The authors report two studies investigating the effectiveness of a composite brand in a brand extension context. In composite brand extension, a combination of two existing brand names in different positions as header and modifier is used as the brand name for a new product (e.g., Slim-Fast chocolate cakemix by Godiva). The results of both studies reveal that by combining two brands with complementary attribute levels, a composite brand extension appears to have a better attribute profile than a direct extension of the header brand (Study 1) and has a better attribute profile when it consists of two complementary brands than when it consists of two highly favorable but not complementary brands (Study 2). The improved attribute profile seems to enhance a composite's effectiveness in influencing consumer choice and preference (Study 2). In addition, the positions of the constituent brand names in the composite brand name are found to be important in the formation of the composite's attribute profile and its feedback effects on the constituent brands. A composite brand extension has different attribute profiles and feedback effects, depending on the positions of the constituent brand names.

The authors examine the effects of using a subtractive versus an additive option-framing method on consumers' option choice decisions in three studies. The former option-framing method presents consumers with a fully loaded product and asks them to delete options they do not want. The latter presents them with a base model and asks them to add the options they do want. Combined, the studies support the managerial attractiveness of the subtractive versus the additive option-framing method. Consumers tend to choose more options with a higher total option price when they use subtractive versus additive option framing. This effect holds across different option price levels (Study 1) and product categories of varying price (Study 2). Moreover, this effect is magnified when subjects are asked to anticipate regret from their option choice decisions (Study 2). However, option framing has a different effect on the purchase likelihood of the product category itself, depending on the subject's initial interest in buying within the category. Although subtractive option framing offers strong advantages to managers when product commitment is high, it appears to demotivate category purchase when product commitment is low (Study 3). In addition, the three studies reveal several other findings about the attractiveness of subtractive versus additive option framing from the standpoint of consumers and managers. These findings, in turn, offer interesting public policy and future research implications.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract