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.
Impact of consumer preferences, brand loyalty, and prestige on Consoles [2019 edition] *spawn*
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
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.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).
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
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.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm not disagreeing but whenever did two consoles offer the same features at the same price? It's never been equal. Affordable is itself subjective, for wgat you spent on a PS3 you could have spent on a 360 and a lot of games. Is that equal? I'd argue not.
Prior to the nextgen transition I'd had said Microsoft's smartest move would be to go cheaper but the carry-over of existing software libraries and it's influence/desirability to existing One/PS4 owners is impossible to measure. This is not PlayStaton to PS2 orders of magnitude where playing older gen games will look absolute arse compared to new games.
Who knows, we'll have a better idea in two-to-three years.
The fact that it's still a consideration is what I and perhaps others consider a degree of "brand loyalty". On the flipside, the actions of Sony decades earlier [propriety technology going against standards, installing root kits on PCs, faultering color control boards on CRT TVs as some examples] has negative brand loyalty connotations for me. That's part of why I skipped PS3 and waited until the midgen for Playstation and why I probably will consider other brands for TVs before Sony all things being equal.
Such topic spanning discussions...
Such topic spanning discussions...
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.
I sense indoctrination.
ಠ_ಠ
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.
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.
rologue, 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.Silent_Buddha
Legend
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.
Basically, as you mentioned Brand Loyalty isn't an on or off things. It's a sliding scale depending on the person. So in PS3's case, X360 being the only next gen console for a year wasn't enough to get PS2 players to get an X360. PS3's launch eroded enough of that brand loyalty for some people that they gave in an got an X360. OTOH, there were still 10's of millions of PS2 players that still would not consider an X360 and just waited until the PS3 offered a better value for them even if it was still a lower value (in terms of features, # of titles on the platform, quality of multiplatform titles, etc.) compared to the X360.
For them, the X360 was never a considering and Xbox will never be a consideration for them as long as Sony continues to make a PlayStation, regardless of it's quality.
I think a lot of people here are downplaying the excellent work that Sony did with regards to exclusive titles for PS3. Uncharted, GT5
Absolutely! I alluded to this slightly by mentioning how PS3's value proposition improved quite a bit as the generation went on and developers got to know the hardware well enough to start taking advantage of its unique features (which were a detriment to the PS3 at the start of its life cycle).
Exclusives were expected for the platform, but PS3 had massively less of them than the PS2 did. By then the X360 had established itself such that most developers, even Japanese ones, couldn't ignore the platform.
That the PS3 still managed to do well despite falling so far in that regard compared to the PS2 is again a testament to how many players remained loyal to the brand even when the platform struggled in terms of launching late compared to X360 and then further struggled for the first 1-2 years in terms of quality. After that, their faith in the platform was rewarded as Sony's 1st party titles started to really shine and 3rd parties for the most part were able to achieve parity with X360 for multiplatform titles.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Sales-wise 360 and PS3 were about even at the time this generation ushered in so "most" did not wait for PS3. If you look historically at sales of consoles, the least number of annual sales occur in the first two rolling years of sale which makes sense as consoles are at their most expensive, with the least compelling bundles, the least amount of games in their libraries and few good cheap games available in sales.
PS3 sold bad when it was expensive, multi-platform games played worse and its exclusive library was lacking. 360 took a hit with RRoD, which landed about the same time Sony starting turned things around.
Xbox One sold bad when it was expensive (Kinect), multi-platform games played worse and its exclusive library was lakcing, and got better when Microsoft began to turn things around. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Sony did not have an equivalent to RRoD to cast their console in a better light.
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.
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.
It is, simply, when the brand overrides all other considerations when making a purchase. If you buy something because it is the objective best or only option that's not an expression of brand loyalty. If you buy something that is an objectively worse value purely because you like the brand, regardless if why you like the brand, it's an expression of brand loyalty.
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.
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...
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.
Brands are therefore psychological connections, like any other. You'll get some people hooked, like a cult (will die to protect). You'll have others enthused, like a religion (will resist change, but sufficient reason to change can cause them to change beliefs). You'll have some in favour, like a club (you may visit a club routinely, but you won't shun other social opportunities and may replace it). And some who don't have any psychological preference (there'll of course be anti-loyalty, or Brand Prejudice, though I've never heard that talked about explicitly).
There are far too many considerations to be able to make proper informed choices for every product we buy, so we have to rely on other things. Take the Beats headphones example. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of headphone options for a potential customer. The effort to research all of them and find the best ones is not insignificant. Seeing everyone else walking around with them takes the pressure off, because the Masses must know something you don't, and if they all know these headphones are the ones they want, they must be the best... That's where user reviews have picked up, where we can see at a glance which products are recommended by one's peers. Seeing as these can be cheated and, quite frankly, the quality can often suck ("5 stars! I haven't used it yet but it looks good."), I expect personal filters for these are going up in users. Strong brands that manage to create a reputation therefore simplify the decision making process and are welcome.
Of course, the greatest influencer for brand preference though is personal experience. If a company's products have served you well in the past, you are more likely to go with the same based on trust that they'll continue to serve you well.
Thus we have 'Brand Loyalty', which is part of the decision making process as a mental shortcut to let us get on with other things instead of being constantly immersed in researching products to buy. This will of course be a very personal thing. Some folk will research a lot, especially for big ticket items. Some will not care and buy on colour or style. Generally, people have some preferences for some products that aren't exhaustively researched but based on 'good enough' experience/data for the buyer.
This brings us to consoles and where consumers are going to go. some are arguing that it's price that matters and consumers aren't brand loyal. Well, consider the hypothetical case that PS5 releases at $500, and some unknown Chinese box built to the same quality as PS5 and its same spec for $250, the "Golden Rabbit Happy Joy Box." How well is that Chinese box going to sell? We all know it wouldn't go on to take the market by storm because it's untrusted. Hence we see that the reputation for PS is influencing buyers significantly.
PS is therefore way out in front for console brand - PS1 was great, PS2 was great, PS3 was okay, but thanks to the prior two generations, there was enough faith in the faithful to believe Sony could go back to form. Coupled with being cheaper and MS's snafu's, PS4 had a clear advantage. That now means 3 out of 4 top-draw brand-strengthening products. The mainstream gamer associates PS with mainstream gaming- how can they not? MS releasing a cheaper, similar product can't expect people to switch because of brand strength and shoppers preferring the product they know rather than taking a chance on an unknown. MS OTOH has struggled with a brand that muddles with their corporate brand. MS as a brand was not favourable when XB launched because Windows caused so many headaches. 360 saw a great product well marketed gain share because the rival screwed up so much, making it feel less risky to take a chance on a different brand. PS4's return to form coupled with XB1's disastrous start saw the XB identity weakened somewhat. So going into next gen, I think it's pretty apparent that people's psychology is going to favour picking PS5 over Scartlett as a default starting-place for the buying decision, and it's from there that different prices, services, etc. will have to swing people.
TL;DR If there is just one console next gen, sold by both companies at the same price with the same games, only one with a PS badge and one with an XB badge, the PS will sell better because consumers have already accepted PS and there's no reason to consider the other option, and this is what Brand Loyalty is - a general preference towards a product based on knowing who it's from and trusting, due to influences (prior experience, popularity, marketing), that its a good choice without having to go research the market for options.
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...
I mean Using Trump supporters as an example; surprisingly large even under threat of impeachment; corruption scandals; and genuine failure to deliver what he promised.
@Shifty Geezer - I agree with most of your points, but headphones are actually, pretty easy to research.