And that there is brand loyalty.I've had a great experience with Bravia TVs...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And that there is brand loyalty.I've had a great experience with Bravia TVs...
I think all things being equal, the preferred brand is bought. 360 sold because PS3 was too expensive (and less powerful!) for those who'd have preferred it. If the preferred brand is affordable, affordable being decided by degree of loyalty it commands, it'll sell better than rivals even if those rivals are cheaper.
Or rather, loyalty isn't a binary on/off switch, but a sliding scale of preference towards sales and price products can command. Apple has crazy loyalty which doesn't mean Apple users won't swap to Android, but that they'll be willing to pay more for Apple when making choices. I think the gaming market prefers PlayStation and will, all things being equal, buy PS by default, and possible will be happy to spend a but more to get a PS than an XB (less so in US), but only so far. PS3 shows that even with a crap value proposition and an underperforming design, it was still just as popular as XB360, so that shows the contribution brand loyalty made. Had there been none, PS3 would have sold a few tens of millions and 360 would have run away with the generation, same way PS did.
I guess 'loyalty' just mean high brand strength. The literal concept of loyalty doesn't exist for consumers apart from a few nut-jobs.
And yet Sony is my second choice having never owned an LG. Price goes against Sony, ease of transition, i.e. familiarity with the menus/UI, goes for it and pre-calibration. That's practicality, not loyalty.And that there is brand loyalty.Good experience means you'll stick with what you know unless you have good reason to consider otherwise, like the price is too high or quality reportedly has suffered.
I think all things being equal, the preferred brand is bought. 360 sold because PS3 was too expensive (and less powerful!) for those who'd have preferred it.
You alluded to it a bit, and I've covered it before. Brand loyalty appears to be a much stronger phenomenon outside the U.S. Here we are so used to our markets being flooded with a wide variety of products from every global brand that very few brands have the strength to command a following (Apple comes immediately to mind).
I don't think brand loyalty exists much in terms of 100% buy or die. However, it does maintain a strong preference that's hard to break. In the absence of any reasons NOT to buy, people will pick the preferred brand. Competition is about giving people other reasons to buy the rivals.
I think a lot of people here are downplaying the excellent work that Sony did with regards to exclusive titles for PS3. Uncharted, GT5rologue, RnC etc from their internal studios, MGS4, FFXIII (marketing wise before it was released) and others from third-parties. I also think XB360 got a real boost from Kinect, but that wasn't really sustainable.
Don't forget that X360 launched an entire year before PS3 in most of the world. Even with that, most console gamer's preferred to wait for the PS3 rather than get an X360. The PS3 launch, in a way, pushed some people to get an X360 that had been waiting for a PS3.
Is it really brand loyalty because their brand is good? Or, is it simply because the "cool kids" have them (i.e., the lemming’s effect).
Example: Beats Electronics audio headphones and earbuds aren't that unique or even that great when it comes to high quality audio reproduction. Yet, their consumer base is huge. I can’t go one day without seeing a Beats product on/in someone’s ears. Other than having Dr. Dre being initially attached them (before the Apple acquisition), it seems Beats’s has enjoyed most of its decade and half success (at least in America) over other audio products simply based on the "cool kids" status. Those whom enjoyed Dr. Dre's music over the decades.
Yes, it is brand loyalty. There is more than one reason for people to have loyalty to the brand, but, to me, buying something just because of the badge on it is an expression of it.
I guess. Brand loyalty to me is too encompassing or umbrellas too much. You can be a constant returning consumer/purchaser just simply because the product or service is the only choice around. You can really despise the product or service, but that’s the only choice you have! Does that really make a consumer a brand loyalty customer simply because of the lack of choice? Be it a food desert, lack of transportation, lack of communication, lack of income, health issues, and all other social and political elements that plays apart in our lives, brand loyalty can (does) cover the most negative aspects as well.
For me, brand loyalty is about the positive qualities and experiences one enjoys from such products or services, thus, being consistent returning customers. But that’s just my opinion.
Economics has brand loyalty defined. Not to be confused with blind loyalty I guess; which seems to be what the debate is over. But I suppose there is some cross over.
Definition of Brand loyalty – This occurs when consumers have a strong preference for a particular type of good or brand. It means that the consumer will be willing to make repeat purchases and is much less likely to experiment with other goods.
Economics has brand loyalty defined. Not to be confused with blind loyalty I guess; which seems to be what the debate is over. But I suppose there is some cross over.
Definition of Brand loyalty – This occurs when consumers have a strong preference for a particular type of good or brand. It means that the consumer will be willing to make repeat purchases and is much less likely to experiment with other goods.
Brands grew to prominence with the advent of mass production. Prior to that, goods were produced locally for local consumption and you were at the mercy of local vendors as to the quality of wares and goods you got. An example is confectionery, where some Victorian confectioners would put sawdust as a filler into their sweets. A product founded on the best quality and communicated as such meant you could make an informed choice - buying Cadbury's chocolate meant getting proper, quality chocolate without having to worry about unwanted ingredients. After a while, companies found that they could influence consumers by working on the psychological associations with the brand name rather than the product itself. Hence we see a move away from explicit advertising of a product's qualities to the subtler modern advertising where it's more about image and association with cool looking, happy models and celebrity endorsements etc.I guess I see the distinction, but the assumption there is that you are always making decisions based on incomplete information, so buying something else is taking a chance on the unknown. This is much less often the case these days with the abundance of ways we have to research products, such that choosing to buy something based on brand alone is more of an overt rejection of other factors.
Some fraction of both populations lol.Great. So what's the split between brand loyalty and blind loyalty (fanboys) consumers among the PlayStation and Xbox userbases. I'm just joking with this reply...![]()