5 ms·

Do the non-religious have greater brand loyalty?

11 points by cwan 16y ago

grav1tas 16y ago
WWJD was a pretty hot pseudo brand for awhile! Is there a way to truly quantify one's religiosity? I mean it's not too surprising to see people who claim asceticism as a good thing to be a little list impressed by branding, but to draw the conclusion that secular people are more brand sensitive because they are secular feels a smidge like denying the antecedent, but these people look like they're smarter about this stuff than I am.
stuartjmoore 16y ago
Brands, religions, cults, gangs, families, friends are all basically the same thing to humans: belonging to a group.
- philwelch 16y ago
  ...nationalities, universities, sports teams, musical genres, political movements...
  - anthuswilliams 16y ago
    ...tech-centric news forums?
drawkbox 16y ago
I could see the correlation. Lots of new technology pushers are called Evangelists. Also, many religions actually actively discourage certain brands. So maybe religious people look more to authority on what to like.
Udo 16y ago
Core statement of the article: Comsumers who are deeply religious are less likely to display an explicit preference for a particular brand, while more secular populations are more prone to define their self-worth through loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations This whole thing is based on the faulty premise that a non-religious person desperately needs a religion-like source of self worth and that this can be provided by joining some kind of economic cult. One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas non-religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions. I'm not saying "my" hypothesis is any better, but at least I'm not presenting it as fact.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  I assume you meant (emphasized to highlight correction). > One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions. However, I think this is counteracted by this part of the data (emphasis mine): > Researchers discovered that those participants who wrote about their religion prior to the shopping experience were less likely to pick national brands when it came to products linked to appearance or self-expression — specifically, products which reflected status, such as fashion accessories and items of clothing. If I understand correctly, this means that the religious and non-religious went with name brands equally often when the products were utilitarian (e.g. batteries and pain reliever medications) but the non-religious were more likely to pick famous brands when the products had a strong cultural signaling functions (e.g. sunglasses and fashion accessories). Seeing as that signaling group loyalties is widely understood to be the (evolutionary) purpose of many, many human actions, is it that surprising that people already signaling loyalties in one area (religion) are less likely to be inclined to signal loyalties in another (cultural/fashion/political)? This is hardly an endorsement of theism or atheism, just a fact of human nature.
  - Udo 16y ago
    Thanks for the correction, that was a grievous typo. Anyway, my hypothesis was not meant to be a serious argument (you left out the last sentence of my post which made this extra clear), it was merely intended to show that the conclusion drawn by those researchers is based on a completely arbitrary model of what brand loyalty actually means. But then again, so is your evolutionary psychology which is not a real science but merely a tool to end a discussion by disguising as fact whatever fits someone's world view best at the time. It is essentially the application of retroactive continuity to history on an evolutionary time scale. Of yeah, while we're at it: whenever researchers pull stuff so obviously out of their hats to explain convenient data, I'm also suspicious of the data itself. Especially social studies can be rigged in ways people wouldn't believe.
- 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nodata 16y ago
Brand loyalty seems very old fashioned to me. Take Sony as an example. Buying Sony meant you were getting a good product. Now it doesn't: generally you have to buy the premium end, or at/and know exactly what you are looking for. Apple earphones are another example: very bad quality. Brand loyalty died already.
- rriepe 16y ago
  Hackers typically research something very, very in-depth (compared to the average consumer) before buying it. Brands are good enough for most people. Also, I think there's some natural law against declaring brand loyalty dead immediately after mentioning Apple.
  - nodata 16y ago
    I think there's some natural law against declaring brand loyalty dead immediately after mentioning Apple. I know no Apple fan that buys Apple earphones.
    - anthuswilliams 16y ago
      We're talking brand loyalty, not brand slavery. You can be a loyal Apple customer without buying Apple EVERY time.
- showerst 16y ago
  I think that brand loyalty has certainly shifted, but is far from dead. People used to use brands as a denotation of quality, because they lacked information whereas now they tend to be used to denote status (because they lack other signaling methods?). It's easy nowadays to look up the Amazon reviews instead of just buying something with Harman Kardon on the side, but people still shell out tons of money for Prada shoes. (I think this partially applies to Apple, but not completely because apple products tend to have a large user experience advantage.)
- alirov 16y ago
  I have encountered plenty of people that just can't be convinced of buying a product that's not of the brand that they're loyal to, no matter how much better the respective product of a different brand is. So I would say brand loyalty is very much alive.
WalterSear 16y ago
The study doesn't ask this question. It asks if contemplating religious views (via expressing them) primes brand loyalty.
incogneato 16y ago
not surprising, secularists and atheists are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. i find them to be more sheepish than any religious person, usually.
- badkungfu 16y ago
  As they have no central dogma, I'm not sure how mass-hypocrisy by atheists would be possible unless they actually, secretly believed in deities.
- drawkbox 16y ago
  Hrm that isn't very bigoted or fallacy ridden. It would be safer to say that, within any group, certain human beings are more probable to fall to groupthink, no matter their beliefs. Maybe religious people already contribute to groupthink (their beliefs that others don't hold outside the group) and do less of that with commercial goods.

11 points by cwan 16y ago

WWJD was a pretty hot pseudo brand for awhile! Is there a way to truly quantify one's religiosity? I mean it's not too surprising to see people who claim asceticism as a good thing to be a little list impressed by branding, but to draw the conclusion that secular people are more brand sensitive because they are secular feels a smidge like denying the antecedent, but these people look like they're smarter about this stuff than I am.

stuartjmoore 16y ago

Brands, religions, cults, gangs, families, friends are all basically the same thing to humans: belonging to a group.

philwelch 16y ago
...nationalities, universities, sports teams, musical genres, political movements...
- anthuswilliams 16y ago
  ...tech-centric news forums?

drawkbox 16y ago

I could see the correlation. Lots of new technology pushers are called Evangelists. Also, many religions actually actively discourage certain brands. So maybe religious people look more to authority on what to like.

Udo 16y ago

Core statement of the article: Comsumers who are deeply religious are less likely to display an explicit preference for a particular brand, while more secular populations are more prone to define their self-worth through loyalty to corporate brands instead of religious denominations This whole thing is based on the faulty premise that a non-religious person desperately needs a religion-like source of self worth and that this can be provided by joining some kind of economic cult. One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas non-religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions. I'm not saying "my" hypothesis is any better, but at least I'm not presenting it as fact.

jessriedel 16y ago
I assume you meant (emphasized to highlight correction). > One might just as easily shout out a hypothesis that non-religious people are more likely to make informed decisions based on actual data and hence stick to products that have been verified to work, whereas religious people categorize everything simply by whatever it says on label regardless of reality and are more likely to put blind faith in everyday decisions. However, I think this is counteracted by this part of the data (emphasis mine): > Researchers discovered that those participants who wrote about their religion prior to the shopping experience were less likely to pick national brands when it came to products linked to appearance or self-expression — specifically, products which reflected status, such as fashion accessories and items of clothing. If I understand correctly, this means that the religious and non-religious went with name brands equally often when the products were utilitarian (e.g. batteries and pain reliever medications) but the non-religious were more likely to pick famous brands when the products had a strong cultural signaling functions (e.g. sunglasses and fashion accessories). Seeing as that signaling group loyalties is widely understood to be the (evolutionary) purpose of many, many human actions, is it that surprising that people already signaling loyalties in one area (religion) are less likely to be inclined to signal loyalties in another (cultural/fashion/political)? This is hardly an endorsement of theism or atheism, just a fact of human nature.
- Udo 16y ago
  Thanks for the correction, that was a grievous typo. Anyway, my hypothesis was not meant to be a serious argument (you left out the last sentence of my post which made this extra clear), it was merely intended to show that the conclusion drawn by those researchers is based on a completely arbitrary model of what brand loyalty actually means. But then again, so is your evolutionary psychology which is not a real science but merely a tool to end a discussion by disguising as fact whatever fits someone's world view best at the time. It is essentially the application of retroactive continuity to history on an evolutionary time scale. Of yeah, while we're at it: whenever researchers pull stuff so obviously out of their hats to explain convenient data, I'm also suspicious of the data itself. Especially social studies can be rigged in ways people wouldn't believe.
16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nodata 16y ago

Brand loyalty seems very old fashioned to me. Take Sony as an example. Buying Sony meant you were getting a good product. Now it doesn't: generally you have to buy the premium end, or at/and know exactly what you are looking for. Apple earphones are another example: very bad quality. Brand loyalty died already.

rriepe 16y ago
Hackers typically research something very, very in-depth (compared to the average consumer) before buying it. Brands are good enough for most people. Also, I think there's some natural law against declaring brand loyalty dead immediately after mentioning Apple.
- nodata 16y ago
  I think there's some natural law against declaring brand loyalty dead immediately after mentioning Apple. I know no Apple fan that buys Apple earphones.
  - anthuswilliams 16y ago
    We're talking brand loyalty, not brand slavery. You can be a loyal Apple customer without buying Apple EVERY time.
showerst 16y ago
I think that brand loyalty has certainly shifted, but is far from dead. People used to use brands as a denotation of quality, because they lacked information whereas now they tend to be used to denote status (because they lack other signaling methods?). It's easy nowadays to look up the Amazon reviews instead of just buying something with Harman Kardon on the side, but people still shell out tons of money for Prada shoes. (I think this partially applies to Apple, but not completely because apple products tend to have a large user experience advantage.)
alirov 16y ago
I have encountered plenty of people that just can't be convinced of buying a product that's not of the brand that they're loyal to, no matter how much better the respective product of a different brand is. So I would say brand loyalty is very much alive.

WalterSear 16y ago

The study doesn't ask this question. It asks if contemplating religious views (via expressing them) primes brand loyalty.

incogneato 16y ago

not surprising, secularists and atheists are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. i find them to be more sheepish than any religious person, usually.

badkungfu 16y ago
As they have no central dogma, I'm not sure how mass-hypocrisy by atheists would be possible unless they actually, secretly believed in deities.
drawkbox 16y ago
Hrm that isn't very bigoted or fallacy ridden. It would be safer to say that, within any group, certain human beings are more probable to fall to groupthink, no matter their beliefs. Maybe religious people already contribute to groupthink (their beliefs that others don't hold outside the group) and do less of that with commercial goods.