Which category to extend to – Product or service?

Arslan, F. Müge; Altuna, Oylum Korkut

doi:10.1057/bm.2011.45

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(159 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To address this gap, our conceptual framework predicts that the extension category (product vs. service) moderates the relationship of brand-and consumerlevel success drivers (i.e., perceived quality of the parent brand, parent brand conviction, brand reliance, and consumer innovativeness) with the perceived quality of the extension. Our study thus complements and extends prior work on brand extensions (Arslan and Altuna 2012;de Ruyter and Wetzels, 2000;Hem et al, 2003;Pina, 2005, 2010;Pina et al, 2006;van Riel and Ouwersloot, 2005;Völckner and Sattler 2006;Völckner et al, 2010).…”

Section: Research Issuessupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Consistent with Aaker and Keller's (1990) basic model of brand extension success and prior research into service brand extensions (e.g., Arslan and Altuna, 2012;Martínez and Pina, 2010;van Riel et al, 2001;Völckner et al, 2010), we conceptualize brand extension success as the perceived quality of an extension. 4 Drawing on Völckner and Sattler's (2006) comprehensive investigation on the determinants of brand extension success (for justification of this comprehensiveness, see Albrecht et al 2013, p. 649), we identify drivers relevant to service brand extension success.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these relationships are well established, so we do not develop explicit hypotheses for them. Specifically, the model includes (presumably positive) relationships of the perceived quality of the extension with the perceived quality of the parent brand (e.g., Arslan and Altuna, 2012;Sattler, 2006, Völckner et al, 2010), parent brand conviction (e.g., Sichtmann, 2007;Völckner et al, 2010), brand reliance (e.g., Ramanathan, 2013;Völckner and Sattler, 2006), and consumer innovativeness (e.g., Hem et al, 2003;Steenkamp et al, 1999).…”

Section: Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, we featured hypothetical extensions to isolate the specific effects of the extension category on evaluations, rather than confront the noise of real market settings that include influences from advertising or competitors' actions (Diamantopoulos et al, 2005). This approach has been used widely in prior brand extension research (e.g., Arslan and Altuna, 2012;Kappor and Heslop, 2009;Sattler et al, 2010;Sichtmann and Diamantopoulos, 2013;Spiggle et al, 2012;Thamraiselvan and Raja, 2008;Yorkston et al, 2010), and Völckner and Sattler (2007, p. 155) confirm that the results of hypothetical brand extension studies "can be largely generalized to real brand extension studies. "…”

Section: Selection Of Parent Brands and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Extending service brands into products versus services

Sichtmann

Schoefer

Blut

et al. 2017

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the recognition that service brands can extend to other services (service-to-service brand extensions) or products (service-to-product brand extensions), little research considers the effect of the extension category on the drivers of service brand extension success. To address this gap, the present study proposes and empirically tests a conceptual framework that explicitly considers the extension category as a moderator of the relationship of brand-and consumer-level success drivers (perceived quality of the parent brand, parent brand conviction, brand reliance, consumer innovativeness) with perceived extension quality. The findings indicate a systematic, extension category-dependent influence on the effects of service brand extension success drivers. In particular, the influence of perceived parent brand quality and parent brand reliance is stronger, but the influence of parent brand conviction is weaker, when service brands extend to other services. These findings have significant implications for theory and practice.

show abstract

Section: Research Issuessupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Conceptual Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Selection Of Parent Brands and Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Extending service brands into products versus services

Sichtmann

Schoefer

Blut

et al. 2017

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several behavioral evaluation methods have been proposed to measure the success of extension using explicit survey responses ( Völckner and Sattler, 2006 ; Arslan and Altuna, 2012 ) or implicit eye tracking movements ( Stewart et al, 2004 ). They showed that a “fit” between a parent brand and extension goods is the most crucial factor for successful brand extension ( Aaker and Keller, 1990 ; Völckner and Sattler, 2006 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Human Brain Activity during the Evaluation of Service-to-Service Brand Extension

Yang

Lee

Seomoon

et al. 2018

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brand extension is a marketing strategy to apply the previously established brand name into new goods or service. A number of studies have reported the characteristics of human event-related potentials (ERPs) in response to the evaluation of goods-to-goods brand extension. In contrast, human brain responses to the evaluation of service extension are relatively unexplored. The aim of this study was investigating cognitive processes underlying the evaluation of service-to-service brand extension with electroencephalography (EEG). A total of 56 text stimuli composed of service brand name (S1) followed by extended service name (S2) were presented to participants. The EEG of participants was recorded while participants were asked to evaluate whether a given brand extension was acceptable or not. The behavioral results revealed that participants could evaluate brand extension though they had little knowledge about the extended services, indicating the role of brand in the evaluation of the services. Additionally, we developed a method of grouping brand extension stimuli according to the fit levels obtained from behavioral responses, instead of grouping of stimuli a priori. The ERP analysis identified three components during the evaluation of brand extension: N2, P300, and N400. No difference in the N2 amplitude was found among the different levels of a fit between S1 and S2. The P300 amplitude for the low level of fit was greater than those for higher levels (p < 0.05). The N400 amplitude was more negative for the mid- and high-level fits than the low level. The ERP results of P300 and N400 indicate that the early stage of brain extension evaluation might first detect low-fit brand extension as an improbable target followed by the late stage of the integration of S2 into S1. Along with previous findings, our results demonstrate different cognitive evaluation of service-to-service brand extension from goods-to-goods.

show abstract

Markentransformationsprozesse in der Servicetransformation

Ruthardt

2023

Forum Dienstleistungsmanagement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Which category to extend to – Product or service?

Cited by 10 publications

References 42 publications

Extending service brands into products versus services

Extending service brands into products versus services

Characteristics of Human Brain Activity during the Evaluation of Service-to-Service Brand Extension

Markentransformationsprozesse in der Servicetransformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About