An investigation of consumer reactions to the use of different brand names
| Date | 01 February 1998 |
| Published date | 01 February 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429810209728 |
| Pages | 41-50 |
| Author | Subodh Bhat,Gail E. Kelley,Kathleen A. O’Donnell |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 7 NO. 1 1998, pp. 41-50 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS,1061-0421 41
Introduction
Marketers have a variety of options in naming new products. For marketers
with multiple product lines, one option is to use a new brand name. For
example, Coca-Cola introduced a line of new age beverages under the name
Fruitopia, and Black & Decker introduced its new line of professional tools
under the name DeWalt. A second option is to introduce the new product
under the name of an existing brand; the new product is usually termed a
brand extension. Ivory shampoo is a brand extension since the Ivory name
was extended into the shampoo product category from its original category
of soap. Other brand extensions include Bic lighters, Harley Davidson
leather jackets, and Marlboro clothing. Still another option is to use a new
brand name in conjunction with the name of an existing brand. Two
variations of this option have come to be known as “sub-branding” and
“nested branding”. In this paper, the term “sub-brand” is used to identify
products where a new brand name is used adjacent to an existing brand
name, whereas the term “nested brand” is used when the new product is
merely introduced by an existing brand. A nested brand serves the function
of distancing consumer associations farther from the parent brand than is the
case with a sub-brand. Examples of sub-brands include Weight Watchers
Smart Ones, Macintosh Quadra, and Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza, whereas
Dockers by Levi’s and Polo by Ralph Lauren are examples of nested brands.
The existing brand, whose name is borrowed, is generally termed a parent
brand.
Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Generally, brand
extensions, sub-brands, and nested brands try to leverage the recognition
value and the positive associations that consumers have with existing brand
names. However, some studies have shown that brand extensions may
benefit from parent brand equity only when consumers see some degree of
fit between the product categories or the images of the parent brand and the
new product (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990). Since prior research in this area
has been limited to investigating the process of and rationale underlying
consumer evaluation of brand extensions, little is known about consumer
responses to sub-brand and nested brand names. More specifically, how
consumers differ in their reactions to the use of different naming strategies,
namely, extensions, sub-brands, nested brands, and completely new brand
names, has not been investigated.
It is logical that, as with brand extensions, the degree of fit between the
parent brand and the new product would influence consumer evaluation of
sub-brands and nested brands. In the context of comparative evaluation of
the four different new product brand names, we suggest that differences in
consumer reactions to these names are driven by the degree of perceived fit.
In other words, perceptions of close fit would have consumers preferring
brand extensions to the other brand name possibilities, and perceptions of
poor fit would have consumers favoring new brand names over the other
An investigation of consumer
reactions to the use of different
brand names
Subodh Bhat, Gail E. Kelley and Kathleen A. O’Donnell
An executive summary
for managers and
executives can be found
at the end of this article
Advantages and
disadvantages
To continue reading
Request your trial