How brand innovativeness and quality impact attitude toward new service line extensions: the moderating role of consumer involvement

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is twofold: first, to assess the impact of extension innovativeness on attitude towards service line extension and the mediating role played by extension quality (in relation to the parent brand); second, to examine the effect of consumer involvement as a moderator of the relationship between extension quality (in relation to the parent brand) and attitude towards the extension.Design/methodology/approachAn empirical investigation using a survey methodology was conducted with a sample of 664 respondents. The structural model was assessed using partial least squares (PLS graph).FindingsThe results suggest that in launching a new service line extension perceived quality of the extension (in relation to the parent brand) has a direct impact on attitude towards the service line extension and mediates the effect of perceived extension innovativeness on extension attitude. The findings also suggest that consumer involvement in the extension moderates the relationship between extension quality (in relation to the parent brand) and attitude towards the extension.Research limitations/implicationsLine extensions of other types of services and consumer goods could be investigated in futures studies. Involvement is a multidimensional construct. Other dimensions of involvement could be tested in similar contexts.Practical implicationsThis study is important for managers of newly created service branches. In launching a new service line extension, marketers must be careful in developing the quality of the service as well as managing its innovation as both factors influence attitude and behavioral intention outcomes. Also, the moderating role of involvement indicates that managers must attempt to reduce risk perceptions during launch.Originality/valueThe paper makes an important contribution to the emerging service line extension literature.

Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing

“…Our results are in line with those of Martínez and Pina (2010) who found that familiarity had no significant effect on extension attitude. Boisvert and Ashill (2011) The data also suggest that the individual's perception of trust in the retailer's ability to provide the new service is a determining factor, as it is the one that most directly affects the likelihood of him/her purchasing the new SB travel service. Therefore, individuals who are highly familiar with products under the store's own brand (SB) currently offered by the retailer, may tend to encase the retailer's SB in those categories, thereby hindering a broader perception of possible new products/services under the SB.…”

“…Although, as already noted, retailers have extended their store brands (SB) to travel services, the limited amount of specialized literature dealing with the factors that bear upon the acceptance of such extended SB services (Boisvert and Ashill 2011;Laforet 2007;Zboja and Voorhees 2006), and in particular travel services, is nevertheless surprising.…”

Family firms’ identity communication and consumers’ product involvement impact on consumer response

“…ProInv refers to the general level of interest or concern with regard to a product class (Suh & Youjae, 2006). ProInv can also be defined as the perceived relevance of the product based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Boisvert & Ashill, 2011). The impact of communicating FFIWeb on consumer response can be moderated by the level of consumers' product involvement.…”

Understanding marketing innovativeness in Asia: a research agenda

“…Recent studies show that product innovativeness enhances customers' perception of brand innovativeness (e.g. Boisvert and Ashill 2011;Schreir et al 2012;Rubera and Kirca 2012), and that there is a spill-over effect from 'flagship' products on brand innovativeness (Hubert et al 2017).…”

“…Goldsmith et al 1998;Im et al 2003;Im et al 2007;Truong 2013), brand innovativeness (e.g. Alam and Perry 2002;Boisvert and Ashill 2011), and supplier innovativeness (Choi and Krause 2006;Inemek and Matthyssens 2013). Other types of innovativeness related to marketing include organisational (e.g.…”