Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomorphic visual identity of a brand and its effects: a holistic perspective

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Visual brand identity plays a major role in communicating brand image in today’s cluttered marketing environment. Although studies related to brand identity elements have explored the effects of its individual elements such as logo, brand name, taglines, their holistic impact has not been fully investigated. Extending the design principles of biomorphism (which is imitating natural or nature-related attributes) from environmental psychology and architecture, we introduce a new holistic concept called biomorphic visual identity and test its influence on consumer responses, including perceived sustainability and perceived credibility, which lead to brand liking and purchase intentions. Findings from the study (a 2 × 2 mixed experimental design with visually manipulated—biomorphic vs. non-biomorphic—fictitious brand identity as stimuli and n = 420) suggest that the biomorphic visual identity of a brand influences marketing outcomes mediated by perceived sustainability and perceived credibility, both of which positively influence consumers’ brand likability and purchase intentions. The results also show that visual biomorphic elements have a higher impact than verbal ones on consumer responses. The idea of biomorphic visual identity introduced in this paper is not just novel and relevant to brand identity design, but is found to influence important marketing outcomes, as well. Furthermore, the mediating and moderating effects tested in this paper make the study conceptually robust. This research may trigger a series of studies on holistic, biomorphic design approach in brand building.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/2-8-march-2020/bmw-new-logo/.

  2. https://www.smartinsights.com/online-brand-strategy/brand-development/design-mistakes-that-can-cost-your-branding/.

  3. Manipulation of more than 3 independent variables makes the design extremely complex to operationalize (https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/chapter/9-1-setting-up-a-factorial-experiment/).

References

  • Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D.A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 38 (3): 102–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J.L. 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34 (3): 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D.A., and P. Brown. 1972. Evaluating vehicle source effects. Journal of Advertising Research 12 (4): 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J., S. Fournier, and S.A. Brasel. 2004. When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, P., and A.L. McGill. 2007. Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research 34 (4): 468–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, P., and A.L. McGill. 2012. When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (2): 307–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang, S.H., and E.A.C. Lim. 2006. The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising 35 (2): 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, S., A.D. Kalro, and D. Sharma. 2015. A comprehensive framework of brand name classification. Journal of Brand Management 22 (2): 79–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek, T.H., J. Kim, and J.H. Yu. 2010. The differential roles of brand credibility and brand prestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology & Marketing 27 (7): 662–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M.J., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1997. Visual identity: Trappings or substance. European Journal of Marketing 31 (5/6): 366–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, J.M. 2012. Strategic corporate brand alignment: Perspectives from identity based views of corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing 46 (7–8): 1064–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsukova, N. 2018. The process of transformation natural forms into an associative design model. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 463 (2): 022044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus, J.M. 2002. Biomimicry. Innovation inspired by nature. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthon, P., J.M. Hulbert, and L.F. Pitt. 1999. Brand management prognostications. MIT Sloan Management Review 40 (2): 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bo van Grinsven, B., and E. Das. 2016. Logo design in marketing communications: Brand logo complexity moderates exposure effects on brand recognition and brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications 22 (3): 256–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottomley, P.A., and J.R. Doyle. 2006. The interactive effects of colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Marketing Theory 6 (1): 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burmann, C., S. Hegner, and N. Riley. 2009. Towards an identity-based branding. Marketing Theory 9 (1): 113–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervellon, M.C., and L.I. Carey. 2014. Sustainable, hedonic and efficient. European Journal of Marketing 48 (7/8): 1375–1394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, A., G.J. Gorn, and P. Darke. 2010. Differences and similarities in hue preferences between Chinese and Caucasians. In Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products, ed. A. Krishna, 219–239. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.S., and C.H. Chang. 2012. Enhance green purchase intentions. Management Decision 50 (3): 502–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernev, A. 2004. Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14 (1): 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T.L., and J. Jass. 2002. All dressed up with something to say: Effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (2): 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Y.P., S.K. Lo, and A.Y. Hsieh. 2017. How colour similarity can make banner advertising effective: Insights from Gestalt theory. Behavior & Information Technology 36 (6): 606–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H., and N. Schwarz. 2010. I like those glasses on you, but not in the mirror: Fluency, preference, and virtual mirrors. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (4): 471–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S., and A. Ng. 2011. Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (2): 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R.B. 1993. Influence: The psychology of persuasion (revised edition). New York: Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cian, L., A. Krishna, and R.S. Elder. 2014. This logo moves me: Dynamic imagery from static images. Journal of Marketing Research 51 (2): 184–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, T., and A. Costall. 2008. The emotional connotations of color: A qualitative investigation. Color Research & Application: Endorsed by Inter‐Society Color Council, The Color Group (Great Britain), Canadian Society for Color, Color Science Association of Japan, Dutch Society for the Study of Color, The Swedish Color Centre Foundation, Color Society of Australia. Centre Français de la Couleur 33 (5): 406–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, A., O. Kardan, H. Kotabe, J. Steinberg, M.C. Hout, A. Robbins, J. MacDonald, G. Hayn-Leichsenring, and M.G. Berman. 2019. Psychological responses to natural patterns in architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology 62: 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vlieger, L., L. Hudders, and G. Verleye. 2012. The impact of green appeals on credibility: A mixed-method approach. In 11th International conference on research in advertising (ICORIA 2012): The changing roles of advertising.

  • Dhar, R., and K. Wertenbroch. 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (1): 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, N., J.F. Sherry Jr., A.M. Muñiz Jr., M.A. McGrath, R.V. Kozinets, and S. Borghini. 2009. American Girl and the brand gestalt: Closing the loop on sociocultural branding research. Journal of Marketing 73 (3): 118–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, W.B., K.B. Monroe, and D. Grewal. 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 28 (3): 307–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, G.R. 1994. Corporate reputations: Strategies for developing the corporate brand. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J.R., and P.A. Bottomley. 2004. Font appropriateness and brand choice. Journal of Business Research 57 (8): 873–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, A., and R. McDonald. 2018. Building brand authenticity in fast-moving consumer goods via consumer perceptions of brand marketing communications. European Journal of Marketing 52 (7/8): 1387–1411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., A. Waytz, and J.T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review 114 (4): 864–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 1998. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7 (2): 131–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 2004. Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1): 191–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esch, F.R. 2008. Brand identity: the guiding star for successful brands. Handbook on brand and experience management, 58–75. Cheltenham: PEFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fajardo, T.M., J. Zhang, and M. Tsiros. 2016. The contingent nature of the symbolic associations of visual design elements: The case of brand logo frames. Journal of Consumer Research 43 (4): 549–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, G. 2002. Biomorphic architecture: Human and animal forms in architecture. London: Menges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorentino, C., and C.M. Hoyos. 2014. The emerging discipline of biomimicry as a paradigm shift towards design for resilience. The International Journal of Designed Objects 8 (1): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, N., M. Korchia, and I. Le Roy. 2012. Celebrities in advertising: Looking for congruence or likeability? Psychology & Marketing 29 (9): 651–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V. 1988. Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research 14: 548–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foroudi, P., T.C. Melewar, and S. Gupta. 2014. Linking corporate logo, corporate image, and reputation: An examination of consumer perceptions in the financial setting. Journal of Business Research 67 (11): 2269–2281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 343–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamage, A., and R. Hyde. 2012. A model based on Biomimicry to enhance ecologically sustainable design. Architectural Science Review 55 (3): 224–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, R.E., B.A. Lafferty, and S.J. Newell. 2000. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising 29 (3): 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greyser, S.A., and M. Urde. 2019. What does your corporate brand stand for? Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb 2019: 82–89. https://hbr.org/2019/01/what-does-your-corporate-brand-stand-for. Accessed 9 March 2019.

  • Grimes, A., and I. Doole. 1998. Exploring the relationships between colour and international branding: A cross cultural comparison of the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Marketing Management 14 (7): 799–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B., J.L. Giese, and I.D. Parkman. 2013. Using type font characteristics to communicate brand personality of new brands. Journal of Brand Management 20 (5): 389–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guido, G. 2001. Introduction to the concept of salience. In The salience of marketing stimuli, 1–14. Boston, MA: Springer.

  • Guido, G., and A.M. Peluso. 2015. Brand anthropomorphism: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on brand personality and loyalty. Journal of Brand Management 22 (1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guido, G., M. Pichierri, G. Pino, and R. Nataraajan. 2019. Effects of face images and face pareidolia on consumers’ responses to print advertising: An empirical investigation. Journal of Advertising Research 59 (2): 219–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H. 2011. The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing 75 (4): 86–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2010. Confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed, 600–638. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, N.R., T.H. Baek, S. Yoon, and Y. Kim. 2019. Is that coffee mug smiling at me? How anthropomorphism impacts the effectiveness of desirability vs. feasibility appeals in sustainability advertising. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51: 352–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haws, K.L., K.P. Winterich, and R.W. Naylor. 2014. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24 (3): 336–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A.F. 2017. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hede, A.M., and T. Watne. 2013. Leveraging the human side of the brand using a sense of place: Case studies of craft breweries. Journal of Marketing Management 29 (1–2): 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P.W., and J.A. Cote. 1998. Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing 62 (2): 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P.W., J.A. Cote, S.M. Leong, and B. Schmitt. 2003. Building strong brands in Asia: Selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength. International Journal of Research in Marketing 20 (4): 297–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P.W., J.L. Giese, and J.A. Cote. 2004. Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing 68 (4): 60–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E.C., and M.B. Holbrook. 1982. Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46 (3): 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., and J. Lu. 2016. The impact of package color and the nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. Journal of Food Products Marketing 22 (2): 191–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, N. 2009. Colour and meaning in corporate logos: An empirical study. Journal of Brand Management 16 (8): 545–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janiszewski, C., and T. Meyvis. 2001. Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., G.J. Gorn, M. Galli, and A. Chattopadhyay. 2016. Does your company have the right logo? How and why circular-and angular-logo shapes influence brand attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research 42 (5): 709–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joye, Y. 2006. Cognitive and evolutionary speculations for biomorphic architecture. Leonardo 39 (2): 145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamins, M.A., M.J. Brand, S.A. Hoeke, and J.C. Moe. 1989. Two-sided versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising 18 (2): 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19 (1): 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 2003. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 595–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L., T. Apéria, and M. Georgson. 2008. Strategic brand management: A European perspective. London: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L., S.E. Heckler, and M.J. Houston. 1998. The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall. Journal of Marketing 62 (1): 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L., and D.R. Lehmann. 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science 25 (6): 740–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S.R., J. Heerwagen, and M. Mador. 2011. Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H.C. 1961. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly 25 (Spring): 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., J.D. Morris, and J. Swait. 2008. Antecedents of true brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising 37 (2): 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K., and V. Melnyk. 2016. Speaking to the mind or the heart: Effects of matching hedonic versus utilitarian arguments and products. Marketing Letters 27 (1): 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klink, R.R. 2003. Creating meaningful brands: The relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters 14 (3): 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, W. 2015 The task of Gestalt psychology (Introduction by Carroll C. Pratt). Princeton University Press; Originally published in 1935.

  • Kohli, C., and R. Suri. 2000. Brand names that work: A study of the effectiveness of different brand types of brand names. Marketing Management Journal 10 (2): 112–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., and M.J. Polonsky. 2019. In-store experience quality and perceived credibility: A green retailer context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 49: 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D.S., K. Purani, and S. Sahadev. 2017. Visual service scape aesthetics and consumer response: A holistic model. Journal of Services Marketing 31 (6): 556–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D.S., K. Purani, and S. Viswanathan. 2020. The indirect experience of nature: Biomorphic design forms in servicescapes. Journal of Services Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-10-2019-0418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, H., M. Puzakova, and J.F. Rocereto. 2015. Better not smile at the price: The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing 79 (4): 56–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, H., M. Puzakova, and J.F. Rocereto. 2017. When brand anthropomorphism alters perceptions of justice: The moderating role of self-construal. International Journal of Research in Marketing 34 (4): 851–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labrecque, L.I., and G.R. Milne. 2012. Exciting red and competent blue: The importance of color in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (5): 711–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, J.R., A.L. McGill, and A. Herrmann. 2011. It’s got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing 75 (3): 132–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, A. 1990. Involuntary attention and physiological arousal evoked by structural features and emotional content in TV commercials. Communication Research 17 (3): 275–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, L., J. Adams, B. Deal, B.S. Kweon, and E. Tyler. 1998. Plants in the workplace: The effects of plant density on productivity, attitudes, and perceptions. Environment and Behavior 30 (3): 261–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leder, H., P.P. Tinio, and M. Bar. 2011. Emotional valence modulates the preference for curved objects. Perception 40 (6): 649–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, T., B. Grohmann, A. Herrmann, J.R. Landwehr, and M. Van Tilburg. 2015. The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal of Marketing 49 (1/2): 146–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S.Q., V. Bogicevic, and A.S. Mattila. 2018. Circular vs. angular servicescape: “Shaping” customer response to a fast service encounter pace. Journal of Business Research 89: 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S., and A.G. Woodside. 2013. Animals, archetypes, and advertising (A3): The theory and the practice of customer brand symbolism. Journal of Marketing Management 29 (1–2): 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M.G., R.W. Naylor, J.R. Irwin, and R. Raghunathan. 2010. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing 74 (5): 18–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luffarelli, J., A. Stamatogiannakis, and H. Yang. 2019. The visual asymmetry effect: An interplay of logo design and brand personality on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research 56 (1): 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunardo, R., and C. Saintives. 2013. The effect of naturalness claims on perceptions of food product naturalness in the point of purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (6): 529–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiels, C.J., and U.R. Orth. 2017. Verticality in product labels and shelves as a metaphorical cue to quality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 37: 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D.J., S. Shapiro, and G. Mani. 1999. Enhancing brand awareness through brand symbols. New York: ACR North American Advances.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackiewicz, J. 2005. How to use five letterforms to gauge a typeface’s personality: A research-driven method. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35 (3): 291–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackiewicz, J. and M. Rachel. 2004. Why people perceive typefaces to have different personalities. In International professional communication conference, IPCC 2004 proceedings, 304–313.

  • Madden, T.J., K. Hewett, and M.S. Roth. 2000. Managing images in different cultures: A cross-national study of color meanings and preferences. Journal of International Marketing 8 (4): 90–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnier, L., and J. Schoormans. 2015. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology 44: 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., D.M. Mackie, and S. Chaiken. 1992. Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1 (4): 317–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malbasic, M., and Y. Choi. 2019. Designing branded atmospheres. Nature-inspired, multisensory spatial brand experiences for consumer electronics retail stores. The Design Journal 22 (sup1): 1913–1927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, N., and E.J. Johnson. 2002. When web pages influence choice: Effects of visual primes on experts and novices. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (2): 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazloom, M., R. Rietveld, S. Rudinac, M. Worring, and W. Van Dolen. 2016. Multimodal popularity prediction of brand-related social media posts. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international conference on multimedia, 197–201.

  • McQuarrie, E.F., and B.J. Phillips. 2005. Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising 34 (2): 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • McQuarrie, E.F., and B.J. Phillips. 2008. It’s not your magazine ad: Magnitude and direction of recent changes in advertising style. Journal of Advertising 37 (3): 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melewar, T.C. 2003. Determinants of the corporate identity construct: A review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Communications 9 (4): 195–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melewar, T.C., P. Foroudi, S. Gupta, P.J. Kitchen, and M.M. Foroudi. 2017. Integrating identity, strategy and communications for trust, loyalty and commitment. European Journal of Marketing 51 (3): 572–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melewar, T.C., and J. Saunders. 2000. Global corporate visual identity systems: Using an extended marketing mix. European Journal of Marketing 34 (5/6): 538–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirkia, H. 2018. The impact of biomorphic design on the memorability of interior environments. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, B., T.C. Melewar, and J. Chen. 2013. A framework of brand likeability: An exploratory study of likeability in firm-level brands. Journal of Strategic Marketing 21 (4): 368–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C.H., M.N. Bing, and E. Bogoviyeva. 2013. The effects of brand metaphors as design innovation: A test of congruency hypotheses. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30: 126–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordin, N., and S. Selke. 2010. Social aspect of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 23 (6): 317–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J.C. 1994. Psychometric theory 3E. New York: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okada, E.M. 2005. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research 42 (1): 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pancer, E., L. McShane, and T.J. Noseworthy. 2017. Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business Ethics 143 (1): 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandelaere, M., K. Millet, and B. Van den Bergh. 2010. Madonna or Don McLean? The effect of order of exposure on relative liking. Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (4): 442–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, C.R., M.R. Hyman, M. Niculescu, and B.A. Huhmann. 2013. Anthropomorphic responses to new-to-market logos. Journal of Marketing Management 29 (1–2): 122–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M., and S. Brockhaus. 2017. Dancing in the dark: Challenges for product developers to improve and communicate product sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 161: 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B.J., E.F. McQuarrie, and W.G. Griffin. 2014. The face of the brand: How art directors understand visual brand identity. Journal of Advertising 43 (4): 318–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittard, N., M. Ewing, and C. Jevons. 2007. Aesthetic theory and logo design: Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International Marketing Review 24 (4): 457–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purani, K., and D.S. Kumar. 2018. Exploring restorative potential of biophilic servicescapes. Journal of Services Marketing 32 (4): 414–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puzakova, M., and P. Aggarwal. 2018. Brands as rivals: Consumer pursuit of distinctiveness and the role of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research 45 (4): 869–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puzakova, M., and H. Kwak. 2017. Should anthropomorphized brands engage customers? The impact of social crowding on brand preferences. Journal of Marketing 81 (6): 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puzakova, M., H. Kwak, and J.F. Rocereto. 2013. When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing 77 (3): 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, E., and K.M. Korpela. 2018. Time-and self-related memories predict restorative perceptions of favorite places via place identity. Environment and Behavior 50 (6): 690–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauschnabel, P.A., and A.C. Ahuvia. 2014. You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management 21 (5): 372–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reap, J., D. Baumeister, and B. Bras. 2005. Holism, biomimicry and sustainable engineering. In ASME 2005 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, 423–431. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  • Reber, R., N. Schwarz, and P. Winkielman. 2004. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review 8 (4): 364–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rettie, R., and C. Brewer. 2000. The verbal and visual components of package design. Journal of Product & Brand Management 9 (1): 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reysen, S. 2005. Construction of a new scale: The Reysen likeability scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 33 (2): 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, P.S., A.S. Dick, and A.K. Jain. 1994. Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing 58 (4): 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries, A., and J. Trout. 1981. Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J.R., and L. Percy. 1980. Attitude change through visual imagery in advertising. Journal of Advertising 9 (2): 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J.R. and L. Percy. 1983. Visual communication in advertising. In Information processing research in advertising, ed. Richard Jackson Harris.

  • Rozin, P., M. Spranca, Z. Krieger, R. Neuhaus, D. Surillo, A. Swerdlin, and K. Wood. 2004. Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43 (2): 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado-Montejo, A., C. Velasco, J.S. Olier, J. Alvarado, and C. Spence. 2014. Love for logos: Evaluating the congruency between brand symbols and typefaces and their relation to emotional words. Journal of Brand Management 21 (7–8): 635–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgueiredo, C.F., and A. Hatchuel. 2016. Beyond analogy: A model of bioinspiration for creative design. AI EDAM 30 (2): 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sample, K.L., H. Hagtvedt, and S.A. Brasel. 2020. Components of visual perception in marketing contexts: A conceptual framework and review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 48 (3): 405–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, A.H. 1993. Measuring the value of corporate and brand logos. Design Management Journal (Former Series) 4 (1): 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, B.H. 1995. Language and visual imagery: Issues of corporate identity in East Asia. The Columbia Journal of World Business 30 (4): 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, B.H., and A. Simonson. 1997. Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, J.E. 2004. Visual consumption in the image economy. In Elusive consumption, ed. K. Ekstrom & H. Brembeck, 229–244.

  • Schroll, R., B. Schnurr, and D. Grewal. 2018. Humanizing products with handwritten typefaces. Journal of Consumer Research 45 (3): 648–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, C. 2015. Biomorphism and models in design. In Philosophy and Cognitive Science II, 209–221. Cham: Springer.

  • Spears, N.E., J.C. Mowen, and G. Chakraborty. 1996. Symbolic role of animals in print advertising: Content analysis and conceptual development. Journal of Business Research 37 (2): 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenis, N.D., I.A. van der Lans, E. van Herpen, and H.C. van Trijp. 2018. Effects of sustainable design strategies on consumer preferences for redesigned packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production 205: 854–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenis, N.D., E. Van Herpen, I.A. Van der Lans, T.N. Ligthart, and H.C.M. Van Trijp. 2017. Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials and visuals in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. Journal of Cleaner Production 162: 286–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, A., and J.J. Kellaris. 2017. How logo colors influence shoppers’ judgments of retailer ethicality: The mediating role of perceived eco-friendliness. Journal of Business Ethics 146 (3): 685–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, A., and T.J. Noseworthy. 2014. Place the logo high or low? Using conceptual metaphors of power in packaging design. Journal of Marketing 78 (5): 138–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan, V., A. Sorescu, J.B.E. Steenkamp, T.C.G. O’Guinn, and B. Schmitt. 2020. Branding in a hyperconnected world: Refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries. Journal of Marketing 84 (2): 24–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantos, A., E. Plakoyiannaki, E. Outra, and N. Petridis. 2016. Anthropomorphic packaging: Is there life on “Mars”? European Journal of Marketing 50 (1/2): 260–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R.S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usunier, J.C., and J. Shaner. 2002. Using linguistics for creating better international brand names. Journal of Marketing Communications 8 (4): 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bosch, A.L.M., M.D.T. de Jong, and W.J.L. Elving. 2005. How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10 (2): 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, H., T. Verhagen, and M. Creemers. 2003. Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of Information Systems 12 (1): 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Lans, R., J.A. Cote, C.A. Cole, S.M. Leong, A. Smidts, P.W. Henderson, C. Bluemelhuber, P.A. Bottomley, J.R. Doyle, A. Fedorikhin, and J. Moorthy. 2009. Cross-national logo evaluation analysis: An individual-level approach. Marketing Science 28 (5): 968–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vartanian, O., G. Navarrete, A. Chatterjee, L.B. Fich, H. Leder, C. Modroño, N. Rostrup, M. Skov, G. Corradi, and M. Nadal. 2019. Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 13 (1): 110–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, C., A. Salgado-Montejo, F. Marmolejo-Ramos, and C. Spence. 2014. Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and Preference 34: 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer Jr., R.W., and J.W. Hutchinson. 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 374–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viengkham, C., and B. Spehar. 2018. Preference for fractal-scaling properties across synthetic noise images and artworks. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, K.E., E.R. Spangenberg, and B. Grohmann. 2003. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (3): 310–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagemans, J., J.H. Elder, M. Kubovy, S.E. Palmer, M.A. Peterson, M. Singh, and R. von der Heydt. 2012. A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organisation. Psychological Bulletin 138 (6): 1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, M.F., K.P. Winterich, and V. Mittal. 2010. Do logo redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19 (2): 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S.W., and A.C. Scheinbaum. 2018. Enhancing brand credibility via celebrity endorsement: Trustworthiness trumps attractiveness and expertise. Journal of Advertising Research 58 (1): 16–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen Wan, E., R. Peng Chen, and L. Jin. 2017. Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research 43 (6): 1008–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E.O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zari, M.P. 2018. Biomimetic approaches to architectural design for increased sustainability. In Sustainable building conference, Auckland.

  • Zari, M.P., and J.B. Storey. 2007. An ecosystem based biomimetic theory for a regenerative built environment. In Sustainable building conference, Vol. 7.

  • Zhang, Y., L. Feick, and L.J. Price. 2006. The impact of self-construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32 (6): 794–805.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

    V. U. Vinitha

  2. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kozhikode, Kerala, India

    Deepak S. Kumar & Keyoor Purani

Authors
  1. V. U. Vinitha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deepak S. Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keyoor Purani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepak S. Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Visual brand identity designs developed and employed in main study
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Visual brand identity designs developed and employed in 2nd study
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vinitha, V.U., Kumar, D.S. & Purani, K. Biomorphic visual identity of a brand and its effects: a holistic perspective. J Brand Manag 28, 272–290 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00222-6

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00222-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation