Abstract
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 un-derappreciated 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.