Impact of Dominance and Relatedness on Brand Extensions

Abstract

This research investigated how a consumer's cognitive structure for a brand in a given product category affects the possible transfer of associations to other product categories. One key factor in evaluating such possible brand extensions is dominance, which can be defined as the strength of the directional association between the parent category and the branded product. Likewise, another important factor is the relatedness of the brand's parent category and the target category of the proposed extension. The 1st experiment measured dominance and relatedness via response latencies to recognize brand extensions. The 2nd experiment demonstrated that consumers’ affect for strongly category‐dominant brands (a) transfers better to an extension when the proposed extension is closely rather than distantly related to the parent category and (b) transfers better than a weakly category‐dominant brand's affect. Together, the research demonstrated that consumers’ response times to disconfirm the existence of product‐brand pairs is related to their transfer of affect from the brand to the proposed product category. This disconfirmation method could be used as an unobtrusive measure for determining brand boundaries. The attractiveness of potential brand extensions may thus be determined without consumers making any judgments about a proposed extension other than answering whether or not it exists.

Managing sub-branding affect transfer: the role of consideration set size and brand loyalty

“…However, with a smaller consideration set, loyalty to a competing brand directly impacts both the affect strength associated with a family brand and its transfer process. As noted earlier, affect transfer relies on the associative strength between a family brand and consumer attitudes (Herr et al 1996). Even when consumers only consider a smaller set of choices, if they are loyal to a competing brand, their affective associations with the competing brand tend to be constantly activated and highly accessible, therefore dominating the corresponding associative network, and ultimately weakening the associative strength of family brand attitudes.…”

“…First, according to Herr et al (1996), brand attitudes may vary not only in valence, but also in associative strength, that is, the likelihood of being activated when a brand (family brand) or its representation (sub-brand) is encountered. Previous research has shown that attitudes towards the prototypic member of a category are found more accessible than other members (Loken, Joiner and Peck 2002).…”

When Are Broader Brands Stronger Brands? An Accessibility Perspective on the Success of Brand Extensions

“…First, the similarity explanation proposes that the success of a brand extension depends on the fit or similarity between brand name associations and extension category associations (Boush and Loken 1991;Keller 1993). These similar associations can include product-related features, usage situations, and target market overlap (Herr, Farquhar, and Fazio 1996;Keller 1993). When brand associations and extension category associations are highly similar, attributes and attitudes associated with the brand automatically generalize to the new brand extension (Boush and Loken 1991).…”

The effects of perceived technological incongruence on perceptions of fit between countries, products, and attributes

“…Although fit between products and brands has been shown to influence the transfer of attitudes or affect from brands to products (Aaker and Keller, 1990;Herr et al, 1996), the concept of fit has seen limited application in the country of origin literature (e.g., between countries and products, for an exception, see Roth and Romeo, 1992). This research explores the technological antecedents of country/product fit and introduces the concepts of country/attribute fit and product/attribute fit.…”