Means-Goal Conflict and Novel Brand Choice

Abstract Globalization and technological advancements have spurred a rapid increase in the number of novel brands in the marketplace. When and why consumers choose a novel brand are increasingly important questions for marketers. The present research explores these questions and posits that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand depending upon the choice context. Specifically, we theorize that consumers are more likely to choose a novel brand under means-goal conflict (as opposed to means-goal congruence). We suggest this effect occurs because in contexts involving means-goal conflict consumers are motivated to justify their choice, and novel brands afford consumers the opportunity to do so. That is, unlike familiar brands, novel brands lack strong associations in consumers’ minds, which allows consumers the ability interpret them as less impedimental (ie, less harmful) to their goal (a choice-justification strategy), thereby increasing choice. We test and find support for our hypotheses about novel brand choice across eight studies. The present research contributes to the literatures on branding, consumer goals and choice, and means-goal associations, and has implications for managers launching new brands into the competitive global marketplace.