for product aesthetics ■ generally low level of engagement in eco-lifestyle practices ■ do little product research ■ will pay more for aesthetics ■ concerned with looks over function

PROFILES

SLIDE 46

PROFILES

BRANDS

SLIDE 47

GREEN WORKS™

SLIDE 48

METHOD™

SLIDE 49

SEVENTH GENERATION™

SLIDE 50

INSIGHTS

simple product = simple design (attributes) packages that appeal to specific "types" risk alienating other consumers consumers want to be responsible, but many don't know how—packaging can educate form attributes can send the wrong message, and should be carefully considered

PACKAGES

"Packages that have an opaque bottle make me a little bit suspicious."

SLIDE 51

each brand culture has a unique relationship with packaging and design consumers expect brands to “walk the talk” consumers have diverse opinions about the importance of brands to their identity brands need to understand consumers as individual identities, not just as consumers many eco-conscious consumers value human safety over harm caused to the environment brand ownership is beyond company control

INSIGHTS

BRAND CULTURES

"We're concerned about what we expose ourselves and

• ur children to."

SLIDE 52

many shoppers consume eco-products in

• rder to fulfill their identity aspirations

consumers want to trust brands but are skeptical—brands need to prove themselves “eco” products mean different things to different people—expanded community involvement is needed to increase understanding truly sustainable brands must move beyond function to create enduring relationships

INSIGHTS

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

"People have good intentions about things that are organic or sustainable, but most people don't really know what that means."

SLIDE 53

DIY opportunities for variation:

■ larger sample size ■ more and/or different images ■ groups or pairs ■ design for an actual product ■ eliminate shape templates ■ interview throughout the process

Photo Journal areas for variation:

■ conduct in-person ■ use in combination with interviews ■ more even gender distribution ■ compare against non eco-consumers

INSIGHTS

METHODS

SLIDE 54

this research... provides evidence-based insights into consumer/brand relationships shines a light on the importance of packaging, particularly for eco-conscious products attempts to address larger issues of consumer culture identity and consumption develops and tests new and different methods for brand research

WRAP UP

SIGNIFICANCE

SLIDE 55

Collect data regarding consumer identity in both direct and indirect ways (what consumers say about themselves versus how they present themselves). Understand the individual challenges

• f the brand/package from as many

different perspectives as possible. Identities are constantly changing, be prepared to work in an iterative cycle. Be clear about what is meant by “packaging” and “brand.” Acknowledge the limitations of the methods, but be willing to try new and different approaches.

REFLECTION

RECOMMENDATIONS

SLIDE 56 Aaker, D. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, D. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press. Aaker, D. & Biel, A. (Eds.). (1993). Brand Equity and Advertising. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aaker, D. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Arvidsson, A. (2005). Brands: A Critical Perspective. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 235-258. Bates, M. & Kristofek, G. (2008). Colorblind: How Consumers See Green. Design Management Review, 19(4), 1-5. Borgerson, J., Escudero Magnusson, M., & Magnusson, F . (2006). Branding ethics: negotiating Benetton’s identity and

• image. In J. Schroeder & M. Salzer-Morling (Eds.), Brand Culture (pp. 171-185). London: Routledge.

Boztepe, S. (2007). User Value: Competing Theories and Models. International Journal of Design, 1(2), 55-63. Collier, J. & Collier, M. (1986). Visual Anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Danesi, M. (2006). Brands. New York: Taylor & Francis. Dichter, E. (1975). Packaging the Sixth Sense: A Guide to Identifying Consumer Motivation. Boston: Cahners. Drenttel, W. & Helfand, J. (2009, Dec/Jan). Identity Crisis. Dwell, 146. duGay, P ., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage. duGay, P . & Pryke, M. (Eds.) (2002). Cultural Economy. London: Sage. Elliott, R. & Davies, A. (2006). Symbolic Brands and Authenticity of Identity Performance. In J. Schroeder & M. Salzer- Morling (Eds.), Brand Culture, (pp. 155-170). London: Routledge. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-370. Goodman, D., & Cohen, M. (2004). Consumer Culture. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Gosling, S. (2008). Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You. New York: Basic. Hambleton, R. (1987). The Branding of America. Dublin, NH: Yankee. Heller, S. & Vienne, V . (Eds.). (2003). Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility. New York: Allworth. Hine, T . (1995). The Total Package. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Holt, D. (2006). Toward a Sociology of Branding. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6(3), 299-302. Horton, D. (2003). Green Distinctions: The Performance of Identity Among Environmental Activists. Sociological Review, 52(1), 63-77. Klein, N. (1999). No Logo. New York: Picador. Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand Sense: Build Powerful Brands through Touch, Taste, Smell, Sight, and Sound. New York: Free Press. Lindstrom, M. (2009, January 4). How Subliminal Advertising Works. Parade, 10. Madge, P . (1997). Ecological Design: A New Critique. Design Issues, 13(2), 44-54. Marketing Science Institute. (2000). The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consideration and Choice (Report No. 00-104). Cambridge, MA: L. Garber, R. Burke, & J.M. Jones. Marketing Science Institute. (2001). Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese, Spanish, and North American Brand Personality (Report No. 01-113). Cambridge, MA: J.L. Aaker, V . Benet-Martinez, & J. Garolera. Meyers, H. & Gerstman, R. (2004). The Visionary Package. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Meyers, T . (2008, December). Trend: Green. Entrepreneur, 58-61. Miller, D. (1998). A Theory of Shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Moor, L. (2007). The Rise of Brands. Oxford: Berg. Neumeier, M. (2006). The Brand Gap (Rev. ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders. O’Leary, Z. (2004). The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage. Ragland, T . (2008). Seeing Green: How the Visual Representation of Sustainability Shapes Consumer Perception. In

• H. Fujita (Ed.), Another Name for Design—Words for Creation: International Conference of Design History and Design

Studies (pp. 456-459). Osaka, Japan: Osaka University Communication-Design Center. Reese, W. (2002). Behavioral Scientists Enter Design: Seven Critical Histories. In S. Squires & B. Byrne (Eds.), Creating Breakthrough Ideas (pp. 17-43). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Riley, C. (2003). The Cultural Influence of Brands: In Defense of Advertising. In S. Heller & V . Vienne (Eds.), Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility (pp. 70-81). New York: Allworth. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies. London: Sage. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2000). Generative Tools for Co-Designing. In S. Scrivener, L. Ball, & A. Woodcock (Eds.), Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000 (pp. 1-10). London: Springer-Verlag. Saren, M. (2007). The Obscure Subject of Consumer Identity. In A. Pullen, N. Beech, & D. Sims (Eds.), Exploring Identity: Concepts and Methods (pp. 11-25). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schroeder, J. & Salzer-Morling, M. (Eds.). (2006). Brand Culture. London: Routledge. Southgate, P . (1994). Total Branding By Design. London: Kogan Page. Stern, W. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook of Package Design Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Strasser, S. (1989). Satisfaction Guaranteed: The Making of the American Mass Market. New York: Pantheon. Takamura, J.H. (2007). Molecular Branding: A Study on the Nature of the Relationship Between Product Design and Brand Loyalty. DeSForm, Newcastle, Northumbria University, December 2007. Takamura, J.H. (2007). The Product Design Genome: Mapping the Mysterious Interrelationships Between Products and

• Brands. IDSA Innovation, Summer 2007.

Veblen, T . (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: MacMillan. Walker, R. (2008). Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are. New York: Random House.