Nargiz ZULFUGAROVA, Cenk Arsun YÜKSEL

Kiki ve Bouba Etkisi Olarak Bilinen Ses ve Şekil Sembolizmi Teorisinin Pazarlamada Kullanımı

Son zamanlarda dilbilimde yeniden sorgulanan ses ve anlam arasındaki ilişkinin rastgele olup olmadığı konusu pazarlamacılar için yeni bir alternatifin ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır. Seslerin ve şekillerin belirli nesneler ve özellikleri için sistematik olarak seçildiğini savunan ve Kiki ve Bouba etkisi olarak da bilinen ses ve şekil sembolizmi pazarlamacılar tarafından marka ismi, marka logosu ve ambalaj tasarımı gibi konularda yararlanılabilecek önemli bir teori olarak görülmektedir. Bu çalışmada ses ve şekil sembolizmi teorisinde elde edilmiş önemli sonuçlara yer verilerek, marka ismi, marka logosu ve ambalaj tasarımı gibi pazarlama kararlarında uygulanabilirliği incelenmiştir. Literatür temel alınarak, hangi seslerin hangi ürün özellikleri ile eşleştirildiğine yer verilmiş ve pazarlama stratejilerinde uygulanabilecek öneriler sunulmuştur. Literatüre katkı olarak gelecek çalışmalarda incelenecek konular ile ilgili öneriler, teoriye yönelik eleştiriler çerçevesinde aktarılmıştır.

The Use of the Theory of Sound and Shape Symbolism, Known as Kiki and Bouba Effect in Marketing

The question of whether the relationship between sound and meaning is arbitrary has recently been discussed in linguistics, has led to the emergence of a new alternative for marketers. Sound and shape symbolism, also known as the Kiki and Bouba effect, argues that sounds and shapes are systematically selected for certain ob-jects and features, and are seen as an important theory that can be utilized by marketers in decisions such as brand name, brand logo and packaging design. In this study, the important results obtained in the theory of sound and shape symbolism are discussed and their applicability in marketing decisions such as brand name, brand logo and packaging design is examined. Based on the literature, what sounds are matched with which product attributes and suggestions that can be applied in marketing strategies, are presented. As a con-tribution to the literature, suggestions about the subjects to be ex-amined in the future studies were conveyed within the framework of criticism towards the theory.

PDF

___

Arata, M., Imai, M., Okuda, J., Okada, H., ve Matsuda, T. (2010). Gesture in lan-guage: How sound symbolic words are processed in the brain. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 32, No. 32).
Baxter, S., Ilicic, J., ve Kulczynski, A. (2015). What’s in a name? Examining the effect of phonetic fit between spokesperson name and product attributes on source credibility. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 525-534.
Batı, U., ve Terek Ünal, G. (2010). Marka adları üzerıne dilbilimsel ve kavramsal bir inceleme: Türk reklamcılık ortamlarında marka adı yaratım süreçleri ve stratejıleri. Marmara İletişim Dergisi, 17(17), 228-254.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J., Schifferstein, H. N., ve Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 17-23.
Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., ve Spence, C. (2013). “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape– sound matches, but different shape–taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126(2), 165-172.
Coulter, K. S., ve Coulter, R. A. (2010). Small sounds, big deals: phonetic symbo-lism effects in pricing. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 315-328.
De Saussure, F. (2001). Genel Dilbilim Dersleri (B.Vardar Çev.). İstanbul: Multilin-gual Yabancı Dil Yayınları.
Duduciuc, A. C., ve Ivan, L. (2015). Brand naming: sound symbolism, brand pre-ference and brand performance. Studies and Scientific Researches. Economics Edition, (20).
Fónagy, I. (1963). Die metaphern in der phonetik (No. 25). Mouton.
French, P. L. (1977). Toward an explanation of phonetic symbolism. Word, 28(3), 305-322.
Ercilasun, A.B. (24 Mayıs 2015). Kelimeler ve sesler arasında. Yeniçağ. Erişim 28 Ekim 2019, https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/kelimeler-ve-sesler-arasin-da-34545yy.htm
Joseph, B. D. (1994). Modern Greek is beyond sound symbolism. L. Hinton, J. Nichols ve J.J. Ohala (Ed.), Sound symbolism içinde, (222-36). Cambridge: Camb-ridge University Press
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for crea-
ting strong brands (pp. 3-27). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Kim, K. O. (1977). Sound symbolism in Korean. Journal of Linguistics, 13(1), 67-75.
Kimenyi, A. (1987). Syntax and Semantics of Reduplication in Kinyarwanda: A Semiotic Account. La Linguistique, 23(Fasc. 1), 147-156.
Klink, R. R. (2000). Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound sym-bolism. Marketing Letters, 11(1), 5-20.
Klink, R. R. (2009). Gender differences in new brand name response. Marketing Letters, 20(3), 313-326.
Klink, R. R., ve Wu, L. (2014). The role of position, type, and combination of sound symbolism imbeds in brand names. Marketing Letters, 25(1), 13-24.
Kohli, C., ve Suri, R. (2000). Brand names that work: a study of the effectıveness of dıfferent types of brand names. Marketing Management Journal, 10(2).
Kotler, P. (2018). A’dan Z’ye pazarlama: pazarlama ile ilgili herkesin bilmesi gere-
ken 80 kavram (A. K. Bakkal, Çev.). İstanbul: MediaCat Kitapları.
Lowrey, T. M., ve Shrum, L. J. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name pre-ference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 406-414.
Lury, C. (2004). Brands: The logos of the global economy. Routledge.
Ohala, J. J., Hinton, L., ve Nichols, J. (1997). Sound symbolism. In Proc. 4th Se-oul International Conference on Linguistics [SICOL] (pp. 98-103).
Phillips, D. (2012). İsmin Marka Hali (2.Baskı). İstanbul: MediaCat Kitapları.
Revill, K. P., Namy, L. L., DeFife, L. C., ve Nygaard, L. C. (2014). Cross-linguis-tic sound symbolism and crossmodal correspondence: Evidence from fMRI and DTI. Brain and Language, 128(1), 18-24.
Seo, H. S., Arshamian, A., Schemmer, K., Scheer, I., Sander, T., Ritter, G., ve Hummel, T. (2010). Cross-modal integration between odors and abstract sym-bols. Neuroscience letters, 478(3), 175-178.
Shinohara, K., ve Kawahara, S. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of sound symbo-lism: The images of size. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 396-410).
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.
Spence, C., ve Gallace, A. (2011). Multisensory design: Reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 267-308.
Spence, C., ve Ngo, M. K. (2012). Assessing the shape symbolism of the taste, flavour, and texture of foods and beverages. Flavour, 1(1), 12.
Svantesson, J. O. (2017). Sound symbolism: the role of word sound in meaning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(5), e1441.
Velasco, C., Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., ve Spence, C. (2014). Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds. Food Quality and Preference, 34, 88-95.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). A linguistic consideration of thinking in primitive communi-ties. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, 65-86.
Yorkston, E., ve Menon, G. (2004). A sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand na-mes on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 43-51.