Side-by-side comparisons, brand equity and counterfactual thinking: The role of non-chosen brand and claim similarity on post-consumption product evaluation

Research shows High-Equity Brands (HEBs) have advantages over Low-Equity Brands (LEBs). In some markets, LEBs compete by matching HEBs’ numerical performance at a lower price, with their often side-by-side retail placement highlighting their similarities. However, it is unclear how these comparisons impact post-consumption evaluations, especially if brands exceed or trail their claims.Drawing on counterfactual thinking, results from seven studies reveal the surprising finding that LEBs enjoy a post-consumption evaluation advantage over HEBs hinging on two factors: identical pre-purchase claims and salience of these claims at the time of product usage/consumption. When claims differ or their salience fades, less ambiguous performance dominates evaluations, negating the LEBs’ advantage. Our findings hold significance for both research and practice. It reveals the underappreciated influence of unchosen brands as reference points, shaping post-consumption evaluations. For marketers, claims mirroring emerges as a viable strategy for LEBs, obviating costly improvements to deliver better performance than HEBs.