Do We Really Know how Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions? Empirical Generalizations Based on Secondary Analysis of Eight Studies

Abstract

The authors investigate the empirical generalizability of Aaker and Keller's model of how consumers evaluate brand extensions. Various replications have reported different results. Using a comprehensive data set containing the data from the original study and seven replications conducted around the world, the authors undertake a secondary analysis to understand what generalizations emerge. The study has implications for the understanding of how brand extensions are evaluated and how empirical generalizations are made. For brand extensions, Aaker and Keller's model hypothesizes that evaluations of brand extensions are based on the quality of the original brand, the fit between the parent and extension categories, and the interaction of the two. The authors find support for this full model despite published results, including Aaker and Keller's own, that support only some of the hypotheses. The authors find evidence that the level of contribution of each of these components varies by brand and culture. With respect to empirical generalizations, the key implication is that it is premature to make firm conclusions about theory on the basis of only one study.

How consumers’ assessments of the difficulty of manufacturing a product influence quality perceptions

“…All three studies find consistent effects using a method of systematically varying relative manufacturing difficulty. A review of eight brand extension studies found inconsistent effects for manufacturing difficulty on attitudes toward an extension (Bottomley and Holden 2001). Those studies examined the difficulty of the extension but not of the parent.…”

“…Although brand extension research has indicated that an extension's perceived difficulty may influence attitudes toward that extension (Aaker and Keller 1990), the evidence is mixed. The perceived difficulty of manufacturing the extension is associated with positive evaluations in some studies and with negative evaluations in other studies, and sometimes it has no significant relationship with extension evaluations (Bottomley and Holden 2001).…”

“…Previous research has shown that consumers have beliefs about the difficulty of designing and making products; some products (e.g., popcorn, frozen French fries) are perceived as easy, and others (e.g., watches, wine) are perceived as more difficult (Aaker and Keller 1990). Furthermore, consumers' beliefs about the difficulty of manufacturing an extension influence their attitudes toward that brand extension, though the strength of those effects sometimes varies across studies (Bottomley and Holden 2001).…”

Forecasting consumer perception of innovativeness

“…This reaction might be related to the perception of difficulty of manufacture (Johnson and Folkes, 2007), which shares a positive relationship with a consumer's overall evaluation of a brand (Bottomley and Holden, 2001). Therefore, although the technology behind some innovations may not be clearly visible to consumers it appears as if consumers may form a judgment about how technologically innovative a product is and this perception may influence their evaluations of a product's innovativeness.…”

Brand and line extensions: an empirical study from the new age luxury industry

“…These studies have generated important insights into a number of areas of the process of consumers' attitudes towards and evaluations of brand extensions, e.g., brand and category-level fit (Boush et al, 1987;Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994;Bhat and Reddy, 2001;Park et al, 1991;Lau and Phau, 2007;Milberg et al, 2013), the effect of prior knowledge of the extension category or the brand (Boush and Loken, 1991;Bottomley and Holden, 2001), forward and reciprocal spillover effects between parent and extension (Jacobson and Lane, 1997;Balachander and Ghose, 2003), consumer motivation and expertise (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994), advertising and marketing strategy (Balanchander and Ghose, 2003;Dens and De Pelsmacker, 2010) and purchase intention (Lane, 2000;Bhat and Reddy, 2001). As pointed out by Czellar (2003), the vast majority of existing research focuses thus on consumer characteristics, predominantly rooted in cognitive psychology (e.g., Aaker and Keller, 1990;Park et al, 1991;Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994;Bhat and Reddy, 2001;Monga and John, 2010), and pays little attention to other factors such as consumer heterogeneity, competitor and distributor activity.…”