The importance of brand‐specific associations in brand extension: further empirical results
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429810244675 |
| Published date | 01 December 1998 |
| Date | 01 December 1998 |
| Pages | 509-518 |
| Author | Mark S. Glynn,Roderick J. Brodie |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
JOURNAL OF PRODUCT & BRAND MANAGEMENT, VOL. 7 NO. 6 1998, pp. 509-518 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1061-0421 509
Introduction
A brand extension strategy involves using an established brand name in one
product class to enter another product class. Many firms have used this
strategy in the last decade to further leverage brand equity. A “good” brand
extension strategy is one where the brand name aids the extension, while a
“very good” brand extension also enhances the brand name (Aaker, 1991).
Consumer evaluation of a brand extension is often described as a process by
which the core brand associations of the parent brand transfer to the
extension. Thus a key aspect contributing to the success of such strategies is
to understand how consumer perceptions towards the brand in the
established and new category are altered by the extension. This is an area
where considerable research has been undertaken (Barwise, 1993).
Brand extension research has focussed mainly on the consumer perceptions of
brand extensions. Two factors have emerged as important in extension
evaluations, one is the effect of the parent brand and, second, the similarity
between the original and the extension categories. Boush et al. (1987) noted
the greater the similarity between the current product and the extended product
the greater the transfer-of-brand affect. Attitudes towards the extension were
higher when there was a perception of “fit” and the parent brand had a higher
perceived quality (Aaker and Keller, 1990). Brand extensions can have a
positive effect on the brand (Keller and Aaker, 1992) but a bad extension can
dilute the parent brand (Loken and Roedder-John, 1993). Brand quality plays
an important part in brand extension strategy (Dacin and Smith, 1994) and
Dawar and Andersen (1994) showed that undertaking brand extensions in a
consistent direction also increased purchase likelihood.
While these studies emphasise product attributes such as “fit” and product
similarity, other research highlights the role of non-product attributes in
brand extension. Brand esteem and familiarity were important with stock
market reaction to extensions (Lane and Jacobson, 1995). Bridges (1992)
found that by building associations not tied to the physical product, a brand’s
growth prospects could be enhanced. A brand’s image is also more likely to
transfer to an extension if it is more general than product-specific
(Nakamoto et al., 1993). Park et al. (1991) compared brand concept
consistency (e.g. functional versus prestige brands) and product level
similarity and found that the capacity to extend prestige brands was greater
when product similarity was low.
There are two major limitations with most of the recently published research
about brand extension. One is that many studies have been exploratory and
The importance of brand-
specific associations in brand
extension: further empirical
results
Mark S. Glynn
Marketing and Advertising Group, Faculty of Commerce, Auckland
Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Roderick J. Brodie
Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, University of
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Established brand name
Non-product attributes
To continue reading
Request your trial