Consumer evaluation of ingredient branding strategy

Abstract

Purpose Prior research in ingredient branding (IB) has identified several important decision variables consumers use when evaluating IB alliances. This exploratory research aims to investigate the relationship between these variables and consumers’ buying likelihood of the IB alliance and the relative importance of these variables for low- vs high-involvement product categories. Design/methodology/approach A study with the participation of 458 mTurkers was conducted and the data were analyzed using random forests. Findings Findings reveal relative importance of different variables for an IB alliance and that these differ for low- vs high-involvement categories. Research limitations/implications Being exploratory in nature, this research has several limitations, such as using only one high- and one low-involvement categories. Practical implications Results of this research will help brand managers as they make decisions entering an IB alliance as well as with investing their budget on different aspects of their brand, and tailoring their marketing activities for low- vs high-involvement product categories. Originality/value To the best of authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to discuss the relative importance of different decision variables in an IB context empirically.

Success drivers of co‐branding: A meta‐analysis

“…It is accepted that an individual’s behaviour intentions do not always translate into real behaviours. Therefore, collecting actual field data would contribute to the understanding of co‐branding success and offer practical implications (Dalman & Puranam, 2017; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Although the use of cross‐sectional data is understandable due to limited resources, it does not allow for a change in attitude towards co‐branding over different stages of its life cycle to be taken into account.…”

“…On the other hand, Bouten et al (2011) showed that product fit, brand fit, and pre‐attitude towards brands all had a significant positive impact on the evaluation of co‐branding, but that brand familiarity did not. While co‐branding has been extensively studied in the last 20 years, there has been no research aggregating all the relevant studies on success drivers (Dalman & Puranam, 2017; Helmig et al, 2008).…”

“…Co‐branding’s popularity in business practice has been mirrored by substantial growth in the academic research it has attracted over the past 20 years (Besharat & Langan, 2014; Newmeyer et al, 2018). Despite the considerable research attention devoted to co‐branding, empirical evidence for the success factors remains fragmented and ambiguous, emphasising different success factors in different contexts (Dalman & Puranam, 2017; Helmig et al, 2008; Newmeyer et al, 2014). Various factors play an important role in consumers’ positive evaluation of co‐branding (Besharat, 2010; Singh et al, 2016).…”

“…Despite the considerable research attention devoted to co-branding, empirical evidence for the success factors remains fragmented and ambiguous, emphasising different success factors in different contexts (Dalman & Puranam, 2017;Helmig et al, 2008;Newmeyer et al, 2014). Various factors play an important role in consumers' positive evaluation of co-branding (Besharat, 2010;Singh et al, 2016).…”

“…Contextual and method‐related differences could cause these equivocal findings on co‐branding evaluation (Yu et al, 2020). Therefore, there are calls to aggregate all the relevant success factors and analyse their relative importance (Dalman & Puranam, 2017; Helmig et al, 2008; Newmeyer et al, 2014).…”