Emotional design donald norman pdf

Some of the techniques listed in Emotional Design: Why We Love or Hate Everyday Things may require a sound knowledge of Hypnosis, users are advised to either leave those sections or must have a basic understanding of the subject before practicing them. DMCA and Copyright : The book is not hosted on our servers, to remove the file please contact the source url.

If you see a Google Drive link instead of source url, means that the file witch you will get after approval is just a summary of original book or the file has been already removed. Loved each and every part of this book. I will definitely recommend this book to design, non fiction lovers.

Your Rating:. Thus, the focus is more on the management of multiple brands than on a single brand. The focus of Brand Portfolio Strategy is also on multiple brands, but within the framework of a brand portfolio. This brand portfolio model emphasizes the relationship between brands and seeks opportunities to leverage the strength of one brand to project another.

Perspective In Building Strong Brands, Aaker discusses practical management issues and introduces a set of brand equity measures to help managers evaluate and track brand equity across products and markets. Thus, the book is quite practical from a tactical point of view. For example, it provides a tool for a brand manager to develop his or her own brand equity measures and a unique identity for the brand.

In other words, the book provides many take-aways for the practicing brand manager. Such organizational associations are more endearing and more resistant to imitation by other companies than product attributes.

The brand-as-person perspective focuses on the brand personality, which can make a brand more interesting and personalized. Aaker believes p. In Brand Leadership, the brand manager takes the leadership position in planning and implementing the business strategy.

According to Aaker and Joachimsthaler p. Similar to Brand Leadership, the perspective of Brand Portfolio Strategy is also strategic in nature. Country Scope Because brand management is the principal focus of Building Strong Brands, the brand manager typically is responsible for the entire management of the brand in one country. Managing a brand across countries requires a new set of skills, such as cross-cultural awareness and knowledge about the channel structure, legal structure, and the demographics of each country.

Thus, a brand manager with a tactical flair in only one country may not be suitable for the task. The brand leadership model, as espoused in Brand Leadership, takes a global perspective. A global perspective involves not only global branding issues but also manufacturing, outsourcing, and research and development. Brand architecture is a framework that identifies all the brands that are to be supported; their respective roles; and, more importantly, their relationship with one another.

The brand portfolio strategy also has a global component. The portfolio concept is particularly suitable for brand alliances e. A key component of the brand portfolio strategy is defining the brand scope. For what categories can the brand play a role? Is a new brand required to support a new product-market, such as an international market? If it is found that a brand alliance is more suitable than a brand extension for the global market, the brand portfolio strategy is compatible with such as a scenario.

However, Aaker and Joachimsthaler have not explicitly recommended a global brand alliance strategy in their brand leadership model. Management Structure Because of the tactical orientation of the model developed in Building Strong Brands, this book is more suitable for a mid-level brand manager. The brand leadership model focuses more on the strategic aspect of brand management. Thus, the manager must come from the upper echelons of corporate hierarchy because the task requires coordination between a multitude of people and organizations.

The implementation of the brand portfolio strategy also requires a manager at the top-most position of the marketing organization structure.

The person should be responsible for designing the brand portfolio, setting roles for the portfolio and the individual brands, defining the scope of the brand i. Thus, the manager should be near the top in the marketing division hierarchy. This position is akin to the category manager position that is prevalent in many multiproduct multibrand companies for more details on category management, see, e.

For example, a category manager oversees all shampoo brands e. The category manger ensures that each brand has a unique positioning and that all brands follow a coordinated promotion strategy, thus minimizing promotional inefficiency and the possibility of brand cannibalism.

Control of Communication The model in Building Strong Brands is designed in such as a way that the brand manager makes most of the brand communication decisions. In addition, the communication is mostly geared toward the consumer because customer relationship building is a key ingredient in this model.

The brand leadership model and the brand portfolio strategy are designed for both external and internal communication. Although it is important to inform and persuade the consumer about product benefits, it is perhaps equally important to communicate internally to the key people in the organization to ensure complete convergence in strategic outlook.

In the brand leadership model, the control of communication essentially rests with the brand leader. The portfolio approach requires that the portfolio graphics i. The selection of the logo and its dimension, color, and layout can be used to make a statement about the brand and its relationship to other related brands.

Aaker illustrates how Mariott uses portfolio graphics to signal the relative driver role of a group of brands. Opportunity of Brand Leveraging Leveraging a brand involves building a strong brand platform in the core market and then extending the brand into other markets.

It may involve brand extensions to a new product-market or a vertical line extension that moves the brand upscale or downscale in the same market. In Building Strong Brands, Aaker talks about a system approach in brand management, but the focus is always on a single brand. Although scope for brand extension and line extension is always there, it is limited. There is also the risk of hurting the dominant brand if the extension goes awry.

The brand portfolio strategy provides the best opportunity for brand leveraging. In addition, the brand portfolio management must consider not only the current scope of the brand but also the future opportunities. Brands should be leveraged as part of a long-term plan that outlines the ultimate product scope, the sequence that will take it to the destination, and the associations that are necessary to be successful.

This focus on the future distinguishes the brand architecture concept proposed in the brand leadership model and the brand portfolio strategy. Summary Overall, I believe that Building Strong Brands is suitable for the mid- to upper-level brand manager. It provides the manager with a tactical perspective on how to manage a brand. Aaker explains the concept of brand equity clearly and outlines measures of brand equity. In addition, Aaker urges the brand manager to expand his or her perception of the brand.

The ideas of brand as organization, brand as person, and brand as symbol are espoused in addition to the traditional brand-as-product perspective. Indeed, Aaker acknowledges the same in the preface of Brand Portfolio Strategy. In his words p. Thus, in this book a new label, brand portfolio strategy, is used. This makes the brand portfolio strategy somewhat stronger than the brand architecture model. Consumption, Happiness, and Marketing: A Review of Antimarketing Books A clutch of books published over the past three decades appears to present an antimarketing argument.

This is a review of some of the more significant of these books. The question is, Why should marketing academics engage with these analyses? All the books under consideration highlight a misguided pursuit of fulfilment through material acquisition and the transformation of the civil citizen into a self-centered consumer.

Why are such critiques problematic for the marketing discipline? The authors suggest that in supposedly neutrally serving materialism and consumerism, managerial micromarketing is not helping people be happier, even though this is primarily what is promised. The main idea running throughout these works is that despite a gargantuan industry that teaches and trains marketing managers, people are joyless, discontent, unhappy customers whose quality of life is declining, whose social welfare is eroding, and whose physical habitat is being depleted and destroyed.

The best efforts of marketing technology notwithstanding, people have hit the social limits of the ideology of consumption. How can marketers respond to such withering blows? What can and should marketers do in recognition of the cultural, social, ecological, and economic consequences of large-scale marketing systems? I review the books in chronological order based on publication date, though I did not read them in this sequence.

All but one were written in the North American context, primarily by economists. Two were written by psychologists, and the other two were written by laymen consumers or is that citizens?

In essence, the metatheme is consumption. The question raised is, What good are the goods people acquire and use? Are marketers to blame for any waste that ensues?

The economic view is that higher spending produces more satisfaction, but there is evidence to the contrary. Most survey data suggest that though economic welfare has undoubtedly risen, people are not happier as a result. The question then is, How essential is this escalating consumption to happiness?

For Scitovsky, the answer lies in understanding and explaining comfort rather than satisfaction. People are driven by the desire to relieve discomfort and for stimulation to relieve boredom. The main scope for choosing between pleasure and comfort in an affluent society is stimulation.

Ironically, the pleasures of want satisfaction are crowded out by affluence i. Scitovsky wonders when status seeking and conspicuous consumption benefit society. He also importantly emphasizes that the North American lifestyle on which many model their expectations for their own lives is very expensive in terms of energy and exhaustible resources. Goods and services are socially determined as necessities and luxuries.

Necessities serve biological functions for the satiable avoidance of pain. The consumption motive is comfort, and the result is the satisfaction of a need. Luxuries are everything else. The motive is the stimulation that satisfies wants, but pleasure seeking is insatiable. Comfort is achieved when the level of arousal is at or near optimum.

Pleasure accompanies changes in this level, and therefore satisfaction of a need provides pleasure and comfort. A choice must be made: A person can have pleasure with some sacrifice of comfort or comfort with the giving up of some pleasure.

When comfort i. What motivates the choice is either comfort or pleasure. Increased affluence leads to the increased preference for comfort, but the price is the loss of pleasure. Satisfaction of a want eliminates a discomfort, the initial presence of which is a necessary condition of pleasure. In contrast, stimulation eliminates the discomfort of boredom, but the condition of deriving pleasure is the discomfort of the temporary strain it creates.

The pleasures of stimulation are more likely to win over comfort than are satisfaction of wants because there is greater scope for free and rational choice.

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Too much comfort may preclude pleasure. Scitovsky notes that people take for granted the good things of life and become addicted to them. At one time, a proud self-image was that of the sovereign consumer basking in a free- enterprise economy with freedom of choice to pursue his or her own personal tastes independently, thus determining what is produced and what is not.

Society is an unhealthy plutocracy in which those who have more money have more influence and those who have less money must conform to what others want; this is the rule of modern capitalism. Tastes are well catered to if a person is willing to conform. Could it be that people desire satisfaction in the wrong things and in the wrong way and are then dissatisfied with the outcome? Is it those who offer the advantages who are to blame for the drawbacks?

Still, people want to retain the benefits, so they seek a remedy in greater control over producers and their relationship with consumers; in others words, it is marketers who are at fault, not the consumers. By contrasting the analyses of economists with those of psychologists, Scitovsky shows the conflict between what people choose to acquire and what will best satisfy them.

It is assumed that rational consumers know what they are doing, do what is best for them, and do the best they can, and the job of the economy is to deliver what consumers want. However, Scitovsky argues that this conceptualization overlooks that tastes are highly variable, easily influenced, and modified by price changes and availability of alternatives.

It also overlooks that what modifies tastes may also modify the ability to derive satisfaction from things. Furthermore, both consumers and producers benefit from the other conforming to their wishes, but producers have far more power and influence than consumers.

Harmony in the marketplace is derived through the informing actions of competitors and buyers and sellers. However, most of the conforming is done by those whose behavior is most flexible. He points out that most life satisfactions come from outside of the market economy: from nonmarket goods and services, self-sufficiency, mutual stimulation, externalities, and work. Yet people are engulfed daily in a sea of promotional messages that tell them to find satisfactions in purchases.

As a result, they miss the realization that the contribution of the economic product i. In the market, two parties exchange because they prefer what they receive versus what they give. Furthermore, some market exchanges create both satisfactions and the needs they satisfy, and thus they have little or no use.

Most stimuli bring external benefits that are sensed by the consumer and others, so enjoyment is often enhanced by sharing. Most comforts have no external benefits, and they generate external nuisances e. Scitovsky argues that together these explain why happiness depends on ranking in society rather than on absolute income. This is a recurring theme in these books. The Discontent of Economic Growth Paul Wachtel uncovers the psychological consequences of a growth-oriented way of life Wachtel In this account, there is a sense of deprivation and decline that drives the pursuit of greater economic growth, and this leads to serious harm to the life-sustaining environment.

The problem lies not in production, for people can make anything they need and want, but rather in the distribution of goods and services. A growth-based economy ultimately generates discontent.

Wachtel diagnoses basic misleading assumptions about the individualistic consumerist way of life in North America. People have lost track of what they really need: psychological well-being in terms of social ties, openness to experience, and personal growth. In economic terms, well-being is calculated on quantity of production and the accumulation of outputs. What are the underlying sources of discontent? There are unrecognized realities of consumer life.

Third parties to market exchanges are usually powerless to affect them. The contribution of material goods to life satisfaction has diminishing returns, and well- being is wrongly defined in economic terms.

People do not need to be more competitive, they need to be clearer about what they have and what they need. The Problem of Too Much and Too Little What are the consequences of a consumption-oriented society in which people have too much or too little Durning ? Human wants are insatiable, so a consumer society can never keep the promise of fulfilment through material possessions. People gorge on material things while hungering socially, psychologically, and spiritually for family and social relationships and meaningful work and leisure.

For many people, consuming is now the primary means of self-definition and leisure pastime activity. In an era when progress is still sought through higher consumption, and the consuming elite are responsible for most of the exhaustion, poisoning, and disfigurement of precious life-sustaining land, water, and air, are people really dying to shop and, in so doing, dying of consumption? One other woman, this one extremely competent with technology who figured out everything else quickly balked at the Jensen clock.

Once you've read the manual it makes sense. But when told the price, she balked: " Sixty bucks! I like the concept. It would definitely be a good thing on the wall and people would ask about it. Cool looking. I have no problem with unique objects for decoration, but not for function.

This person thought the price outrageous. But even so, she said, it wouldn't be bad price for a wall clock, and as a wall clock, it wouldn't matter if people couldn't tell the time -- it would make for conversation. Our studies lead us to suspect that just as we might be able to classify products along three dimensions of attractiveness visceral , functional and usable behavioral and high in prestige reflective , we can also classify people along these dimensions.

Visceral level people will be strongly biased toward appearance, behavioral people towards function, usability, and how much the feel in control during use. And Reflective level people who would seldom admit to be one , are heavily biased by brand name, by prestige, and by the value a product brings to their self-image — hence the sale of high-priced whiskey, watches,, automobiles, and home furnishings.

The second woman was clearly behavioral. In all the objects she tested, she rated them first on how well they performed, how comfortable she was using them. But then, she stated quite clearly, that if the product passed her initial tests, she would be willing to pay extra for something attractive.

In the case of the clock, the behavioral test was waived because she treated it as a work of art, not a functional device, and as art, it didn't matter if the time was readable. For that, her criterion was different: calling it a conversation piece allowed it to be judged reflectively.

Before she knew the brands, but was simply allowed to look and pick up the three peelers, she pronounced the OXO Peeler to be superior. She really knows what she is doing in the kitchen. I'm surprised she chose this handle. It isn't as good as this one OXO , and the blade wobbles. Still, maybe, We then asked her to peel an entire carrot with each of the three peelers. The EKCO was first. She hated it: " it hurts," she said.

I'm really curious to use the Martha Stewart one, because she must have done it well. I know she must. The Martha Stewart peeler was second. But it really didn't work well at all: " this is awful," she complained, "I can't believe this is a Martha Stewart. This is a Martha Stewart one? She Martha did not use it, believe me. Using the OXO, she said " see, this lets you have control. It doesn't hurt your feelings.

And it was so dull. We later discovered that we had inadvertently performed a natural experiment. This particular peeler was indeed dull, even though it was brand new.

The dullness, however, allowed us to pit the power its brand against its poor performance -- brand almost won.

Later, we purchased a new sample of the Martha Stewart peeler that worked much better. Even after we moved her to the alarm clocks she kept persevering: "I am really shocked that was a Martha Stewart. I mean, it was useless.

It isn't rocket science, it's just a potato peeler.