Detangling consumer attitudes to better explain co-branding success
| Pages | 704-721 |
| Published date | 20 November 2017 |
| Date | 20 November 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2015-1039 |
| Author | Han-Chiang Ho,Nora Lado,Pilar Rivera-Torres |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
Detangling consumer attitudes to better
explain co-branding success
Han-Chiang Ho
Department of Management and Marketing, Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, China
Nora Lado
Department of Business Administration, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Getafe, Spain, and
Pilar Rivera-Torres
Departamento de Dirección de Marketing e Investigación de Mercados, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to examine consumer attitude toward a new type of co-branded products, which encompass attributes of
high-technology and luxury. The authors named these kinds of co-branded products as “high-tech luxury co-branded products”(HLCPs). Current
theoretical approaches used to study co-branding strategies cannot completely explain consumer attitude toward HLCPs. In this study, the authors
apply the ABC (affect-behavior-cognition) model of attitudes (as opposed to attitude as a whole) to explore how affect and cognition drive consumer
behavior toward HLCPs.
Design/methodology/approach –Questionnaires were used and the respondents totaled 483 in period 1 and 331 in period 2. Respondents were
collected using convenience sampling technique in one university in Spain and analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings –The authors finding revealed that consumers use both affect and cognition simultaneously when forming an attitude toward HLCPs.
Also, consumers’perception of product fit represents a more relevant driver of consumer behavior with respect to brand fit. Appropriate theoretical
and managerial implications are derived from these results.
Originality/value –This study contributes to the understanding of consumers’preferences toward high-tech luxury co-branded products.
Keywords Cognition, Affect, Co-branding, Brand fit, ABC model of attitude, Product fit
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Although many co-branding products are available in the
market, this studyexamines the specific category of co-branded
products arising from the alliance between high-tech products
and luxury brands, which we refer to as “high-tech luxury co-
branded products”(HLCPs). Some examples of HLCPs are
Samsung Armani cell phone, LG Prada cell phone, Asus
Lamborghini laptop and Segway Chanel personal transporter,
among others. Co-branded products are increasingly being
introduced into the market. The success of these initiatives is
indirectly demonstrated by the release of new versions of the
same HLCPs. For example, the first LG Prada cell phone was
launched in 2006, and in 2012, LG released the newest
generation, LG Prada 3.0. Thus, HLCPs seem to attract
consumers’attentionand favor.
This study focuses on HLCPs because the existing
literature does not sufficiently explain the reasons for the
success of these co-branding products. From the theoretical
point of view, tradit ional co-branding models –such as
vertical and horizon tal co-branding st rategies (Helmig et al.,
2007)–have not fully explained these products’success and
the mechanisms that in fluence consumers’decisionsto prefer
such products. For example, Simonin and Ruth’s (1998)
widely used theoretical model studies the effects of brand
alliances on consumer brand attitudes, but only addresses
whether consumer s might form either a positive or a negat ive
attitude toward a co-branded product. Further, their study
does not explain which component of attitude drives
consumers’preferences. In the context of HLCPs, addressing
which component influences consumers’preferences is
highly relevant. Indeed, products of such a category
concurrently embed both functional attributes –in which
cognition is predom inant –and symbolic attribute s –in which
affect is mostly impor tant (Lim and Ang, 2008;Solomon
et al., 2010;Voss et al., 2003). Consequently, this study
assesses consumer preferences toward co-branded products
(and HLCPs in particular) by considering three components
of consumers’attitudes, according to the ABC model of
attitudes (Ray, 1973;Solomon, 1996). By doing this, it will
be possible to disenta ngle the complex mechanism that bri ngs
consumers to form an at titude, by associ ating each attitude
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
26/7 (2017) 704–721
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-11-2015-1039]
Received 18 November 2015
Revised 11 May 2016
22 September 2016
23 September 2016
27 March 2017
29 April 2017
Accepted 30 April 2017
704
component to specific product attributes and by assessing
which component–at tribute pair mainly d rives consumer
preferences.
In addition, one of the major challenges to co-branding
success is consumers’perceptions of “product fit”and “brand
fit”of co-branded products, which are expected to play a
significant role in how consumers respond to co-branded
products (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). A high degree of fitis
required to stimulate a desirable attitude and positive
association, and eventually influence consumers’behavioral
intentions (Aaker and Keller, 1990;Helmig et al.,2007;
Simonin and Ruth, 1998). In the specific context of HLCPs,
however, the concept of product fit and brand fit becomes
puzzling. High-tech products and luxury brands have indeed
different attributes. While luxury brands are exclusive (Phau
and Prendergast, 2000) and costly (Keller, 2009), high-tech
products are functional and useful (Hawkins et al., 2000). In
addition, the conceptof product fit and brand fit between high-
tech and luxury brand companies might also createdisharmony
in consumers’mind. Lastly, it is important to analyze
consumers’perceptionsregarding product fit and brand fit and
how these perceptions influence consumers’attitudes. Again,
the adoption of a three-componentmodel of attitude formation
provides us supportto disentangle this question.
The findings from this study would thus help marketers
move toward better decision-making on the introduction and
positioning of co-branded products. More specifically, this
study provides firms with an improved understanding of the
mechanisms by which consumers form an attitude toward
HLCPs. In turn, firms may apply this informationto define the
content of advertising messages or shape communication
strategies. Similarly,the predominance of one product attribute
over others in influencing consumers’preferences might lead
producers of HLCPs to define more effective positioning
strategies.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
reviews the relevant literature and presents the main
hypotheses, Section 3 discusses the empirical tests, Section 4
presents the results and Section 5 concludes with a discussion
of the findings and managerialimplications of the study.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
Co-branding is one of the possible forms of a brand alliance
strategy (Simonin and Ruth, 1998;Rao et al., 1999;Geylani
et al.,2008;Cunha et al., 2015), or a specific arrangement
within brand extension possibilities (Washburn et al.,2000).
Geylani et al. (2008) define co-branding as a combination of
two existing brand names to form a separateand single product
with a composite brandname.
Co-branding can provide both benefits and drawbacks to
firms. In terms of benefits, co-branding offers established
brands an opportunity to add immediate credibility to existing
brands and increase sales of existing products (Mazodier and
Merunka, 2014). The likelihood of the success of co-branded
products increases with the degree of awareness, brandequity,
familiarity and quality of the constituent brands. On the
contrary, co-branding also presents risks such as raising
consumer mistrust, damaging the host brand’s image (Chang,
2009), diluting the host brand’s equity (Washburnet al., 2000;
Ueltschy and Laroche, 2004) and increasing the host brand’s
financial burden (Blackett and Boad, 1999). The alliance
between two brands may confuse consumers about the image
of constituent brands and consequently damage the brand
equity of each brand(Park et al.,1996).
2.1 The formation of consumers’attitudes toward
HLCPs
The marketing literature includes severaltheoretical models to
address the study of consumer attitude. For example, the
theory of planned behavior contends that any social behavior
(or behavioral intention) could be interpreted by a few key
antecedents such as attitude toward the behavior, subjective
norm and perceived behavioral control. When exploring
consumers’attitudes toward luxury brands, affect and
cognition are the prevailing attitudes used by researchers
(Abbott et al.,2009;Riscinto-Kozub et al., 2013). Ray (1973)
and Solomon (1996) provide the ABC model of attitudes,
which concludes that attitude is formed by three main
components, namely, affect, behavior and cognition, with
affect and cognition influencing consumer behavior (Laurent
and Kapferer, 1985;Putrevu and Lord, 1994;Dubé et al.,
2003). Subsequent studies have shown that, eventhough both
affect and cognition take part in consumers’assessment of
intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics (Da Silva and
Syed Alwi, 2006), the affect seems more relevant in the
evaluation of hedonic products (Mano and Oliver, 1993;Kim
and Morris, 2007), while the cognition is associated with the
evaluation of utilitarian products (Kim and Morris, 2007).
Given that HLCPs include attributesof both types of products,
both affect and cognitionshould influence consumer behavior.
In general terms, cognition can be considered as the result of
consumer’s thought process, which generates knowledge,
awareness, opinion and perception.The cognition is important
for prospective behavioral motivations to understand product
attributes (Caroand Garcia, 2007). While most literature point
out that both affect and cognition are important for the
evaluation of brands, a few empirical studies show that the
rational part of a brand is assessed prior to its emotional part
(Bhat and Reddy, 1998).
Affect also has received intensive attention by several
marketing studies (Aaker and Shansby,1982;Burke and Edell,
1989). Affect is based on feelings toward specific stimuli
(Westbrook, 1987;Anand et al., 1988). In daily consumption
events, affect typically represents a crucial determinant of
consumer behavior (Anand et al., 1988). For instance,
consumers often use affect to form a priori consumption
experience in which they form their future behavioraldecisions
(Cowley, 2007).
In the specific case of HLCPs, both affect and cognition are
expected to drive consumer behavior.In this case, the hedonic
nature of luxury brands emphasizes the affectivecomponent of
attitude, while the functional nature of high-tech products
accentuates the cognitive dimension. For example, a well-
established study supports that utilitarian benefits are relevant
in the customer decisionprocess for the purchase of customized
PCs (Tang et al., 2010). For the purchase of a smartphone,
evidence demonstrates that occasional users primarily use
smartphones to fulfill utilitarian needs and tend to perceive
these devices as functionaltools (Dong-Hee, 2012).
Detangling consumer attitudes
Han-Chiang Ho, Nora Lado and Pilar Rivera-Torres
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 26 · Number 7 · 2017 · 704–721
705
To continue reading
Request your trial