Evaluating brand names without vowels

Abstract

In recent years, a new trend has emerged where a growing number of firms have
started using brand names without the vowels (e.g., Tumblr, Qzzr). However, to date research has not investigated how consumers evaluate such brand names. The current study aimed to explore the perception of vowel-less brand names among consumers. Across two studies, participants evaluated fictitious brand names of food products with and without the vowels (e.g., Ringner vs. Rngnr) on a number of attributes. Study 1 investigated the brand personality traits and Study 2 tested the fictitious brand names on traits specific to food brands (e.g., taste, healthfulness). The results of Study 1 demonstrate that brands with vowel-less (vs. voweled) names are perceived as more rugged whereas those with voweled (vs. vowel-less) brand names are perceived as more sincere, competent and sophisticated. The results of Study 2 demonstrate that food brands with vowel-less (vs. voweled) brand names are rated significantly lower in attributes of taste expectation, quality, expensiveness, willingness-to-pay, and healthfulness. Together, these findings reveal how the new trend of vowel-less brand names may influence consumers, especially in the context of food brands.

Full text

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
1
Evaluating brand names without vowels
Abhishek Pathak1and Kosuke Motoki2
1School of Business, University of Dundee, UK
2Department of Food Science and Business, Miyagi University, Japan
Keywords: Sound symbolism; brand names; phonetic branding; vowels; vowel-less
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
2
Highlights
• Consumer evaluation of the vowel-less food brand names was explored
• Influence of the vowel-less (vs. voweled) names on the food brand personalities and attributes
was investigated
• Vowel-less (vs. voweled) food brand names are perceived as more rugged
• Voweled (vs. vowel-less) food brand names are perceived as more sincere, competent, and
sophisticated
• Vowel-less (vs. voweled) food brand names are negatively rated on the attributes of taste,
quality, healthfulness and willingness-to-pay
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
3
Abstract
In recent years, a new trend has emerged where a growing number of firms have
started using brand names without the vowels (e.g., Tumblr, Qzzr). However, to date
research has not investigated how consumers evaluate such brand names. The current
study aimed to explore the perception of vowel-less brand names among consumers.
Across two studies, participants evaluated fictitious brand names of food products with
and without the vowels (e.g., Ringner vs. Rngnr) on a number of attributes. Study 1
investigated the brand personality traits and Study 2 tested the fictitious brand names on
traits specific to food brands (e.g., taste, healthfulness). The results of Study 1
demonstrate that brands with vowel-less (vs. voweled) names are perceived as more
rugged whereas those with voweled (vs. vowel-less) brand names are perceived as more
sincere, competent and sophisticated. The results of Study 2 demonstrate that food brands
with vowel-less (vs. voweled) brand names are rated significantly lower in attributes of
taste expectation, quality, expensiveness, willingness-to-pay, and healthfulness. Together,
these findings reveal how the new trend of vowel-less brand names may influence
consumers, especially in the context of food brands.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
4
Evaluating brand names without vowels
1. Introduction
Brand names are one of the most important assets of any brand and marketers keep
innovating to create new and memorable brand names. Recently, a new trend has emerged where
many brands have started dropping the vowels from their names (e.g., Tumblr, Flickr, Qzzr to
name a few; see Figure 1). With the increasing penetration of social media in our lives, vowel-
less words such as /omg/, /lol/, and /srsly/ are commonly found in the internet language. This
trend mainly started due to the restriction of characters on many platforms (e.g., Twitter), or due
to a need for faster typing speed (without distorting the message or the pronunciation of the
word). It has now caught up with the food brands too (e.g., BLVD ice cream, SRSLY chocolate).
Although this trend is gaining momentum and newer brands are adapting to quirky, vowel-less
names, to date research has not investigated how consumers evaluate such names.
Brands have historically used linguistic tools to create memorable names [e.g., misspelled
name (Frooty loops) or quirky names (Doughp for the cookie-dough firm)]. Scarcity of regular
domain names has also led to this trend of vowel-less names (e.g., /Flickr/ dropped the vowel /e/
from their domain name). In our view, dropping vowels from names is a risky practice as vowels
are particularly pleasant and form an important part of language learning, linguistic expressions,
emotions, and word-to-meaning translations. How do consumers evaluate vowel-less names?
The current paper aims to explore this question, especially in the context of food brands.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
5
Figure 1. Examples of brands with vowel-less names.
Source- https://www.cohocreative.com/the-disemvoweling-of-modern-brands/
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Research on vowels
Humans are known to express themselves by using linguistic and non-linguistic cues
(e.g., facial expressions, postures). Linguistic expressions are mainly conveyed using vowels and
consonants, which form the building blocks of speech across languages. While consonants carry
the lexical information (e.g., /demos/ carries the meaning about ‘people’ as in the words
democracy, demographic), vowels convey the finer distinctions within speech (such as quality,
expressions, sarcasm, collectively called as prosody) (Nespor, Peña, & Mehler, 2003). For
example, the statement ‘he plays piano’, can be made factual or inquisitive by manipulating the
place of stress in the sentence and the vowel length (both being the features of prosody).
Vowels are the most noticeable sounds (e.g., longer duration and energy) in syllables
(e.g., Alku, Sivonen, Palomäki, & Tiitinen, 2001) and play an integral part in cognitive processes
such as language acquisition (Nespor et al., 2003). In addition, vowels enhance expression and
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
6
emotion (Beňuš & Rusko, 2009). Even in music, vowels play an important role and research
suggests that vowels are the “minimum units of emotion” in musical language (Petrović, 2017).
A large body of research in cross-modal correspondences has now linked vowels with
many brand/product attributes (e.g. size, food packaging). One of the most cited phenomena in
the cross-modal research, the mil/mal effect (i.e., the association of front vowel /i/ with
smallness) has largely been attributed to vowels. Research in the field of naming has shown that
vowels and long vowels present in a name can enhance its pleasantness (e.g., sweet taste),
softness, and euphonic appeal [e.g., names Meth (less pleasant) vs. Latha (more pleasant)
(Whissell, 2001)]. Relevant to the current paper, vowels have also been linked to brand
personalities (Pathak & Calvert, 2020) and food-related attributes (e.g., tastes) (e.g., Motoki et
al., 2020, 2021).
2.2. Research on brand names
Brand name is one of the most powerful assets of any brand. Consultants use four types
of linguistic devices to create memorable brand names (Lowrey, Shrum, & Dubitsky, 2003;
McNeel, 2017) - phonetic (e.g., repetition of sounds as in Coca-Cola), semantic (e.g., the name
‘Lights out’ for sleeping pills is suggestive of a good night’s sleep), morphological (e.g.,
compound words such as ‘Nutri-grain’, ‘Jelly-Belly’) and orthographic (e.g., misspelled or
vowel-less words such as BLVD ice cream) (McNeel, 2017). While discussion on the semantic,
phonetic, and morphological linguistic practice is out of the scope of this paper, research on the
orthographic methods, has often emphasized the importance of vowels in brand names (Lowrey
et al., 2003; McNeel, 2017; Whissell, 2001).
Since technology is placing restrictions on the writing space (e.g., limited characters in
Twitter), more usage of shortened words (and brand names) is seen (e.g., /lol/, /cu/, /srsly/). A
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
7
word can be shortened by removing either the vowels or the consonants. However, after the
removal of consonants, a word can hardly be recognized. For example, the word /seriously/ can
be reliably understood even after the removal of vowels (i.e., /srsly/), but not so after the removal
of consonants (i.e., /eiouy/). This may have led to the popular practice of misspelling words by
removing vowels.
It is likely that the vowel-less (or unusually spelled) brand names (e.g., Srsly) attract
attention and are considered informal/casual, and therefore enhance a brand’s recall (and at the
same time save space/characters in the social media platforms). However, there is evidence to
suggest that such names increase the cognitive effort and inhibit fluency (Lowrey et al., 2003;
McNeel, 2017; Pogacar, Shrum, & Lowrey, 2018), leading to undesirable outcomes (e.g.,
negative brand image, dislike) and a reduced cross-modal congruency (McNeel, 2017; Pogacar et
al., 2018). Not only brands, even people who have unconventionally spelled names [e.g., Diane
(conventional) vs. Dyan (unconventional)] are perceived to be less ethical, less popular, less
funny, and less successful (Mehrabian & Piercy, 1993). While unconventionally spelled names is
an under-researched area of naming, research suggests that the names/words that are easier-to-
pronounce are liked more by the consumers (Laham, Koval, & Alter, 2012).
2.3. Metacognitive experiences as information: feelings-as-information theory
We rely on the feeling-as-information theory as a theoretical foundation of our research.
Feelings-as-information theory conceptualizes the role of subjective experiences (e.g.,
metacognitive experiences of ease and difficulty) in judgment, and it assumes that consumers
attend to their feelings (e.g., processing fluency) as a source of information during the judgment
(Schwarz, Jalbert, Noah, & Zhang, 2021). Metacognitive experiences of ease and difficulty
ultimately influence the conclusions people draw from their thought processes and have been
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
8
shown to affect a broad range of consumer judgments (e.g., liking, truthfulness, risk) (Schwarz et
al., 2021 for a review). Specifically, fluent (vs. disfluent) stimuli lead to an inherently positive
state and affect thereby leading to a wide variety of positive evaluations (e.g., liking,
truthfulness, safety) (e.g., Schwarz et al., 2021). Relevant to the current paper, food products and
pharmaceutical drugs with disfluent names have been shown to be perceived as riskier and with
more side effects (e.g., Song & Schwarz, 2009; Schwarz et al., 2021). Considering the feelings-
as-information theory as the foundation, vowel-less brand names might be evaluated disfluently
and negatively (e.g., less tasty, more rugged).
Though there is literature available on the topic of misspelled words in consumer research,
there is hardly any discussion on the vowel-less names. How consumers evaluate such names is
still unknown. Relying on the feelings-as-information theory, the present research aimed to
address this gap and investigated the perception of vowel-less brand names in the F & B sector.
Across two studies, participants evaluated the fictitious brand names of food products with or
without the vowels (e.g., Rngnr vs. Ringner). Study 1 investigated the brand personality traits of
food brands having vowel-less (vs. voweled) brand names and Study 2 tested the attributes
specific to food brands in general (e.g., taste, nutrition, healthfulness).
3. Pre-test to select hypothetical brand names (BNs)
Six hypothetical brand names of seven letters each were created (Flummer, Lintrum,
Qingler, Revling, Ringner, Singler) and vowels were removed from them to create vowel-less
BNs names of five letters each (Flmmr, Lntrm, Qnglr, Rvlng, Rngnr, Snglr).The pre-test had
three parts. The first part of the pre-test was conducted to rule out any unintended pronunciation
of the BNs other than the one hypothesised. For example, the vowel-less BN, ‘Blvd’ can be read
as ‘Boulevard’ (intended pronunciation) as well as ‘Believed’ (unintended pronunciation).
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
9
Participants were told that ‘nowadays there was a trend of shortening the brand names’ and that
they would see a shortened brand name on the screen. They were then asked to guess the full BN
of the vowel-less name displayed. In the second and third parts of the pre-test, participants rated
the voweled BNs for pleasantness and familiarity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0-
100, (0 = not at all familiar/pleasant to 100 = very familiar/pleasant). After the pre-test, Ringner
(vs. Rngnr) and Lintrum (vs. Lntrm) were selected for the subsequent studies, as these name-
pairs were similar in both the pleasantness appeal and familiarity1.
4. Methods (common to both the studies)
All studies, including the pre-test were designed on Inquisit 6 software (millisecond.com)
and participants were recruited from the USA using Amazon Mechanical Turk. The Institutional
Review Board of a large northern university in the UK approved the research and respondents
who consented to participate were paid for their time and effort. Each respondent was allowed to
participate in only one study.
In Study 1, participants were told that they would see two hypothetical BNs, which
referred to novel chips or chocolate brands to be launched in an international, non-English
speaking market. They then had to rate the BNs on brand personality traits (e.g., Pathak &
Calvert, 2020). In Study 2, participants had to rate the same hypothetical BNs on food-related
attributes (e.g., healthfulness, taste) (Schneider, & Francis, 2005). Both the studies aimed to
recruit seventy participants; with a sample size of N ≈ 70, the power to detect a medium-sized
effect (≈ 0.22) in a mixed Repeated-measures ANOVA was found to be 1 – β = 0.952 using
G*Power 3.1.9.4.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
10
5. Study 1: Brand personality traits of vowel-less and voweled brand names.
5.1 Participants
A total of 69 participants between the ages of 24 to 69 years completed the study (M Age =
42.10 yrs., SD = 12.21, Males = 28, Females = 41). Sixty-eight participants were native English
speakers and one identified herself as a Vietnamese speaker. Out of the native English speakers,
one could speak a second language (German).
5.2 Procedure and design
Participants were told that a company was looking for novel names for two of its brands
of chocolates (chips was chosen as the food category for half the participants) for an
international, non-English speaking market. They were told that they would see two new brand
names on the screen, which the company had chosen. Participants then rated both the BNs (i.e.,
‘Rngnr vs. Lintrum’ or ‘Lntrm vs.Ringner’) on fifteen brand personality traits (BPS traits) (e.g.,
Pathak & Calvert, 2020). The fifteen BPS traits corresponded to four BPS dimensions:
ruggedness (reliable, intelligent, successful), sophistication (upper-class, charming), sincerity
(down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful), and excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative,
up-to-date). The presentation of the vowel-less vs. voweled BNs and the type of the food
category (i.e. chips or chocolates) was counterbalanced between-participants. The presentation of
the BPS traits was randomised within-participants. A practice block familiarised the participants
with the procedure, where a well-known car brand was used.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
11
5.3 Results
The average rating of all the fifteen BPS traits was taken to check for the outliers.
Grubbs test revealed one significant outlier at 0.05 (Critical Z = 3.25) whose data were excluded
from further analysis. Five univariate repeated measures ANOVA were conducted (one each for
a BPS dimension), with the ratings of the BNs as the independent variable and the five BPS
dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness) as the dependent
variables
The results revealed that the BPS dimensions of sincerity, competence and
sophistication were rated as significantly higher in the voweled (vs. vowel-less) BNs, whereas
ruggedness was rated as significantly higher in the vowel-less (vs. voweled) BNs (see Figure 2
and Table 1). No difference was observed in the BPS dimension of excitement and no difference
in the type of food category (i.e., between chips vs. chocolates) was observed for any of the BPS
dimensions (Sincerity: F (1,66) = 11.04, p = 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.14; M Vowel-less = 51.98, SD = 20.10;
M Voweled = 61.50, SD = 15.94; Competence: F (1,66) = 22.77, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.26; M Vowel-less =
56.11, SD = 22.15; M Voweled = 69.53, SD = 17.01; Sophistication: F (1,66) = 16.39, p < 0.001, ηp
2 = 0.20; M Vowel-less = 43.60, SD = 24.79; M Voweled = 59.20, SD = 22.11; Ruggedness: F (1,66) =
5.18, p = 0.026, ηp 2 = 0.07; M Vowel-less = 59.24, SD = 26.93; M Voweled = 48.27, SD = 23.85;
Excitement: F (1,66) = 0.76, p = 0.39, M Vowel-less = 58.04, SD = 20.89; M Voweled = 60.80, SD =
16.89).
The differences observed within each BPS dimension are reported below:
Sincerity Within the sincerity dimension, the voweled BNs were rated as significantly
higher in the honest, wholesome, and cheerful traits, whereas no difference was observed in the
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
12
down-to-earth trait (honest: M Vowel-less = 60.01, SD = 20.45, M Voweled = 66.29, SD = 20.74, t (67)
= 2.12, p = 0.037, d = 0.26 ; wholesome: M Vowel-less = 47.01, SD = 24.07, M Voweled = 58.93, SD =
20.41, t (67) = 3.34, p = 0.001, d = 0.40 ; cheerful: M Vowel-less = 46.85, SD = 25.52, M Voweled =
60.50, SD = 21.05, t (67) = 3.50, p = 0.001, d = 0.42 ; down-to-earth: M Vowel-less = 54.06, SD =
29.19, M Voweled = 60.29, SD = 20.05, t (67) = 1.36, p = 0.177).
Competence Within the competence dimension, the voweled BNs were rated as
significantly higher in all the three traits of reliable, intelligent, and successful (reliable: M Vowel-
less = 59.22, SD = 24.03, M Voweled = 70.90, SD = 17.25, t (67) = 3.45, p = 0.001, d = 0.42 ;
intelligent: M Vowel-less = 53.25, SD = 25.49, M Voweled = 68.57, SD = 20.41, t (67) = 4.29, p <
0.001, d = 0.52; successful: M Vowel-less = 55.87, SD = 24.87, M Voweled = 69.12, SD = 21.20, t (67)
= 4.17, p < 0.001, d = 0.51).
Sophistication Within the sophistication dimension, the voweled BNs were rated as
significantly higher in both the traits of upper class and charming (upper class: M Vowel-less =
43.23, SD = 27.50, M Voweled = 57.57, SD = 26.73, t (67) = 2.95, p = 0.004, d = 0.36; charming: M
Vowel-less = 43.97, SD = 28.41, M Voweled = 60.82, SD = 25.23, t (67) = 3.99, p < 0.001, d = 0.48).
Ruggedness Within the ruggedness dimension, the vowel-less BNs were rated as
significantly higher in the trait of ‘tough’ whereas no difference was observed in the trait of
outdoorsy (tough: M Vowel-less = 61.59, SD = 29.90, M Voweled = 48.82, SD = 28.11, t (67) = 2.59, p
= 0.012, d = 0.31; outdoorsy: M Vowel-less = 56.90, SD = 30.70, M Voweled = 47.72, SD = 26.87, t
(67) = 1.65, p = 0.103).
Excitement Though the vowel-less and voweled BNs were not rated differently in the
overall BPS dimension of excitement, within this dimension, the traits of spirited and up-to-date
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
13
were rated higher for the voweled BNs (and marginally significant for up-to-date). The vowel-
less BNs were rated as more daring (marginally significant), whereas no difference was observed
in the trait of ‘imaginative’ (spirited: M Vowel-less = 53..88, SD = 24.92, M Voweled = 63.75, SD =
20.39, t (67) = 2.75, p = 0.008, d = 0.33; up-to-date: M Vowel-less = 56.90, SD = 26.39, M Voweled =
64.69, SD = 24.01, t (67) = 2.00, p = 0.049, d = 0.24; daring: M Vowel-less = 64.91, SD = 26.75, M
Voweled = 55.34, SD = 25.76, t (67) = 1.94, p = 0.057; imaginative: M Vowel-less = 56.46, SD =
26.88, M Voweled = 59.41, SD = 25.78, t (67) = 0.60, p = 0.54).
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
14
# < 0.05; **p < 0.01; * = 0.001; Error bars represent the SE of means
Figure 2. Study 1: Brand personality traits of vowel-less and voweled brand names.
Dotted line =Vowel-less BNs and Solid line = Voweled BNs; BPS dimensions: Vowel-less BNs are perceived as less sincere, less competent, less sophisticated and more rugged than the voweled BNs; B PS traits: Vowel-less BNs are perceived as less honest, less wholesome, less
cheerful, less reliable, less intell igent, less successful, less upper class, less charming, less spirited, less up-to-date and tougher than the voweled BNs.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Sincerity* Competence** Sophistication** Ruggeddness# Excitement
Ratings
BPS Dimension
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Ratings
BPS Trait
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
15
Table 1. Results of Study 1: Brand personality traits of vowel-less and voweled brand names
BPS traits
Vowel-less
BNs
Voweled
BNs
p-value (BPS
traits)
BPS dimension
Vowel-less
BNs
Voweled
BNs
p-value (BPS
dimensions)
Down-to-earth
54.06 (29.20)
60.29 (20.05)
n.s.
Sincerity
51.99 (20.10)
61.50 (15.95)
0.001
Honest
60.01 (20.45)
66.29 (20.70)
0.037
Wholesome
47.01 (24.07)
58.93 (20.41)
0.001
Cheerful
46.85 (25.52)
60.50 (21.05)
0.001
Reliable
59.22 (24.03)
70.90 (17.25)
0.001
Competence
56.11 (22.15)
69.53 (17.01)
< 0.001
Intelligent
53.25 (25.49)
68.57 (20.41)
< 0.001
Successful
55.87 (24.87)
69.12 (21.20)
< 0.001
Upper class
43.24 (27.50)
57.57 (26.73)
0.004
Sophistication
43.60 (24.79)
59.20 (22.11)
< 0.001
Charming
43.97 (28.41)
60.82 (25.23)
< 0.001
Outdoorsy
56.90 (30.70)
47.72 (26.87)
n.s.
Ruggedness
59.24 (26.93)
48.27 (23.85)
0.026
Tough
61.59 (29.90)
48.82 (28.11)
0.012
Daring
64.91 (26.75)
55.34 (25.76)
0.057
Excitement
58.04 (20.89)
60.80 (16.89)
n.s.
Spirited
53.88 (24.92)
63.75 (20.39)
0.008
Imaginative
56.46 (26.88)
59.41 (25.78)
n.s.
Up-to-date
56.90 (26.39)
64.69 (24.02)
0.049
Note: Figures in bold show significantly different results (p < .05). Values in parentheses indicate the SD.
Sophistication (BPS dimension) = Average means of the BPS traits (upper class and charming)
Sincerity (BPS dimension) = Average means of the BPS traits (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful)
Competence (BPS dimension) = Average me ans of the BPS traits (reliable, intelligent and successful)
Ruggedness (BPS dimension) = Average means of the BPS traits (outdoorsy and tough)
Excitement (BPS dimension) = Average means of the BPS traits (daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date)
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
16
6. Study 2: Perception of food-related attributes in vowel-less and voweled brand names.
While Study 1 explored the brand personality traits of vowel-less and voweled BNs, the
aim of Study 2 was to explore attributes more related to food brands. The following nine food-
related attributes were measured: ‘healthy, tasty, expensive, high-quality, willing-to-pay,
environment friendly, local, nutritious and organic’ (Schneider & Francis, 2005). The procedure
was similar to Study 1; in addition, participants were asked about the frequency of consumption
of chips or chocolates (on a VAS from 0-100, 0 = very rarely to 100 = very frequently).
6.1 Participants
A total of 70 participants completed the study. One participant repeated the study, whose
data were deleted (M Age = 44.03 yrs., SD = 14.03, Males = 33, Females = 36, Min-Max Age =
22-72 yrs.). Sixty-five participants were native English speakers and four identified themselves
as non-native English speakers (one each of Marathi, Chinese, Indonesian and Tamil speakers).
Among the native English speakers, six participants could speak a second language (three
participants could speak Spanish, one each could speak Italian, French and German).
6.2 Results
The average rating of all the nine attributes was taken to check for outliers. Grubbs test
revealed no significant outlier at 0.05 (Critical Z = 3.25). The data were analyzed in two ways-
first, the average of the nine attributes was compared, and then the attributes were compared
individually.
6.2.1 Average of nine food-related attributes
A mixed-ANOVA with the type of BN (vowel-less vs. voweled) as the within-participant
factor and the frequency of consumption and the type of food category (chips or chocolate) as
between-participant factors revealed that the voweled BNs were rated as significantly higher than
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
17
the vowel-less BNs, F (1,61) = 9.03, p = 0.004, ηp 2 = 0.13, M Vowel-less = 43.30, SD = 16.57, M
Voweled = 52.33, SD = 15.97; no effect of the food category (i.e. chips vs. chocolates; F (1, 61) < 1, p
> .7) was observed, although participants gave a higher rating to chocolates (when compared to
chips) for both the vowel-less and voweled BNs (Figure 3 and Table 2). To test the effect of
consumption, its ratings were segregated in four categories [1= 0-25 (low); 2= 26-50 (moderate);
3= 51-75 (high); 4=76-100 (very high)] and no effect of the frequency of consumption was
observed (F (3, 61) < 1, p > .9). However, participants who were frequent consumers of chips or
chocolates, rated the BNs higher.
6.2.2 Individual food-related attributes
Paired t-tests revealed that the voweled BNs were considered tasty, high-quality,
expensive, and healthy and participants were willing-to-pay more for these BNs than the vowel-
less BNs (tasty: M Vowel-less = 55.16, SD = 23.73, M Voweled = 71.04, SD = 20.89, t (68) = 4.20, p <
0.001, d = 0.51; quality: M Vowel-less = 51.10, SD = 22.99, M Voweled = 68.27, SD = 18.80, t (68) =
4.91, p < 0.001, d = 0.59; willingness-to-pay: M Vowel-less = 38.98, SD = 22.18, M Voweled = 51.85,
SD = 20.59, t (68) = 3.95, p < 0.001, d = 0.48; expensive: M Vowel-less = 46.68, SD = 23.46, M
Voweled = 60.74, SD = 20.59, t (68) = 3.57, p = 0.001, d = 0.43; healthy: M Vowel-less = 33.67, SD =
22.42, M Voweled = 41.10, SD = 23.08, t (68) = 2.31, p = 0.024, d = 0.28)
No differences were observed for the attributes of ‘environment friendly, local, nutritious
and organic’(environment friendly: M Vowel-less = 46.36, SD = 22.50, M Voweled = 47.84, SD =
22.16, t (68) = 0.411, p = 0.68; local: M Vowel-less = 40.81, SD = 27.73, M Voweled = 44.22, SD =
29.17, t (68) = 0.88, p = 0.88; nutritious: M Vowel-less = 34.39, SD = 22.71, M Voweled = 39.32, SD =
22.34, t (68) = 1.64, p = 0.10; organic: M Vowel-less = 42.52, SD = 24.53, M Voweled = 46.58, SD =
25.42, t (68) = 1.05, p = 0.29) (Figure 3 and Table 2).
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
18
* = 0.001; **p < 0.001; # = 0.024; Error bars represent the SE of means
Figure 3. Study 2: Perception of food-related attributes in vowel-less and voweled brand names.
Dotted line = Vowel-less BNs and Solid line = Voweled BNs;
(Vowel-less BNs were perceived as less expensive, less healthy, less tasty, and low in quality. Participants were also willing-to-pay less for the vowel-less BNs)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Environment friendly Expensive* Healthy# Local Nutritious Organic Quality** Tasty** Willingness-to-Pay**
Ratings
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
19
Table 2. Results of Study 2: Perception of food-related attributes in vowel-less and voweled brand names.
Attributes
Vowel-less
BNs
Voweled
BNs
t-value
p-value
η
p
2
Tasty
55.16 (23.73)
71.04 (20.89)
4.20
< .001
0.51
High quality
51.10 (22.99)
68.27 (18.80)
4.91
< .001
0.59
Expensive
46.68 (23.46)
60.74 (20.59)
3.57
.001
0.43
Healthy
33.67 (22.42)
41.10 (23.08)
2.31
.024
0.28
Willingness-to-pay
38.98 (22.18)
51.85 (20.59)
3.95
< .001
0.48
Environment friendly
46.36 (22.50)
47.84 (22.16)
0.41
n.s.
n.s.
Local
40.81 (27.73)
44.22 (29.17)
0.88
n.s.
n.s.
Nutritious
34.39 (22.71)
39.32 (22.34)
1.64
n.s.
n.s.
Organic
42.52 (24.53)
46.58 (25.42)
1.05
n.s.
n.s.
All the attributes combined
43.30 (16.57)
52.33 (15.97)
3.36
.001
0.40
Note: Figures in bold show significantly different results (p < .05). Values in parentheses indicate the SD.
7. General Discussion
The present research aimed to explore the perception of vowel-less food brand names
among consumers. Study 1 investigated the role of vowel-less (vs. voweled) brand names on the
brand personality traits of food brands and the results revealed that brands with vowel-less (vs.
voweled) names were perceived as more rugged, less sincere, less competent, and less
sophisticated. Study 2 investigated the role of vowel-less brand names on the perception of food-
related attributes and the results of revealed that brands with vowel-less (vs. voweled) names
were perceived as less tasty, lower in quality, less healthy, and cheaper. In addition, participants
were willing-to-pay less for the brands having vowel-less (vs. voweled) names.
Differences in the processing fluency of BNs could be one explanation behind our
findings. Previous research has shown that fluent brand names (i.e., easy-to-pronounce) lead to
positive evaluations (e.g., purchase intention and taste expectancy) compared to disfluent names
(Cho, 2019). Though to the best of our knowledge, research has so far not investigated the role of
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
20
fluency of names in the BPS traits, metaphorical relations support our findings. Disfluent names
(e.g., misspelled or vowel-less names) are ‘hard-to-pronounce, and the difficulty of
pronunciation might lead to an enhanced perception of hardness and ruggedness.
Previous research has demonstrated that variations in vowels (e.g., vowel length or its
position in the mouth) in a food brand name can influence its evaluation and taste related
expectation (e.g., Pathak, Calvert, & Lim, 2020; Pathak, Calvert, & Motoki, 2020; Motoki et al.,
2020). Similarly, past research has highlighted the importance of vowels in enhancing the
pleasantness (e.g., sweetness, softness) of a name (Whissell, 2001). This might explain the
differences that we found in voweled (vs. vowel-less) brand names (i.e., more linkages with
pleasant vs. unpleasant attributes). Our findings add new evidence to the literature on food brand
naming and food-related attributes.
8. Limitations and future research
Firstly, the use of vowel-less words (e.g., /srsly/) is common in social media (e.g., Twitter),
and vowel-less names are commonly seen in sectors other than the F & B (e.g., technology firms
like ‘Flickr’). Our findings may likely differ if these brand names belong to a technology firm.
Whether there are differences in the perception of vowel-less (vs. voweled) brand names for
firms belonging to different sectors (e.g., technology vs. F & B), is yet to be seen. Future
research can explore this question. Secondly, our participants were from a diverse spectrum of
age groups. The use of vowel-less words seems more common among teenagers and younger age
groups. Further research needs to investigate how participants’ age modulates our findings.
Similarly, differences in the technology platforms or internet usage (e.g., time spent daily on
social media) and how it affects the results can be explored by future research.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
21
References
Alku, P., Sivonen, P., Palomäki, K., & Tiitinen, H. (2001). The periodic structure of vowel
sounds is reflected in human electromagnetic brain responses. Neuroscience Letters,
298(1), 25-28.
Petrović, M. (2017). The importance of vowels in music education. International Music
Education Research Centre (iMerc), Department of Culture, Communication, Media
and Institute of Education, University College London, UK
Beňuš, Š., & Rusko, M. (2009). Prosodic characteristics and emotional meanings of Slovak hot-
spot words. In Cross-Modal Analysis of Speech, Gestures, Gaze and Facial Expressions
(pp. 18-27): Springer.
Cho, H. (2019). Brand name fluency and perceptions of water purity and taste. Food Quality and
Preference, 71, 21-24.
Laham, S. M., Koval, P., & Alter, A. L. (2012). The name-pronunciation effect: Why people like
Mr. Smith more than Mr. Colquhoun. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3),
752-756.
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.
McNeel, A. E. (2017). A whole new wurld? How unusualbrand name spelling negatively affects
sensory perceptions ofnew products through cognitive and affective
processing.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.
Mehrabian, A., & Piercy, M. (1993). Positive or negative connotations of unconventionally and
conventionally spelled names. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(4), 445-451.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
22
Motoki, K., Park, J., Pathak, A., & Spence, C. (2021). Constructing healthy food names: On the
sound symbolism of healthy food. Food Quality and Preference, 90, 104157.
Motoki, K., Saito, T., Park, J., Velasco, C., Spence, C., & Sugiura, M. (2020). Tasting names:
Systematic investigations of taste-speech sounds associations. Food Quality and
Preference, 80, 103801.
Nespor, M., Peña, M., & Mehler, J. (2003). On the different roles of vowels and consonants in
speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2(2), 203-230.
Pathak, A., Calvert, G. A., & Motoki, K. (2020). Long vowel sounds induce expectations of
sweet tastes. Food Quality and Preference, 86, 104033.
Pathak, A., Calvert, G. A., & Lim, L. K. (2020). Harsh voices, sound branding: How voiced
consonants in a brand's name can alter its perceived attributes. Psychology & Marketing,
37(6), 837-847.
Pogacar, R., Shrum, L., & Lowrey, T. M. (2018). The effects of linguistic devices on consumer
information processing and persuasion: A language complexity× processing mode
framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 689-711.
Schneider, M. L., & Francis, C. A. (2005). Marketing locally produced foods: Consumer and
farmer opinions in Washington County, Nebraska. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 20(4), 252-260.
Schwarz, N., Jalbert, M., Noah, T., & Zhang, L. (2021). Metacognitive experiences as
information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consumer
Psychology Review, 4(1), 4-25.
Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency,
familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135-138.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
23
Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing
on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1),
37-54.
Whissell, C. (2001). Cues to referent gender in randomly constructed names. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 93(3), 856-858.
Wu, L., Klink, R. R., & Guo, J. (2013). Creating gender brand personality with brand names:
The effects of phonetic symbolism. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(3),
319-330.
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
24
Footnote 1
See Appendix 1 for detailed results of the pre-test.
Appendix 1
Results of the pre-test
A total of 51 participants took part, M Age = 45.67 yrs., SD = 12.52, Males = 28, Females
= 23. Fifty participants were native English speakers and one identified herself as a mandarin
speaker; out of the fifty native English speakers, one identified herself as a speaker of two other
languages (Japanese and Spanish). Participants were able to pronounce the BNs in the
expected/hypothesised line. There were minor variations in the spelling (e.g., flamer, flummer,
flimmer), however, the created BNs followed a similar pattern, and no major difference in the
pronunciation style (e.g., ‘Boulevard’ vs. ‘Believed’ for ‘Blvd’) was observed.
Pleasantness
BNs were found to be significantly different from each other in the pleasantness appeal,
F (5, 250) = 14.35, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.22. Pairwise contrasts revealed three clusters of two BNs
each, which were similar in pleasantness (Flummer and Qingler; M Flummer = 44.78, SD = 25.71,
M Qingler = 45.29, SD = 24.15, Mean difference = 0.51, p = 0.90, F (1, 58) = 112.13, p < 0.001, ηp2
= 0.66; Lintrum and Ringner; M Lintrum = 57.41, SD =17.23, M Ringner = 52.80, SD = 22.86, Mean
difference = 4.61, p = 0.17; Revling and Singler; M Revling = 63.43, SD =20.09, M Singler = 67.98,
SD = 19.58, Mean difference = 4.55, p = 0.17).
Final Author's Version

VOWEL-LESS BRAND NAMES
25
Familiarity
BNs were found to be significantly different from each other in familiarity, (F (4.18, 208.98)
= 12.93, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.21. Pairwise contrasts revealed two clusters of two names each, which
were similar in familiarity (Flummer and Qingler; M Flummer = 26.06, SD = 24.31, M Qingler =
24.71, SD = 23.93, Mean difference = 4.35, p = 0.25; Lintrum and Ringner; M Lintrum = 33.96, SD
=27.37, M Ringner = 33.61, SD = 27.50, Mean difference = 0.35, p = 0.92). The remaining two
BNs, Revling and Singler were found to be significantly different from each other in familiarity,
M Revling = 38.29, SD =29.74, M Singler = 46.74, SD = 29.55, Mean difference = 8.45, p = 0.005).
Final Author's Version