Marka Maskotlarında Antropomorfizm Kullanımına Yönelik Göstergebilimsel Bir Analiz: Arçelik Markası Robot Çelik Vakası

Abstract

Bugünün pazarlama anlayışında, markaların sundukları fayda kadar sahip oldukları kimlik ve tüketicileriyle kurdukları ilişki üzerinden de değer kazandığı görüşü önemli yer tutmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, markalı ürün ve hizmetlere insani özellikler atfedilmesi pratiği giderek artmaktadır. Marka maskotları, antropmorfizm olarak tanımlanan bu pratiğin en yaygın örnekleridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, marka maskotlarında antropomorfizm kullanımını Arçelik markasının Çelik robotu vakası üzerinden göstergebilimsel açıdan değerlendirmek ve Çelik’in sahip olduğu antropomorfik özelliklerin Arçelik marka kimliğine yönelik inşa ettiği anlamları irdelemektir. Çalışma kapsamında, Çelik robotunun insanlaştırma aşamalarını (çocukluk-genç yetişkinlik-olgunluk) temsil ettiği düşünülen dört Arçelik televizyon reklamı amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenmiş ve göstergebilimsel analiz yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda; antropomorfik marka maskotu Çelik’in sahip olduğu insani özelliklerin (örn. akıllı, yaratıcı, dünya vatandaşı) Arçelik’in yenilenen marka kimliğinin temel özellikleriyle (örn. teknolojik, yenilikçi, global yerlilik) örtüştüğü bulgulanmıştır. Bu durum; marka adının, logosunun, maskotun ve markalı ürün/hizmetin tam bir örtüşme içinde bulunduğu ve birbirinin yerine geçer biçimde tekleştiği “eşleştirme” maskot stratejisinin işlerlikte olduğunu göstermektedir.          

Keywords

• Marka maskotu
• antropomorfizm
• marka kimliği
• göstergebilim

A SEMIOTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM IN BRAND MASCOTS: THE CASE OF ARÇELİK’S ÇELİK THE ROBOT

Abstract

In today’s marketing, the idea that brands gain value not just through their benefit but the identity they project and their relationship with consumers is of great importance. In parallel with this marketing approach, to infuse humanlike qualities to products and services is gaining momentum. Brand mascots are the most widespread examples of this practice called anthropomorphism. The objective of this study is to examine the use of anthropomorphism in brand mascots through Arçelik’s Çelik the Robot case, to analyze the meanings that are conveyed by the anthropomorphic qualities of Çelik the Robot and their association with Arçelik’s brand identity from a semiotic perspective.  Within the confines of this study, four Arçelik television commercials that represent different life stages of Çelik the Robot (childhood-young adulthood-maturity) were selected by purposive sampling method and were subjected to semiotic analysis. The results reveal that human like features that the brand mascot Çelik possessed (e.g. smart, creative, world citizen) match with the main determinants of Arçelik’s renewed brand identity (e.g. technological, innovativeness, global locality). This shows that “the match mascot strategy” is in place. This strategy is characterized by congruence, whereby the brand name, the logo, the mascot (i.e. Çelik) and the product/service (i.e. Arçelik) are essentially one and the same.

Keywords

• Brand mascot
• anthropomorphism
• brand identity
• semiotics

References

1. Aaker, D. (2016). Güçlü Markalar Yaratmak (3. Baskı). İstanbul: MediaCat.
2. Akerson, F. E. (2016). Göstergebilime Giriş (1. Baskı). İstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat.
3. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (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.
4. Asquith, P. (1984). The Inevitability and Utility of Anthropomorphism in Description of Primate Behaviour. Ed. R. Harré, & V. Reynolds, The Meaning of Primate Signals (s.138-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Barthes, R. (2018). Çağdaş Söylenler (5. Baskı). İstanbul: Metis.
6. Barutçu, S., & Adıgüzel, D. Ü. (2015). Sevimli Pazarlama ve Maskotların Marka Farkındalığı Marka Bağlılığı ve Markaya Yönelik Tutum Üzerindeki Etkisi: Karşılaştırmalı bir Araştırma. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 (2), 76-93.
7. Beirao, A. C., Lencastre, P., & Dionisio, P. (2007). Children and Brand Mascots. 6th International Marketing Trends Congress. Erişim: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=4BBEDEC259C8B86E496E6A49F09F1C45?doi=10.1.1.585.2099&rep=rep1&type=pdf
8. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 139-168.

9. Bignell, J. (2002). Media Semiotics: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
10. Blackston, M. (1993). Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Relationships. Ed. D. A. Aaker, & A. L. Biel, Brand Equity and Advertising (s. 113-124). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Brown, S. (2010). Where the Wild Brands Are: Some Thoughts on Anthropomorphic Marketing. The Marketing Review, 10 (3), 209-224. Brown, S. (2011). It's Alive Inside! A Note on the Prevalence of Personification. Irish Marketing Review, 21 (1-2), 3-11.
12. Brown, S. (2014). Mascot Mania: Monkeys, Meerkats, Martians and More. Ed. E. Brown & S. Ponsonby-McCabe, Brand Mascots and Other Marketing Animals (s.1-16). London, New York: Routledge.
13. Böke, K. (2011). Örnekleme. Ed. K. Böke, Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri (3. Baskı). İstanbul: Alfa.
14. Castelli, F., Happe, F., Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2000). Movement and Mind: A Functional Imaging Study of Perception and Interpretation of Complex Intentional Movement Patterns. Neuroimage, 12 (3), 314-325.
15. Caufield, K. (2012) Analyzing the Effects of Brand Mascots on Social Media: Johnson City Power Board Case Study (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). East Tennessee State University, Tennessee.
16. Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The Basics. Oxon: Routledge.
17. Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use Does Not Wear Ragged the Fabric of Friendship: Thinking of Objects as Alive Makes People Less Willing to Replace Them. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 138-145.
18. Çengel, K. T. (2006). Marka Yönetiminde Hedef Tüketicilerin Maskot Kullanılan Markalı Ürünlere Yönelik Algısı Üzerine Etki Eden Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi ve Temizlik Ürünleri Sektöründe Bir Uygulama (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
19. Danesi, M. (2004). Messages, Signs, and Meanings (3. Baskı). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
20. Daston, L., & Mitman, G. (2005). Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, New York: Columbia University Press.
21. DiSalvo, C., Gemperle, F., & Forlizzi, J. (2005). Imitating the Human Form: Four Kinds of Anthropomorphic Form. Erişim: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kiesler/anthropomorphism-org/pdf/Imitating.pdf
22. Donaldson, T. J. (2016). Brand Love & the Ideal Self: The Function of Anthropomorphism in Brand Love. Almanya, Moldova: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.
23. Dydynski, J. M. (2017). Perception of Cuteness in Animal Mascots/Characters (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). University of Tartu, Tartu.
24. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864–886.
25. Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind Perception. Ed. S. T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey, The Handbook of Social Psychology (s.498-541). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
26. Fiske, J. (2013). İletişim Çalışmalarına Giriş (3. Baskı). Ankara: Pharmakon.
27. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-373.
28. Fournier, S., & Alvarez, C. (2012). Brands as Relationship Partners: Warmth, Competence, and In-between. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2), 177-185.
29. Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Guthrie, S. E. (1997). Anthropomorphism: A Definition and a Theory. Ed. R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles, Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (s.50-58). Albany, NY: Satate University of New York Press.
31. Gülver, N. (2017). Marka ve Maskot Arasındaki Çatışma Seviyesinin Maskotun Beğenilme ve Hatırlanmasına, Yer Aldığı Reklama ve Ait Olduğu Markaya Karşı Tutuma Olan Etkileri (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
32. Heckman, J. (1999). Care and Feeding of Mascots. Marketing News, 33 (6), 1.
33. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1), 1-26. Erişim: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc
34. Hume, D. (1875). The Natural History of Religion. Ed. T. H. Green & T. H. Grose, The Philosophical Works of David Hume (s. 309-363). London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
35. Karadağ, H. E. (2013). Pazarlama İletişim Aracı Olarak Maskot Kullanımının Marka İmajı ve Marka Farkındalığı Yaratmadaki Rolü (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Manisa.
36. Kassarjian, H. H. (1978). Presidential Adress, 1977: Anthropomorphism and Parsimony. Ed. H. K. Hunt, Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 5 (s.xii-xiv). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.
37. Khogeer, Y. K. (2013). Brand Anthropomorphism: The Literary Lives of Marketing Mascots (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool.
38. Kiesler, T. (2006). Anthropomorphism and Consumer Behavior. Ed. C. Pechmann & L. Price, Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 33 (s.149-149). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
39. Kim, H. C., & Kramer, T. (2015). Do Materialists Prefer “Brand-as-Servant”? The Interactive Effect of Anthropomorphized Brand Roles and Materialism on Consumer Responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 284-299.
40. Kim, S., & McGill, A. L. (2011). Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 94-107.
41. Küçükerdoğan, R. (2012). Markaların Maskot Kullanımı ve Tüketiciyle Etkileşimleri. Brandage, 38, 86-92.
42. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Lencastre, P., & Côrte-Real, A. (2013). Brand Response Analysis: A Peircean Semiotic Approach. Social Semiotics, 23 (4), 489-506.
44. Levy, S. J. (1985). Dreams, Fairy Tales, Animals, and Cars. Psychology and Marketing, 2 (2), 67–81.
45. Lin, R., Lin, P. C., & Ko, K. J. (1999). A Study of Cognitive Human Factors in Mascot Design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 23 (1-2), 107-122.
46. MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing Brands: When Brands Seem to be Like Me, Part of Me, and in a Relationship with Me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (3), 355-374.
47. Mohanty, S. S. (2014). Growing Importance of Mascot & Their Impact on Brand Awareness – A Study of Young Adults in Bhubaneswar City. International Journal of Computational Engineering & Management, 17 (6), 42-44.
48. Oswald, L. R. (2015). The Structural Semiotics Paradigm for Marketing Research: Theory, Methodology and Case Analysis. Semiotica. 205, 115-148.
49. Özdemir, A. (2010). Yönetim Bilimlerinde İleri Araştırma Yöntemleri ve Uygulamalar (2. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta.
50. Pairoa, I., & Arunrangsiwed, P. (2016). The Effect of Brand Mascots on Consumers' Purchasing Behaviors. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 10 (5), 1702-1705.
51. Phillips, B., & Lee, W. (2005). Interactive Animation: Exploring Spokes-characters on the Internet. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. 27 (1), 1-17.
52. Plummer, J. (2000). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (6), 79-83.Portal, S., Abratt, R., & Bendixen, M. (2018). Building a Human Brand: Brand Anthropomorphism Unravelled. Business Horizons, 61, 367-374.
53. Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. (2009). Pushing the Envelope of Brand and Personality: Antecedents and Moderators of Anthropomorphized Brands. Ed. A. L. McGill & S. Shavitt, Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 36 (s. 412-420). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
54. Rossolatos, G. (2013). Repressenting the Manimal: A Semiotic/Psychoanalytic Approach to the Strategic Importance of Anthropomorphism in Branding. 12th International Marketing Trends Conference. France: Paris.
55. Rossolatos, G. (2017). Brand Image Re-revisited: A Semiotic Note on Brand Iconicity and Brand Symbols. Social Semiotics, 28 (3), 412-428.
56. Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2009). Consumer Behavior (10. Baskı). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
57. Spada, E. C. (1997). Amorphism, Mechanomorphism, and Anthropomorphism. Ed. R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles, Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes and Animals (s. 37-49). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
58. Tosun, N. B., & Kalyoncu, Z. Ö. (2014). Marka Farkındalığında Maskot Kullanımının Etkisi. Journal of Life Economics. 1 (2), 87-114.
59. Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Social Cognition Unbound: Insights into Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (1), 58-62.
60. Weszka, P. (2011). Fifa World Cup Brand Elements and Local Inspirations. Sports Marketing Quarterly, 20 (3), 174-184.
61. Yadav, P., Bisoyi, D., & Chakrabati, D. (2015). Anthropomorphic Brand Mascot Serve as the Vehicle: To Quickly Remind Customers Who You Are and What You Stand for in Indian Cultural Context. International Conference on Communication, Visual Arts and Design. Fransa: Paris.
62. Zakia, R. D., & Nadin, M. (1987). Semiotics, Advertising and Marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (2), 5-12.