It is better with a shade of blue! Consumer evaluation of unisex extension of brands

Abstract

Launching unisex or agender extension of existing brands is being increasingly practiced by marketers today. However, there is limited research that explores consumers’ responses to unisex brand extensions. The purpose of this research was to contribute to the understanding of consumer evaluation of the agender extension of brands. It uses the theory of social identity as an overarching conceptual lens to examine the influence of consumer’s biological gender, gender image of the parent brand, and product type on the evaluation of the unisex extension of brands. Hypotheses are developed and tested across three experimental studies conducted among graduate student‐participants of a management school. Our findings suggest that women compared to men are more favorable towards unisex brand extensions and unisex offerings in general. Additionally, a unisex extension of a masculine brand is preferred over feminine brands by both men and women. Finally, for products that are higher on symbolic value women evaluate unisex extension more favorably, whereas for men the evaluations worsen. The research findings will help managers in taking unisex brand extension decisions.

The influence of self‐brand connection on consumer reactions to symbolic incongruency and perceived betrayal

“…We elucidate why consumers with high SBC not only revise their SBC and attitudes but also exhibit more pronounced expressions of resentment, such as engaging in negative word‐of‐mouth. Consumers build strong brand relationships to convey a particular image to others (Bhanja & Mehta, 2022; Joshi & Garg, 2021). The dilution of brand meaning through a symbolically incongruent extension could hinder the brand's ability to convey the desired image and affect self‐concepts of highly connected consumers, ultimately leading to felt betrayal.…”

“…Consumers may satisfy psychological needs such as portraying and differentiating one's self-concept through establishing strong brand relationships (e.g., Bhanja & Mehta, 2022;Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003;Johnson et al, 2011;Joshi & Garg, 2021;Kleine et al, 1995;Kleine III et al, 1993;Tuškej et al, 2013). SBC denotes the degree to which individuals have incorporated brands into their self-concept (Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005Kwon & Ha, 2023;Kwon & Mattila, 2015).…”

“…We specify our context as symbolically incongruent brand extensions. Consumers evaluate brand extensions based on the perceived congruency between extension and brand (Bhanja & Mehta, 2022; Bian & Yan, 2022; Chowdhury, 2007; Völckner & Sattler, 2006) because the congruency encourages categorization of the extension with its parent brand, helps transfer attitudes and affect from the brand to the extension (Deng & Messinger, 2021). There are two types of congruencies—category‐level congruency (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Boush & Loken, 1991) and brand‐level (symbolic) congruency (Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Bian & Yan, 2022; Park et al, 1991).…”