Skip to main content

Advertisement

Ownership effects in consumers’ brand extension evaluations

Article metrics

  • 197 Accesses

Abstract

A two levels of product similarity times two levels of brand image consistency times three levels of ownerships factorial experiment was designed to explore the ownership effects when consumers evaluate brand extensions and judge parent brand after receiving brand extension information. Evidence shows that ownership effects do exist in both extension and parent brand evaluations. Brand image consistency is the most influential factor for parent brand owners while product similarity is more important factor for non-users in attitude formation towards the extension. The owners of competitive brands favor low image consistency extension more than high image consistency extension. Furthermore, there is an interaction effect between brand image consistency and product similarity for brand owners, whereas this effect is non-existent for non-owners and non-users. This again shows that brand owners care much more about brand image consistency than other consumer groups do. In evaluating a parent brand, owners and non-owners differ. The authors draw the conclusion that consumers’ brand extension evaluation is more like a “benefit oriented” process rather than a “pure affect transfer” process.

References

  1. Aaker D, Keller K L (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54 (January): 27–41

  2. Boush, David M, Loken B (1991). A processing-tracing study of brand extension evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1): 16–28

  3. Broniarczyk, Susan M, Joseph W, Alba (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2): 214–28

  4. Chakravarit D, MacInnis D J, Nakamoto K (1990). Product category perception, elaborative processing and brand name extension strategies. In: Goldberg M, ed. Advances in Consumer Research, (17): 119–129

  5. Dawar, Niraj (1996). Extensions of broad brands: The role of retrieval in evaluations of fit. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2): 189–207

  6. Farquhar P H, Herr P M, Fazio R H, Claremont C A (1990). Relational model for category extensions of brands. In: Goldberg M E, Gorn G J, Polly R W, eds. Advances in Consumer Research, (17): 856–860

  7. Keller K L, Aaker D A (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February): 35–50

  8. Kirmani A, Sood S, Bridges S (1999). The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing, 63 (January): 88–101

  9. Loken B, Roedder D J (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57 (July): 71–84

  10. Maoz E, Tybout A M (2002). The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12(2): 119–131

  11. Martin, Ingrid D, David W, Stewart (2001). The differential impact of goal congruency on attitudes, intentions, and the transfer of brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (November): 471–484

  12. Milberg S J, Park C W, McCarthy M S (1997). Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: The impact of alternative branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2): 119–140

  13. Morrin M (1999). The impact of brand extensions on parent brand memory structures and retrieval processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (November): 517–525

  14. Park C W, Milberg S, Lawson R (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September): 185–203

  15. Ratneshwar S, Shocker A D (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August): 281–295

  16. Romeo J B (1991). The effect of negative information on the evaluations of brand extensions and the family brand. In: Rebecca H, Holman, Solomon M R, eds. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18. Provo. UT: Association for Consumer Research, 399–406

  17. Swaminathan V, Fox R J, Reddy S K (2001). The impact of brand extension introduction on choice. Journal of Marketing, 65 (October): 1–15

  18. Zhang S, Sood S (2002). Deep and surface cues: Brand extension evaluations by children and adults. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June): 129–141

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Guoqun Fu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Keywords

  • brand extension
  • prestige brand
  • ownership effects
  • variance analysis