8/2/2019 9411112941

1/16

SUSAN M. BRONIARCZYK and JOSE PH W. ALBA

Recent research has identified two factors that influence consum er percep-tions of a brand extension: brand affect and the similarity between the orig-inal and extension product categories. However, surprisingly little attentionhas been paid to other associations specific to the brand itself. The authorsperform three experiments to explore the relative infiportance of these asso-ciations. The experiments reveal that brand-specific associations may domi-nate the effects of brand affect and category similarity, particularly whenconsumer knowledge of the brands is high. The authors conclude by discuss-ing the implications of these findings for managerial decision making andthe process by which consumers evaluate brand extensions.

The Importance of the Brand in BrandExtension

Brand equity is an elusive concept but has been de-scribed most frequently as the value a brand name adds toa product (e.g., Farquhar 1989). Srivastava and Shocker(1991) aptly note that the value of a brand name can bemeasured in terms of not only the advantages it provides inits present competitive arena but also the potential advan-tages it offers in untapped markets.This same insight on the part of managers has promptedincreased use of brand extension as a vehicle for growth(Springen and Miller 1990), which in turn has sparked em-pirical research on the way consumers evaluate extendedbrands. Initial research was exploratory and attempted toidentify at a general level the variables that influence percep-tions of an extension (Aaker and Keller 1990; Maclnnis andNakam oto 1990). Subsequent research has attempted to iso-late the processes that underlie the evaluation of an ex-tended brand (Boush and Loken 1991 ; Bridges 1992). Anassumption common to virtually all research, however, isthat brand affect and product category similarity play impor-tant roles (cf. Boush et al. 1987). That is, evaluation of anextension is a join t function of how much the brand is likedin its original category and the similarity between the origi-nal and extension categories.Ironically, a second commonality of most research onbrand extension is the inability to address brand effects. Ex-ploratory studies provide cues for future research but eitherextend only one brand from each category so that brand and

Susan M. Broniarczyk is an Assistant Professor of Marketing, Univer-sity of Texas, Austin. Joseph W. Alba is the JC Penney Professor of M arket-ing, University of Florida. They are grateful to Mark Alpert, Wes Hutchin-son, Bart Weitz, and especially John Lynch for their heipful comments.

category effects cannot be disentangled (e.g., Aaker aKeller 1990) or select extension categories with little conseration for brand effects (e.g., Maclnnis and Nakam1990). Studies that look more narrowly have attemptedheighten experimental control by utilizing fictitious branames, but in so doing investigate category- rather thbrand-level effects (e.g., Boush et al. 1987; Boush aLoken 1991; Bridges 1992; Keller and Aaker 1992).Assuming that there exist multiple determinants of braextension evaluation, a reasonable goal is to determine relative influence of each determinant. From a consumperspective, the problem can be cast in terms of the pceived diagnosticity of each determinant (Feldman aLynch 1988). That is, the task for the consumer is to evaate the attractiveness of an extended brand on the basisthe available cues. A cue, such as brand affect or categosimilarity, should be utilized to the extent that it is pceived to be a good predictor of the attractiveness of extension. As in other judgm ent and decision contexts, hoever, the relative diagnosticities of competing cues are dicult to specify a priori, particularly because diagnosticitysubjectively determined and can vary across si tuatio(Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988). The purposeour experiments is to explore the relative diagnosticitiescues that can be used by consumers to predict the attrtiveness of a brand extension. We pay particular attentto the influence of brand-specific associations. In Expment 1, we compare the relative diagnosticities of braspecific associations and brand affect. In Experimentthese associations are compared with category similarityExperiment 3, we examine how these relative diagnostties vary as a function of consumer expertise.

2 t4 Journal of Marketing ResearchVol. XXXI (May 1994), 214 -22

8/2/2019 9411112941

2/16

215BRAND-SPECIFIC ASSOCIATIONS

A brand-specific association is defined simply as an attrib-ac lnnis and Nakamoto 1990). For example ,

or with the product class as a w hole. To the ex-

platform for successfulAs indicated, most previous research does not address

(1991; cf. Bridges

(1991) regarding the impor-we use their finding as a starting

An affect-transfer process frequently is invoked to de-

erred to the extension and this transfer occurs m ost di-y w hen similarity between the two products is high (cf,

is limited by def-

Brand affect. The use of fictitious brands and the failure

specific associations will moderate the infiuence of brand af-fect in extension evaluation.Moreover, we predict that brand-specific associationswill dominate brand affect if the brand-specific associationis relevant in the extension category. Th at is, the preferenceordering for brands in the original category should reversein an extended category when the brand-specific associa-tion of a less preferred brand is relevant in the extension cat-egory. This prediction is supported by research in social cog-nition, which shows that semantic consistency dominatesevaluative consistency during the formation of trait infer-ences (e.g., Peabody 1967), For example, a person who is de-scribed as thrifty (a desirable trait) is more likely to bejudged as stingy (an undesirable but conceptually consis-tent trait) than generous (a desirable but conceptually incon-sistent trait).Product category similarity. These predictions do notimply that category similarity is irrelevant to brand exten-sion. Similarity can mediate affect transfer when brand-specific associations are held constant and may provide themost valid basis for evaluating an extension when both af-fect and brand-specific associations are held constant. In-deed, substantial evidence implicates category similarity inbrand extension evaluation (Aaker and Keller 1990; Boushand Loken 1 991 ; Keller and Aaker 1992), How ever, thereis a definitional problem that accompanies the similarity con-struct. Classic definitions of similarity as total feature over-lap have been found inadequate because they ignore the rel-evance of theories and knowledge that can tie seemingly dis-parate objects together (Murphy and Medin 1985), In someinstances, different objects can be classified as members ofthe same category on the basis of a single relational match.

For example, milk, spinach, and sardines are united by theirhigh calcium content. In some instances, therefore, assess-ing the correspondence among products may be less a pro-cess of feature mapping and more of inferring context-specific connections between otherwise dissimilar objects.We argue that there is no necessary reason to expect co nsum-ers to make judg me nts of overall similar i ty betw een abrand's original category and an extension category or that,if such judgments are made, similarity will be based ontotal feature overlap or occur at the product class level. In-stead, a single brand association may provide a persuasiveconnection between the brand and an otherwise dissimilarextension category.This psychological view of similarity is consistent with apopular definition of market structure, which argues that con-sumers seek benefits rather than products and may not re-strict their purchases to any single category when pursuingthose benefits (Day, Shocker, and Srivastava 1979; see alsoBarsalou 1983). According to this definition, the core m ean-ing of a product is determined by the benefits it provides(Ratneshwar and Shocker 1991), Insofar as it provides ben-efits desired by consumers in a given situation, a productcan compete against otherwise dissimilar products. By anal-ogy, we argue that a brand may be defined in terms of ben-efits, and its appropriateness need not be restricted to a par-ticular product class. That is, a brand may "fit" into an-other category, regardless of its category of origin, if it is per-

ceived to offer the benefits sought in the extended category.

8/2/2019 9411112941

3/16

216 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1We suggest that initial benefit perceptions are determinedin large part by the brand itself via its specific associations.A theory-based view of similarity has implications forthe viability of a brand extension for two reasons. At a min-imum, an extended brand that promises a desired benefit inan extension category by virtue of its specific associationsmay enter a consu mer's consideration set. Moreover, depend-ing on the strength and credibility of the promise, the ex-tended brand may compete effectively against exist ingbrands. When disparate i tems are categorized togetherbased solely on their relevance to the achievement of a goal("goal-derived categories"), the perceived typicality of anitem is determined in part by its efficacy in attaining thegoal (Barsalou 1985). Thus, an extended brand may com pen-sate for its lack of category similarity and history in thenew category through its benefit-related associations.

Empirically, Park, Milberg, and Lawson (1991) reportthat product category similarity interacts with brand charac-teristics. In their study, the effect of similarity was perva-sive, but was stronger for functional brands than prestigebrands. However, Park, Milberg, and Lawson did not di-rectly assess the relative importance of category similarityand brand effects. In Experiment 2, we compare the effectsof brand-specific associations and product category similar-ity while controlling for brand affect. Consistent with Park,Milberg, and Lawson, we predict an interaction betweenbrand-specific associations and the similarity of the exten-sion category. However, we further suggest that brand-specific associations can override the effects of productclass similarity. To provide a strong test of the hypotheses,we restrict our focus to functional brands.Effects of Brand Knowledge

An emphasis on brand-specific effects elevates the roleof brand knowledge as a moderating variable. Knowledgeof the brand-specific association is required for consumersto appreciate the appropriateness of the brand in the exten-sion category. Thus, at a general level, brand-specific asso-ciations should moderate the influence of brand affect andcategory similarity on brand experts but not brand novices(cf. Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Murphy and Medin 1985;Muthukrishnan and Weitz 1991). Moreover, consistent withour assumptions that consumers are influenced by the per-ceived diagnosticity of cues and brand-specific associationsare perceived to be more diagnostic than other cues, we hy-pothesize that brand-specific associations will determinethe evaluations made by experts, but brand affect or cate-gory similarity will determine the evaluations made by nov -ices. The potential moderating effect of brand knowledge isinvestigated in Experiment 3.PRETESTS

Research of this type requires extensive pretesting to iden-tify real brands that conform to the experimental manipula-tions but also control for extraneous variables. Pretestswere conducted to identify product categories that con-tained at least two nonprestige brands that differed in con-sumer preference but for which the less preferred brand pos-sessed a unique association. Additional pretests identified ex-

tension categories in which these brand associations wvalued.The starting point was a set of 119 product categoand their corresponding brands taken from a national maring research service, superm arket inventory list, and sevconsumer catalogs. It included a broad sampling of durgoods, food products, health care products, and serviFour separate pretests sequentially narrowed these cateries and brands to a set appropriate for hypothesis testiPretests 1 and 2

The first two p retests were designed to identify a comhensive set of brands that (1) would be familiar to all jects, (2) had specific associations that were highly salbut not based on prestige, (3) had associations that diffetiated them from their product categories and the obrands in those categories, and (4) had not been extenpreviously.In the initial pretest, three business school graduate dents served as judges and were asked to examine the enlist of product categories and identify all brands that wmeet these requirements. Specifically, they were instruto identify product categories con taining at least two faiar brand names with specific, nonoverlapping associatthat had not been multiply extended.The judges were in complete agreement on 76 % of theegories. Categories were retained for further pretesting least two judges agreed that all criteria had been m et. Oforiginal 119 categories, 31 were retained.The second pretest used a considerably larger samplundergraduate respondents to identify precisely the asso

tions of the retained categories and brands. A free assotion task was used wherein subjects were given 30 secoto provide associations that came to mind upon presetion of a particular brand name or category. Of the 102 jects who participated, 72 provided associations to brand from each of several categories. The remaining jects provided associations to category names. These lassociations were collected to ensu re that the critical brapossessed associations that were unique not only withspect to other individual brands in the category but alsthe category as a whole.Afterward, associations to a given brand were compwith associations to other brands in the category and tocategory as a whole. A brand was considered to have a cific association if its association was (1) unique withspect to other brands in the category and the category itor (2) twice as salient relative to other brands or the cgory, as measured by frequency of mention. Only 22 cgories were identified as containing at least one brand wan association that met these criteria.

Pretest 3To test the hypothesis that brand-specific effects can duce a change in brand preference from the original toextended category, it was necessary to vary brand afAlso, because we wished to restrict the research to nonptige brands, brands that conveyed a prestige image nee

to be eliminated.

8/2/2019 9411112941

4/16

21 7In the third pretest , 60 undergraduate subjects rated

On the basis of a repeated measures ANOVA, nine prod-rences did not arise among b rands possessing spe -

we decided to eliminate five product categories thateffects of prestige in the experiment.

brand) that possessed a spe-nonp restige association and was significantly less pre-

The final pretest was designed to generate potential exten-

From the pool of responses to the five remaining catego-

'These brand associations were assessed further via a rating scale meas-

ith the results of the free assoc iation task. Tests for the difference

comparison brand association was always more relevant inthe extension categories chosen to match the comparisonbrand than in those chosen to match the focal brand {ps

8/2/2019 9411112941

5/16

218 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 19

Table 1STIMULUS SET FOR EXPERIMENT 1

ORIGINAL BRANDPREFERENCE"

TOOTHPASTEFOCAL: Close-Up (5.97)COMPARISON: Crest (7.07)CEREALFOCAL: Cheerios (5.10)COMPARISON: Froot Loops (6.48)SOAPFOCAL: Camay (4.24)COMPARISON: Irish Spring (5.14)COMPUTERFOCAL: Apple (6.52)COMPARISON: IBM (8.14)BEERFOCAL: Coors (5.58)COMPARISON: B udweiser (6.84)

ASSOCIATION

Breath FresheningDental Protection

Healthy GrainsFlavor, Sweet

Skin SofteningScent

User Friendly, KidsTechnological

Spring WaterHigh Alcohol, Logo

BRANDRELEVANCE*

2.50-4.46

3.81-5.47

6.38-4.91

2.65-1 .45

3.25-2 .05

EXTENSION CATEGORYRELEVANCE"

Mouthwash (8.86)Breath Mints (9.00)Dental Floss (8.50)Toothbrush (8.93)Oatmeal (8.07)Waffles (5.57)Toasted Pastry (7.86)Lollipops (8.57)Moisturizer (8.71)Cleansing Cream (7.50)Deodorant (7.71)Cologne (8.86)Video Games (7.25)Instructional Tape (6.79)Stereo (7.86)Cellular Phone (8.29)Wine Cooler (5.79)Bottled Water (8.86)Beer Mug (8.00)Scotch (9.00)

"The focal brand was significantly less preferred than the comparison brand in all product categories (ps < .05), except soap (p < .09).''Mean difference between the focal and the comparison brands on 9-point rating scale. All differences were significant (ps < .05).'Mean rating of association relevance in extension categories on 9-point scale.

To summarize at the individual level, each subject evalu-ated one brand from each of the five original categories ineither of two sets of extension categories. One extension cat-egory in each set was consistent with the focal brand's as-sociation and the other was consistent with the comparisonbrand's association. The order in which the five originalbrands were evaluated was determined by a Latin square de-sign. The order of extension relevance and the assignmentof extension set were counterbalanced. To discourage sub-jects from inferring the hypothesis, a sixth original cate-gory, in which both extensions were appropriate, was in-cluded. Thus, subjects evaluated a total of 12 extensions.

Procedure. Subjects were 76 undergraduates (39 malesand 37 females) who received extra credit in an introduc-tory marketing class for their participation. The experimen-tal materials were contained in booklets, which allowed thevarious design factors to be counterbalanced within experi-mental session. Su bjects were run in groups of 10 to 12 andwere told that the experimenter was interested in reactionsto some potential brand extensions. The first page of thebooklet defined brand extensions and provided examples.The second page contained a practice stimulus.

Subjects were allotted one minute to answer three itemsfor each extension (cf. Maclnnis and Nakamoto 1990): Thefirst was a 9-point scale that assessed overall evaluation ofthe potential extension relative to existing brands in the ex-tension category ranging from "one of the worst" to "oneof the best' ' ; the second also was a 9-point scale that as-sessed attitude for the potential extension, anchored by "dis-l ike" and "like"; and the third solicited open-ended reac-

tions to the potential extensions. Afterwards, brand preence in the original category was measured as a checkthe affect manipulation. Measures of brand familiarity brand prestige also were taken on 9-point scales for uscovariates in the analyses. The familiarity scale assessed ject s' awareness of the brand name and ranged from "neheard o f to "very aware of." Brand prestige assesseddegree to which the brand conveyed an image of presand ranged from "not at all" to "very much."

A final task then was administered in which subjects vided their ranked preference for the focal and comparbrands in potential extension categories. However, thrankings were performed on the complementary extenset rather than the set they had just rated.Results

The results of the manipulation check were consiswith those of the pretest. On the 9-point scale, focal bra(6.16) were less preferred than comparison brands (6across the five original categories (F, 375 = 7.42, p < .0The two evaluative scale ratings were highly correlacross all conditions (Pearson r = .84) and were averageform a single dependent measure. For purposes of analythe design was treated as a hierarchical nested design. brand affect factor is nested in product category beceach set of focal and comparison brands is specific tooriginal product category (Keppel 1982). Likewise, exsion relevance and set are nested in product category. data were analyzed using a mixed ANOVA, with brandfect and set as between-subjects factors, extension r

8/2/2019 9411112941

6/16

The Importance of the Brand 219Table 2

LEAST-SQUARES EVALUATION MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) FOR EXPERIMENT 1

SET 1 FOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXT

SET 2 FOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXT

CEREALSSET 1 FOCAL EXT

COMPARISON EXTET 2 FOCAL EXT

COMPARISON EXT

ET 1 FOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXTET 2 FOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXT

FOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXTFOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXT

FOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXTFOCAL EXTCOMPARISON EXT

MouthwashDental FlossBreath Mint''Toothbrush''

Oatmeal"Toasted Pastry"Waffles"Lollipops"

Moisturizer"Deodorant"Cleansing Cream"Cologne

Video GamesStereoInstructional TapeCellular Phone"

Wine Coolers"Beer MugBottled Watei*Scotch"

FOCALBRANDClose-Up6.80

6.207.585.95

(.42)(.40)(.39)(.37)

Cheerios6.085.255.203.84

(.47)(.48)(.49)(.50)

Camay6.354.535.973.40

(.44)(.47)(.45)(.48)

Apple6.454.826.856.21

(.43)(.45)(.41)(.42)

Coors5.676.835.913.68

(.44)(.49)(.44)(.50)

COMPARISONBRANDCrest7.36

6.696.176.81

(.41)(.39)(.40)(.38)

Froot Loops3.264.773.886.52

(.49)(.51)(.49)(.50)

Irish Spring4.135.194.863.33

(.44)(.46)(.42)(.44)

IB M6.084.667.347.22

(.42)(.44)(.46)(.47)

Budweiser3.296.433.034.71

(.41)(.47)(.42)(.47)

Focal extension is an extension for which the focal brand's specific association is relevant. Comparison extension is an extension for which the compari-Brand Affect X Extension Relevance interaction significant for category (p < .05)"Brand Affect significant for that extension (p < .05)

The covariates did not interact with the treatments or treat-(ps > .15). The familiarity covariate wassignificant (F, 2,9 = 3.70, p > .06), and the pres-219 = 2.17, p > .14).p < .03), indicating that exten-

p < .01), indicating that extensions werecant ex ten-p < .01)l and com parison extension cat-

ce. This is not surprising and does not di-the implications of the results. Moreov er, the criticalt X extension relevance in-

teraction, did not interact with set (F4218 = 1.89, p > .U).^The least-squares evaluation means are presented in Table2. The brand affect X extension relevance interaction repre-sents a critical test of our hypothesis because it examineswhether brand preference in the extended category is mod-erated by the relevance of a brand's specific associations.The overall interaction was significant (F^ 2ig = 4.48, p

8/2/2019 9411112941

7/16

220 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 19the extended category, the brand would have an advantagewhen extending to that new category, even if the competi-tors have higher brand affect. The test of the preference or-dering of brands in the focal extension category supportsthis prediction. In the extension categories in which thefocal brand-specific association was relevant, the focalbrand was more preferred as an extension (6.15) than wasthe comparison brand (5.04). However, as expected, in ex-tension product categories in which the focal brand associa-tion was not relevant, the comparison brand (5.73) retainedits advantage over the focal brand (4.94). Thus, not onlywas brand preference moderated by the relevance of the as-sociations, but reversals of preference were obtained.

The nested design precluded examination of simple ef-fects at the aggregate level. Thus, analyses were performedseparately for each focal extension category. Resultsshowed that eight of the ten focal extension categories exhib-ited preference reversals, seven of which were statisticallysignificant (see Table 2). For example, in the toothpaste cat-egory, the focal brand (Close-Up) was more preferred as abrand extension than the comparison brand (Crest) in the cat-egory of breath mints in which its brand-specific associa-tion of breath-freshening was relevant (7.58 versus 6.17, re-spectively; F , 3g = 4.63, p < .04). Similarly, in the soap prod-uct category, the focal brand (Camay) was more preferredas an extension than the comparison brand (Irish Spring) inthe focal extension category of moistur izer , in whichCamay's brand-specific association of skin-softening wasrelevant (6.35 versus 4.13, respectively; F, 37 = 8.65, p

8/2/2019 9411112941

8/16

221

umers (Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis 1986). Indeed, i tsubcategories within a product classmore specific thanhe category but less specific than individual brand attrib-

tes. For examp le. Experiment 1 shows that consumers re-acted very differently to extensions from two functionalrands of cereal, such as Froot Loops and Cheerios. Thisroblem is exacerbated in the Park, Milberg, and Lawson(1991) study by the use of only a single prestige brand(Rolex) and a single functional brand (Timex), resulting ina confound of sorts between brand and subcategory.A second limitation of the study involves its focus andthe consequent managerial implications of its results. Park,ilberg, and Law son (1991) were interested primarily in ex-min ing the join t effects of produc t class similarity and

icate that the best scenario for successful extension in-volves extending a brand into a similar and consistent cate-gory (e.g., functional brand into a similar functional cate-ory). Most managers likely would concur with this find-ing. Functional brands may lack the glamour needed to suc-imilar extensions should produce better results than dissim-unctionality is recognized, however, a critical question forted by category similarity. The central theme of our re-

In the present context, this suggests that an appropriatect class similarity and extensions that are not consistentith the brand's specific identity may be ill-conceived, re-ardless of category similarity. In Experiment 2 we directlyxamine the differential leverage provided by product cate-ory similarity and brand-specific associations when extend-ng to a new p roduct category. Following the logic of Exp er-ment 1, we predict a brand-specific association X producthat an extended brand will be more favorably evaluated in

s not relevant. That is, brand effects are predicted to domi-ate the effects of category similarity when the brand asso-We focus on functional brands because the findings ofark, Milberg, and Lawson (1991) imply that brand effectsnd extension opportunities may be limited for functional

ot limited to the generic prestigious or functional catego-

Stimulus materials. The criteria for stimulus selection

potential extension categories and the relevance of thebrand associations in those categories. Through additionalpretesting, four product categories w ere identified that satis-fied the entire set of criteria: cereal, soap, gym shoes, andwatches. The fact that the last category met the selection cri-teria is fortunate because it allows comparison with the re-sults of Park, Milberg, and Lawson, who use watches astheir sole originating category.All four categories generally satisfied three essential cri-teria for hypothesis testing. First, pretests showed that eachcategory contained individual brands that possessed differ-ent primary associations. Second, a separate pretest showedthat 34 different subjects could gen erate credible extensionsthat varied widely in terms of their similarity to the originalcategory. In fact, three levels of similarity were identified.Operationally, these levels mapped onto the 9-point scaleused in the pretest that ranged from "not similar" (1) to"very similar" (9). Potential extensions with ratings be-tween 7 and 9 were deemed very similar and, in fact, corre-

spond to line extensions. That is, they represent extensionsthat are members of the same product category as the origi-nal. Extensions with ratings from 4 to 6 were defined as sim-ilar brand ex tensions, and tho se that ranged from 1 to 3were considered dissimilar extensions. Table 3 describesthe four original categories, individual brands in each cate-gory, three extension categories, and similarity ratings. Re-sults of the similarity pretest showed that the two dissimilarextension categories did not differ from one another, butthat the line extensions, similar extensions, and dissimilar ex-tensions differed from o ne another significantly (all ps

8/2/2019 9411112941

9/16

222 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 19Table 3

MEAN SIM IURIT Y RATINGS AS A FUNCTION OF EXTENSION CATEGORY TYPE (EXPERIMENT 2)

ORIGINAL CATEGORY UNE EXTEN.CEREAL Hot Cereal7.97Focal Brand: Froot Loops (sweet, flavors, kids)Comparison Brand: CheeriosSOAP Liquid Hand Soap8.21Focal Brand: Irish Spring (scent)Comparison Brand: CamayGYM SHOE Ladies' Canvas Gym Shoes7.97Focal Brand: Nike (athletic)Comparison Brand: L.A. GearWATCH Pocket Watch7.29Focal Brand: Timex (durability, reliability)Comparison Brand: Seiko

SIMILARITY OF EXTENSION CATEGORYSIMILARWaffles4.59

Bubble Bath5.65

Wingtips3.64

Bracelet4.62

DISSIMILAR ILollipop1.44

Shoe D eodorizer1.45

Pain Rub1.82

Alarm System2.21

DISSIMILAR 2Popsicle1.59

Room Freshener2.15

Thirst Quencher2.68

Outdoor Thermostat1.88

Numbers represent mean similarity ratings between the extension categories and the original category. In all cases, the line extension means and simextension means differed signiflcantly from each other and from the two dissimilar extensions means (ps < .05). The two dissimilar extension means diddiffer from each other. Beneath the means are the brands that served as the focal and comparison brands. The brand-specific associations of the focal braare noted in parentheses.the relevance ratings for the focal brands in the extensioncategories.To summarize, four originating categories met the crite-ria for hypothesis testing in Experiment 2. Each categorycontained two familiar brand s that had different primary as-sociations. The focal brand had a specific association thatwas relevant in the dissimilar but not the similar extensioncategories. The comparison brand served as a control forproduct category effects. Thus, for Experiment 2, use of theterms of ocal and comparison brands refers to relevance ofbrand associations in dissimilar categories. For example,the focal brand of Froot Lx)ops had a flavor association thatwas relevant in the dissimilar categories of lollipops and pop-sicles, but not in the similar extension category of waffles

or the line extension of hot cereal. The comparison cerbrand of Cheerios had a healthy grain association that wnot relevant in the dissimilar extension categories. We pdict that Froot Loops will be evaluated more favorablythe dissimilar extension categories of lollipops and popcles, in which its specific association is relevant, than in similar categories of waffles and hot cereal, in which its scif ic association is not relevant. Conversely, we expCheerios' extensions to be more favorably evaluated in silar than dissimilar categories given that its association wnot relevant in the dissimilar extension categories.

Experimental design and procedure. The experiment cformed to a 2 (brand-specific association) X 4 (extension cegory similar i ty) X 4 (product category) design. BranTable 4

MEAN RATINGS OF FOCAL BRAND ASSOCIATION RELEVANCE AS A FUNCTION OF EXTENSION CATEGORY TYPE (EXPERIMENT 2)

FOCAL BRANDASSOCIATION

CEREALFlavor, SweetSOAPScent

GYM SHOEAthlete, SportsWATCHDurability, Reliability

UNE EXTEN.

Hot Cereal5.45Liquid Hand Soap6.72

Ladies' Canvas Gym Shoes6.99Pocket Watch7.69

TYPE OF EXTENSION CATEGORYSIMILAR

Waffles5.25Bubble Bath7.10

Wingtips2.07Bracelet5.86

DISSIMILAR I

Lollipop8.56Shoe D eodorizer8.24

Pain Rub6.98Alarm System8.36

DISSIMILAR 2

Popsicle8.44Room Freshener8.96Thirst Quencher7.59

Outdoor Thermostat6.89Numb ers represent mean association relevance ratings. In all cases, the dissimilar extension means and similar extension m eans differed significantly feach other (ps < .05). The dissimilar extension means differed from the line extensions means only for the categories of cereal and soap (ps < .05).

8/2/2019 9411112941

10/16

223

The similarity and product category factors were crossed

ion was a line extension, one was a similar extension, and

A total of 159 different subjects from the same pool usedn the previous experiment were run in groups of 10 to 12.ubjects completed the same introductory procedure usedin Experiment 1. For each extension, subjects were allotted-point rating scales that measured each subject's assess-ent of the extension."* The third item was an open-endedeasure of su bjects' reactions to the extension. After all ex-tensions had been evaluated, the following covariates weremeasured: preference for the original brand, familiaritywith the original brand, prestige image of the brand, proto-typicality of the brand in its original category, and usage ofthe extension product category. The entire procedure took ap-proximately 35 minutes.esults

The experiment was treated as a hierarchical nested de-sign. BSA is nested in product category because each set offocal and comparison brands is specific to its original prod-uct category. Similarity also was treated as nested in prod-uct category because the degree of extension category simi-larity is relative to each original product category. Statisti-cal tests were performed using an ANOVA that includedthe between-subjects factor of BSA, the within-subject fac-tors of similarity and product category, and the five covari-ates. Because the two dissimilar extensions from each orig-inal product category showed no differential effects of sim-

"For half of the subjects, the two rating scales were affective in nature,anchored by "disl ike" and "l ike" on one scale and "undesirable" and"desirable" on the other. For the remaining subjects, the two scales meas-ured the fit of the brand in the new category and were anchored by ' 'not atal l" and "very much" on one scale and "not appropriate" and "appropri-ate ' ' on the other. Within each set of scales, responses were correlatedreasonably well (affective: r = .84; fit: r = .60). Thus, for each subject theaverage of the two rating scales served as the dependent m easure in the anal-yses. The different sets of scales were used between subjects because theappropriateness of evaluation versus fit has been an issue in brand exten-sion research (Park, Lawson, and Milberg 1989). However, in the presentresearch, the results were not affected by the type of measure and, there-fore, this factor will not be discussed in detail. All reported analyses are col-lapsed across measures.

ilarity or a similarity X BSA interaction (ps > .20), theywere collapsed to form the dissimilar extension condition.The only significant covariate was brand affect (F, j^g =28.48, p < .001). With one exception,^ the five covariatesdid not interact with any of treatments or the treatment in-teractions (ps > .15). As in Experiment 1, there was a maineffect of product category (F3422 = 10.61, p < .01). Consis-tent with prior research, there was a main effect of similar-ity (Fg422 = 14.00, p < .01), indicating that extensions weremore preferred to similar than dissimilar categories. How-ever, this effect of similarity is qualified by its significant in-teraction with BSA. Least-squares evaluation means are re-ported in Table 5.Preliminary support for our hypothesis is provided by asignificant BSA X similarity interaction (Fg3g2 = 3.74, p

8/2/2019 9411112941

11/16

224 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 19Table 5

LEAST-SQUARES EVALUATION MEANS (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) FOR EXPERIMENT 2TYPE OF EXTENSION CATEGORY

ORIGINAL CATEGORY UN E MIIAR

3.40(.81)5.06(.78)

5.96(.83)6.48(.76)

2.94(.77)3.62(.81)

3.76(.77)3.21(.78)

DISSIMILAR

5.63(.52)2.46(.53)

5.76(.51)4.28(.51)

5.26(.55)5.13(.52)

5.68(.50)6.83(.49)

CEREALFocal:Comparison:

SOAPFocal:Comparison:

GYM SHOEFocal:Comparison:

WATCHFocal:Comparison:

Froot LoopsCheerios

Irish SpringCamay

NikeL.A.Gear

TimexSeiko

4.46(.79)5.93(.77)

7.10(.78)7.00(.79)

5.04(.80)6.94(.81)6.13(.80)4.97(.81)

Further analysis shows that the higher ratings given tothe dissimilar extensions in the gym shoe and watch repli-cates were not due to simple consumer preference for theproducts in the dissimilar categories. When the data are an-alyzed separately for those subjects who rated fit rather thanliking (see footnote 4), the results do not change substan-tially and in fact exhibit an even stronger correspondence toour hypotheses. The open-ended responses provide furtherinsights. In the gym shoe category, the similar extension(wingtips) was disliked in both the focal and comparisoncond itions, but for different reasons. Nike wing tips were re-ceived poorly because the " sp ort y" image of Nike does notmatch the "d res sy " wingtips image. L.A. Gear wingtips re-ceived low ratings because such a product sounded"cheap" to subjects. In the case of watches, the associa-tions of Timex and Seiko were more similar than were sug-gested by the pretests. Subjects believed both brands to bereliable and durable and therefore found their dissimilar ex-tensions to be equally attractive.Second, the categories were analyzed separately to exam-ine the hypothesis regarding the dominance of brand-spe-cific associations over category similarity. Analysis of sim-ple effects shows that the dissimilar extension was direction-ally preferred to the similar extension in three of the fourfocal extension categories. Specifically, the focal brandswere more preferred in the dissimilar than similar extensioncategory in the case of gym shoes (5.26 versus 2.94, respec-tively; F, 49 = 10.87, p < .002) and watches (5.68 versus3.73, respectively; F, g = 7.59, p < .01). In the case of cere-als, the focal brand (froot Loops) was more preferred in thedissimilar than similar extension catego ries, though this dif-ference was not significant (5.63 versus 3.40, respectively;Fj 45 = 1.52, p > .22). The lone exception to this pattern wasthe soap product category, in which the focal brand (Irish

Spring) was preferred equally in the dissimilar and simiextensions (5.76 versus 5.96, respectively; F < 1). Overathe category replicates show the focal brand being more pferred in a dissimilar extension category in which its asciation was relevant than a similar extension category which its association was not relevant. In no instance dsimilarity dominate.Line versus dissimilar extensions. The BSA X similarinteraction between line and dissimilar extensions was mginally significant (F^iij = 2.11, p < .09) and appearedbe driven by two of the four categories. Recall that it was dficult to select line extensions that were low on extension revance for the focal brand. We attained our goal only in tcereal and soap product categories, but even in these stances, the focal brands' associations were rated above tmean for extension relevance. However, because line extesions represent a powerful manipulation of similarity whcontrasted to dissimilar extensions, the cereal and soap relicates provide a very conservative test of our hypothesisWhen only the cereal and soap categories are included the analysis, the BSA X similarity interaction contrast btween line and dissimilar extensions becomes significa(F2209 = 12.26, p < .001). The nature of the interaction dfered from the similar versus dissimilar comparison. Heline extensions are preferred to dissimilar extensions; hoever, this difference is significant for comparison bran(F2209 = 3.48, p < .05) but not for focal brands (F < 1Therefore, even with a conservative test, the focal brandnot more preferred as a l ine extension than a dissimiextension.At the category level, significant similarity (line versdissimilar) X BSA interactions were obtained in both the creal (F, J03 = 14.31, p < .001) and soap categories (F, 957.95, p < .006). In the cereal product category, the foc

8/2/2019 9411112941

12/16

225

^^ = 3.75, p < .06). However, in the

, 4g = 5.09, p < .03) than for the comparison brand45 = 46.07, p

8/2/2019 9411112941

13/16

226 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 19Subjects evaluated two extensions for the same brandone relevant to the brand association and the other not. Theorder in which subjects evaluated the extensions was coun-terbalanced. Subjects were assigned randomly to the brandconditions.Procedure. A total of 45 subjects participated in this ex-periment, 15 of whom were experts. Subjects received an in-troductory page that explained brand extensions. For eachextension category, the product was defined at the top ofthe page to ensure that novices understood it. Subjects thenresponded to the same two evaluative items used in Experi-ment 1 and gave their open-ended responses. They then pro-vided ratings of their preference for the computer brands,which served as a manipulation check. They also rated theirperceptions of brand prestige and usage of personal com-puter brands, which served as covariates in the analysis.

ResultsDuring stimulus selection, market share served as a sur-rogate for brand preference, with Apple being preferredover Com paq. The results of subjects' brand preferences con-firmed this manipulation. On a 9-point scale, Apple was pre-ferred over Compaq as a personal computer by both experts(7.07 versus 4.80, respectively, Fj ,4 = 15.21, p < .01) andnovices (7.42 versus 5.90, respectively; F, 29 = 12.51, p .15). Only the prestige image covar-iate was significant (F, 35 = 10.50, p < .003). As expected,there was a main effect of brand knowledge (F, 35 = 20.39,p < .01), indicating that experts and nov ices differed in theirextension evaluations. Consistent with Experiment 1, therewas a main effect of extension relevance (Fj 35 = 5.56, p

8/2/2019 9411112941

14/16

227

category, it was more pre-red as an extension than a brand from its original prod uct

The real world did not constrain the manipulation of sim-

that did not value its associatiots. Thus, op -

This does not imply that there are no boundary condi-

ple, in-store factors sucha brand and its extension may en-

on ProcessDue to the nascent character of brand extension research,which consumers evaluate extensions. As noted, some re-

similarity b etween the categories is high. How ever, di-rocess. It appears that subjects evalu-

to deliver desired benefits in the extended cat-1 rule out any simple affect-transfer process, es-

An examination of the open-ended responses provided

would have provided a more reliable measure, subjects' ret-rospective rationales were entirely consistent with their eval-uations and indicate that the perceived attractiveness of anextension is based on the benefits implied by its brand-specific associations. The most frequent response acrossand within potential extensions involved the inference thatthe extended brand possessed the brand-specific associationof the original product and judged whether this feature wasappropriate in the context of the extended product category.For example, the predominant response to the Close-Upbreath mint extension (Experimen t 1) was favorable andbased on the rationale that Close-Up is associated with thekey benefit of fresh breath. Some subjects went even fur-ther to infer that the breath mints would have the same redand white color and cinnamon flavor as Close-Up tooth-paste. In general, the relatively few references to brand af-f ect and category similarity occurred when the brand's spe-cific association was not relevant in the extension category.

An inference process also is consistent with psychologi-cal theory and market structure models (Day, Shocker, andSrivastava 1979; Murphy and Medin 1985). Insofar as con-sumers view a product as a means to an end, their evalua-tions should refiect the estimated likelihood that the brandwill help achieve the consumption goal. However, it wouldbe naive to assume that even very favorable inferences bythemselves will enable an extended brand to compete effec-tively. For example, evidence suggests that typicality judg-ments in goal-derived categories are driven not only by theefficacy of a member for achieving the goal but also by thefrequency with which the member has been experienced asa way of achieving the goal (Barsalou 1985). Thus, even ahighly appropriate extension may require high levels of ex-posure before it becomes competitive with existing brandsand is evoked spontaneously as a choice option.

Indeed, an important direction for further research is to ex-amine the attractiveness of brand extensions vis-^-vis estab-lished members of the extension category. In spite of theproblems inherent in the introduction of any new product,brand extensions may enjoy advantages that are bestowedby their brand-specific associations and are unrelated tobrand affect or brand name familiarity (Smith and Park1992). For example, the mere process of extending into anew category could allow the brand to reframe the decisionprocess in the extended category. Metaphor research sug-gests that the salient features of the original brand may de-termine which of its features are salient in the extendedbrand (cf. Ortony 1979a, b). Concurrently, these featuresmay become more salient in the extension category as awhole. Insofar as such "promoted" features become morememorable and important, they should affect preference, par-ticularly if they were previously nonsalient (cf. Wright andRip 1980). And because these attributes represent a particu-lar strength of the extended brand, they can b e parlayed intoa significant, brand-specific competitive advantage. For ex-ample, a Coppertone extension into cosmetics should high-light the sun protection attr ibute offered in make-upfoundations.

Ortony (1979a,b) also refers to "attribute introducingcomparisons." Here, the salient attributes of the originalbrand introduce new attributes into the representation of the

8/2/2019 9411112941

15/16

228 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 1

extended category. That is, people may draw inferencesabout features of the extension that previously did not existin the extended product category. For example. Crest gummight introduce the attribute of dental protection into thegum category (Aaker and Keller 1990).

Brand extensions also can reinforce the specific associa-tions of the brand. An extension into a category that sharesthe same benefit may strengthen that association with thebrand name and thereby increase the brand's value in itsoriginal product category. Thus, proper extension may nul-lify the much-feared "dilution" effect (Loken and RoedderJohn 1993).

In conclusion, brand extension is inherently a managerialtopic; therefore, brand X product class interactions are of su-preme importance. Product class effects may have limitedvalue to brand managers. A brand's specific associationsstrongly influence how consumers evaluate brand exten-sions and may dominate product class effects. Although ex-perimental isolation of brand effects requires extensive pre-testing and careful manipulation of real world brands, it isexactly these effects that demand attention.

REFERENCESAaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), "Consumer Eval-uations of Brand Extensions," Journal of Marketing, 54 (Janu-ary), 2 7 ^ 1 .Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensionsof Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 411-54.Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1983), "Ad Hoc Categories," Memory &Cognition, 11 (May), 211-27.(1985), " Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of In-stantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories,"

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory andCognition, 11 (4), 629-54.Boush, David M. and Barbara Loken (1991), "A Process TracingStudy ofBrand Extension Evaluation," Journal of Marketing Re-search, 28 (February), 16-28., Shannon Shipp, Barbara Loken, Ezra Gencturk, SusanCrockett, Ellen Kennedy, Betty Minshall, Dennis Misurell,Linda Rochford, and Jon Strobel (1987), "Affect Generaliza-tion to Similar and Dissimilar Brand Extensions," Psychologyand M arketing, 4 (Fall), 225-237.Bridges, Sheri (1992), "A Schema Unification Model of Brand Ex-tension," working paper. Wake Forest University.Chakravarti, Dipankar, Deborah J. Maclnnis, and Kent Nakamoto(1990), "Produ ct C ategory Perspective, Elaborative Processingand Brand Name," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.17, M.Golberg, G. Gom, and R. Pollay, eds. Provo, UT: Asso-ciation for Consumer Research, 910-16.Day, George S., Allan D. Shocker, and Rajendra K. Srivastava(1979), "Customer-Oriented Approaches to Identifying Product-Markets," Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 8-19.Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), "Managing Brand Equity," MarketingResearch, 1 (September), 24-33.Feldman, Jack M . and John G. L ynch, Jr. (1988), "Self-GeneratedValidity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude,Intention, and Behavior," Journal of Applied P sychology, 73(August) , 421-35 .Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak (1986), "Category-BasedVersus Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses," in Th e Hand-book ofMotivation andSocial Cognition: Foundations of So -cial Behavior, R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins, eds. NewYork: Guilford Press, 167-203.

Jaccard, James, Choi K. Wan, and Robert Tbrrisi (1990), "T hetection and Interpretation of Interaction Effects Between Couous Variables in Multiple Regression," Multivariate Beioral Research, 4 (October), 467-7 8.Keller, Kevin Lane and David A. Aaker (1992), "The Effects oquential InU-oduction of Brand Extensions," Journal of Maing Research, 29 (February), 35-50.Keppel, G. (1982), Design andAnalysis: A Researcher's Hbook, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder John (1993), "DiluBrand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have A Negativepact?" Journal ofMarketing, 57 (July), 71-8 4.Lynch, John G, Jr., Ho ward Marmo rs te in , and MichaeWeigold (1988), "Choices from Sets Including RemembBrands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evtions ," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September),84 .Maclnnis, Deborah J. and Kent Nakamoto (1990), "Examining tors that Influence the Perceived Goodness of Brand Esion s," Working Paper #54, Karl Eller Graduate School ofagement, University of Arizona.Murphy, Gregory L. and Douglas L. Medin (1985), "The RoTheories in Conceptual Coherenc e," Psychological Review(July), 289-316.Muthukrishnan, A. V. and Barton A. Weitz (1991), "Role of Puct Knowledge in Evaluation of Brand Extensions," invances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, R. Holman and M.omon, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Rese407-13.Myers, James H. and Mark 1. Alpert (1968), "De termina nt BuAttitudes: Meaning and Measurement," Journal of Marke32 (October), 13-20.Ortony, Andrew (1979a), "Bey ond Literal Similarity," Psychoical Review, 86 (May), 161-80.(1979b), "The Role of Similarity in Similes and Mphors," in Metaphor and Thought, A. Ortony, ed. CambrCambridge University Press, 186-201.

Park, C. Whan, Bernard J.Jaworski, and Deborah J. Macl(1986), "Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management," Jna l ofMarketing, 50 (October), 621-35 ., Robert Lawson, and Sandra Milberg (1989), "MemStructure of Bran d Names , " in Advances in Consumersearch, Vol. 16, T K.Snill, ed. Provo, U T: Association forsumer Research, 726-31.-, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson (1991), "Evtion of Brand Extensions: TheRole of Product Level Similand Brand Concept Consistency," Journal of Consumersearch, 18 (September), 185-93.Peabody, Dean (1967), "Tra it Inferences: Evaluative and Destive Aspects, ' ' Journal of Personality and Social PsychoMonograph, 7 (4, Whole No. 644).Ratneshwar, S. and Allan D. Shocker (1991), "Substitute inan d the Role of Usage Context in Product Category Stures," Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (August), 281-Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park (1992), "The EffectBrand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising c ien cy , " Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August) , 2313.Springen, Karen and A. Miller (1990), "Sequels for the ShNewsweek (July 9), 42-43 .Srivastava, Rajendra K. and Allan D. Shocker (1991), "B randuity: A Perspective on Its Meaning and Measurement," Re#91-124. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys (1990), "Computers &fice Equipment" (June 28), C78.Wright, Peter and Peter D. Rip (1980), "Product Class Adveing Effects on First Time Buyers' Decision Strategies," Jna l of Consumer Research, 7 (September), 176-88.

8/2/2019 9411112941

16/16