2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11002-014-9317-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Managing sub-branding affect transfer: the role of consideration set size and brand loyalty

Abstract: Although the essential role of affect transfer has been evidenced in the brand extension literature, scant research has focused on affect transfer when a firm attempts to add sub-brands into its brand portfolio. We conducted a series of four experiments to demonstrate that affect associated with a family brand does in fact transfer to its sub-brand, and the effect is more pronounced for a sub-brand that is closer to (versus distant from) its family brand.Further, the transfer of affect is contingent upon consi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We thereby empirically confirm that hierarchically structured brand schemata are linked to the success of specific branding strategies (Halkias, 2015). The use of this strategy enhances firm value (Hsu et al, 2016), reduces challenges of brand extensions (He et al, 2016), and improves consumers' purchase intention across nations. These findings are in line with, but extend, most studies on the relationship of corporate and product evaluations.…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We thereby empirically confirm that hierarchically structured brand schemata are linked to the success of specific branding strategies (Halkias, 2015). The use of this strategy enhances firm value (Hsu et al, 2016), reduces challenges of brand extensions (He et al, 2016), and improves consumers' purchase intention across nations. These findings are in line with, but extend, most studies on the relationship of corporate and product evaluations.…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting
confidence: 57%
“…Scholars differentiate four branding strategies: house of brands reflects a purely product strategy, and branded house reflects a purely corporate strategy (e.g., Gillette of P&G and Nike); sub-branding and endorsed branding are categorized within those extremes. Sub-branding applies equally to corporate and product brands, e.g., Sony PlayStation, VW Golf (as in national studies, e.g., He et al, 2016;Hsu et al, 2016). In contrast, endorsed branding links corporate and product brands to a lesser extent, e.g., the corporate brand name appears on the product package, not as part of the product brand name (Brexendorf & Keller, 2017).…”
Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The choice of branding strategy is likely to be a key factor in the development of any line extension, but specific effects of the branding strategy have received limited attention in the brand/line extension literature (He et al., ; Milberg et al., ; Tsai et al., ). Sood and Keller () stated that branding strategies deserve greater attention in the study of parent brand spillover effects.…”
Section: Research Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, the reason behind the launch of “Clinique” was to avoid taking advantage of the equity associated with its parent brand to reduce potential negative spillovers on the Estée Lauder brand in the case of failure (He, Qimei, Tam, & Lee, ). However, specific effects of branding strategies have received limited attention in the brand/line extension literature (He et al., ; Milberg, Park, & McCarthy, ; Tsai et al., ) and most of the findings relates to non‐luxury brands. Therefore, it has become imperative to investigate the contrasting effects of different types of branding strategies vs. downward line extension and their spillover effect on a luxury parent brand.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Brand loyalty is viewed as a distinct component of brand equity (Aaker, 1991;Aaker, 1995;Anderson and Kumar, 2007;He et al, 2014) and has been repositioned as a potential consequence of brand equity. Nonetheless, Keller (1993) did not include brand loyalty as a distinct component of brand knowledge.…”
Section: Outcomes Of Brand Equitymentioning
confidence: 99%