Rethinking the Effect of Perceived Fit on Customers' Evaluations of New Products

Smith, David C.; Andrews, Jamie

doi:10.1177/0092070395231002

Cited by 21 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most use university students although this is an acceptable sampling choice, when the focus is on theory development it limits the generalisation of a study in terms of external validity (Calder et al, 1981;Lynch, 1982). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions have been operationalised in terms of the likelihood of consumers trying the extension, and other construct such as favourability and likeability (Aaker and Keller, 1990;Scheinin and Schmitt, 1994;Smith and Andrews, 1995;Kirmani et al, 1999). Few studies examine the effects of the corporate name, individual product brand name and dual brand names (see definition as mentioned above) on purchase behaviour such as purchase preference, or purchase intention.…”

Section: Theoretical Background To the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference

Laforet

2011

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether appearance of corporate, product and dual brand names (or a combination of brand names used together) on packaging influence consumer purchase preference. The face-to-face survey consists of consumers rating their purchase preference on a 7-point scale sixteen random brand names, and combinations of brand names on packaging along with three different prices, each for two product categories: chocolate and cereals -a total of 4032 observations are examined. Hypotheses are tested using multiple linear regression models. The findings show corporate, product and dual brand names have little impact on purchase preference per se, instead brand category dominance influence consumer choice, and corporate names do not add value as previously thought. The study suggests trends and contexts in which, a corporate name and a product brand name may be extended to optimise consumer brand associations and influence purchase, as well as strategies for extending in remote product categories. Future research needs focusing on international consumers' response on brand linkages in the international arena, and the issues of brand building and brand equity maintenance in international markets. The study makes contribution to brand extension, brand portfolio management and strategic brand management research.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Background To the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference

Laforet

2011

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, Reast (2003) conducting UK research on real and fictitious brands within low involvement products and services categories, finds that brands with higher trust ratings tended to have significantly higher brand extension ratings for line, related and unrelated extension concepts, relative to same category lower trust rated rivals. Smith and Andrews (1995), in a business to business context, find that the relationship between "fit"; and brand extension evaluation is mediated by "customer certainty", or, "belief in" a company's ability to deliver a product that meets his/her expectations, and Selnes (1998) notes the importance of trust in reducing perceived risk and thereby facilitating "relationship enhancement" in buyer-seller interactions. On the basis of the prior research, we hypothesise that:…”

Section: Perceived Linkage Between Trust and Brand Extensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although, intuitively, brand trust seems, to the researcher, a logical influence on the evaluation and usage of brand extension activities, particularly where there is an increased level of risk associated with a purchase (Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972;Selnes, 1998), and while a large amount of academic research, seeking to isolate the key components of successful brand extension, has taken place over the last 10-15 years, as yet, only indirect or partial linkages have been made between brand trust and brand extension (Keller and Aaker, 1992;McWilliam, 1993;Hem et al, 2000;Smith and Andrews, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship

Reast

2005

Journal of Product &Amp; Brand Management

146

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -This UK-based research aims to build on the US-based work of Keller and Aaker, which found a significant association between "company credibility" (via a brand's "expertise" and "trustworthiness") and brand extension acceptance, hypothesising that brand trust, measured via two correlate dimensions, is significantly related to brand extension acceptance. Design/methodology/approach -Discusses brand extension and various prior, validated influences on its success. Focuses on the construct of trust and develops hypotheses about the relationship of brand trust with brand extension acceptance. The hypotheses are then tested on data collected from consumers in the UK. Findings -This paper, using 368 consumer responses to nine, real, low involvement UK product and service brands, finds support for a significant association between the variables, comparable in strength with that between media weight and brand share, and greater than that delivered by the perceived quality level of the parent brand. Originality/value -The research findings, which develop a sparse literature in this linkage area, are of significance to marketing practitioners, since brand trust, already associated with brand equity and brand loyalty, and now with brand extension, needs to be managed and monitored with care. The paper prompts further investigation of the relationship between brand trust and brand extension acceptance in other geographic markets and with other higher involvement categories.

show abstract

“…The most frequently considered dimension of fit is category "similarity" or category fit (Buil, de Chernatony, & Hem, 2009;Grime, Diamantopoulos, & Smith, 2002;Smith & Andrews, 1995). Consumers speculate that suppliers' specialization in certain product categories prevents them from being good in other areas (Aaker & Keller, 1990).…”

Section: Fitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Private Labels and National Brands: A Comparison Within Brand Extension

Grosso

Castaldo

2015

Advances in National Brand and Private Label Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on private labels and manufacturers' brands; its specific goal is to answer the question whether they are the same in terms of their brand extension effectiveness. The paper reports the results of three experimental studies which analyze the impact of category fit and brand knowledge on brand extension of private label vs. national brands. The results seem to support the view that private labels differ from national brands; contrary to what stated by the branding literature both category fit and brand knowledge, have no significant effect on their extension evaluations.

show abstract

Rethinking the Effect of Perceived Fit on Customers' Evaluations of New Products

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference

Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference

Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship

Private Labels and National Brands: A Comparison Within Brand Extension

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About