Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sounds good: Phonetic sound patterns in top brand names

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that brand name sounds can influence consumer behavior. Sound symbolism, the link between sound and meaning, can convey product information, enhance affinity, and increase purchase intentions. This study examines sound patterns of Interbrand top 100 brand names, including three previously unexamined sound categories. Results show that top brand names have different sound patterns than general brand names. The pattern of differences suggests that sound symbolism may be one factor contributing to brand performance. Sounds more frequent among top brand names have potentially brand enhancing properties, while sounds less frequent may have the opposite effect. These findings should inform best naming practices and strategies.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the 95 million words COCA magazine database which references almost 100 popular magazines such as Time, Men’s Health, Good Housekeeping, Cosmopolitan, and Sports Illustrated for the years 1990–2012 (Davies 2008). The database draws from publications in a wide variety of domains such as news, health, home and gardening, women's, financial, religion, and sports, resulting in a balanced portrayal of the English language.

  2. The coding of these brand names and the benchmark dataset is available from the first author upon request.

  3. One brand name (Gap) was discarded because its frequency could not be determined since it is indistinguishable from the common noun “gap.”

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations and brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, C. T., Fournier, S., & Miller, F. (2008). Brands and their meaning makers. In C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 781–822). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J., Popa, M., & Smith, M. C. (2010). The sound of brands. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolinger, D. L. (1950). Rime, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word, 6, 117–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese, M. J. (1998). Revisiting serial position effects in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 3(9), 652–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2010). Small sounds, big deals: phonetic symbolism effects in pricing. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Accessed 24 Mar 2014.

  • Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English (19902008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Klerk, V., & Bosch, B. (1997). The sound patterns of English nicknames. Language Sciences, 19(4), 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 52–64.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Erlich, J. (1995). Giving drugs a good name, The New York Times Magazine, September 3, 36–37.

  • Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2010). An introduction to language (9th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R. F. (1992). Marketing mistakes (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, D. & Heath, C. (2011). How to pick the perfect brand name, Fast Company, January 3.

  • Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. (Eds.). (1994). Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, G. (2008). New car names - how they get 'em, CNN, March 7.

  • Interbrand (2011). Methodology. Accessed 20 Oct 2011. http://www.interbrand.com. Accessed 24 Mar 2014.

  • Jenkins, J. J., Russell, W. A., & Suci, G. J. (1958). An atlas of semantic profiles for 360 words. The American Journal of Psychology, 71(4), 688–699.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. C., Suzuki, N. S., & Olds, W. K. (1964). Phonetic symbolism in an artificial language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), 233–236.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: the use of sound symbolism. Marketing Letters, 11(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klink, R. R. (2001). Creating meaningful new brand names: a study of semantics and sound symbolism. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klink, R. R. (2009). Gender differences in new brand name response. Marketing Letters, 20(3), 313–326.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Klink, R. R. & Wu, L. (2013). The role of position, type and combination of sound symbolism imbeds in brand names. Marketing Letters.

  • Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P. (ed.). (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com. Accessed 24 Mar 2014.

  • Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. J. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 406–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrey, T. M., Shrum, L. J., & Dubitsky, T. M. (2003). The relation between brand-name linguistic characteristics and brand-name memory. Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (1985). In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.), The collected dialogues of plato including the letters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloss, I. (1981). Chickens and pickles. Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 47–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. W. (1998). The political impact of name sounds. Communication Monographs, 65(2), 154–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark website accessed 4/19/2012. http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/trademarks/main.dashxml. Accessed 24 Mar 2014.

  • Vanden Bergh, B. (1990). The rekurring kase of the special K. Journal of Advertising Research, 30(5), RC9–RC12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanden Bergh, B., Adler, K., & Oliver, L. (1987). Linguistic distinction among top brand names. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand names on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Many thanks to James Kellaris, Jakki Mohr, and Mary Steffel for their feedback, Jackelyn Torres Van Buren, Kelsey Fanning, and Julie Workman-Hank for their assistance with data analysis, Joel Steckel for his editorial guidance, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati, 925 Campus Green Dr., Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

    Ruth Pogacar

  2. Department of Management and Marketing, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT, 59812, USA

    Emily Plant

  3. Department of Linguistics, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula, MT, 59812, USA

    Laura Felton Rosulek

  4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center/University of Cincinnati, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA

    Michal Kouril

Authors
  1. Ruth Pogacar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emily Plant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laura Felton Rosulek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michal Kouril
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Pogacar.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 1 2001–2010 Interbrand top brands used in analysis
Full size table
Table 2 Sample from benchmark dataset (complete dataset includes 884 randomly selected names available from authors)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pogacar, R., Plant, E., Rosulek, L.F. et al. Sounds good: Phonetic sound patterns in top brand names. Mark Lett 26, 549–563 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9288-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9288-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation