Marketing Letters

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 175–189 | Cite as

Advertising for extensions: Moderating effects of extension type, advertising strategy, and product category involvement on extension evaluation

Article

Abstract

This paper investigates how advertisements for extensions contribute to consumers’ attitudes towards new line and brand extensions of highly familiar brands. We investigate the relative importance of attitude toward the advertisement (Aad), parent brand quality, and fit between the extension and the parent brand for extension evaluations with a sample of 754 Belgians. Hierarchical regressions showed that Aad is the major influencer of extension evaluation. The importance of Aad, quality, and fit on extension evaluation is moderated by extension type (line or brand extension), advertising strategy (informational, positive emotional, negative emotional), and product involvement (low or high involvement). Quality transfer from the parent brand was more outspoken for line than for brand extensions; Aad was relatively more important for low product involvement and fit for high involvement conditions. Informational appeals, compared to emotional appeals, reduced the effects of parent brand quality and fit, but Aad was all the more important.

Keywords

Advertising Aad Line extension Brand extension Involvement 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen). We would also like to acknowledge the support of Insites Consulting in the data collection process and Think.BBDO for the development of the advertising stimuli.

References

  1. Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahluwalia, R., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects of extensions on the family brand name: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bottomley, P. A., & Holden, S. J. S. (2001). Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coulter, K. S. (2005). An examination of qualitative vs quantitative elaboration likelihood effects. Psychology & Marketing, 22(1), 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czellar, S. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research propositions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(1), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, S., & Halligan, C. (2002). Extending your brand by optimizing your customer relationship. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van den Bergh, J. (2007). Marketing communications. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  8. Drolet, A., Williams, P., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2007). Age-related differences in responses to affective vs rational ads for hedonic vs utilitarian products. Marketing Letters, 18(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. A. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition, volume 1: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 167–203). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Kuschmann, T. (2007). Extending the brand image on new products: the facilitative effect of happy mood states. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grime, I., Diamantopoulos, A., & Smith, G. (2002). Consumer evaluations of extensions and their effects on the core brand: key issues and research propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 36(11/12), 1415–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen, F. (2005). Distinguishing between feelings and emotions in understanding communication effects. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1426–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Marketing research with SPSS. London, UK: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Klink, R. R., & Smith, D. C. (2001). Threats to the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lai, M. (2006). The impacts of the brand strategies of new products on consumers’ behaviors. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Research in Advertising, Bath, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Lye, A., Venkateswarlu, P., & Barrett, J. (2001). Brand extensions: prestige brand effects. Australasian Marketing Journal, 9(2), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez, E., Montaner, T., & Pina, J. M. (2008). Brand extension feedback: the role of advertising. Journal of Business Research, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.009.Google Scholar
  19. McCarthy, M. S., Heath, T. B., & Milberg, S. J. (2001). New brands versus brand extensions, attitudes versus choice: experimental evidence for theory and practice. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nan, X. L. (2006). Affective cues and brand-extension evaluation: exploring the influence of attitude toward the parent brand and attitude toward the extension ad. Psychology & Marketing, 23(7), 597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nkwocha, I., Bao, Y., Johnson, W. C., & Brotspies, H. V. (2005). Product fit and consumer attitude toward brand extensions: the moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 13(3), 49–61.Google Scholar
  22. Park, J.-W., & Kim, K.-H. (2001). Role of consumer relationships with a brand in brand extensions: some exploratory findings. Advances in Consumer Research, 28(1), 179–185.Google Scholar
  23. Patro, S. K., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2003). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: evidence from India. Journal of the Academy of Business and Economics, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
  24. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think? Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 81–116). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Rossiter, J. R., Percy, L., & Donovan, R. J. (1991). A better advertising planning grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(5), 11–21.Google Scholar
  26. Shehryar, O., & Hunt, D. M. (2005). A terror management perspective on the persuasiveness of fear appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, D. (2005). Brand stretch - why 1 in 2 extensions fail, and how to beat the odds: a brandgym workout. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2007). Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wing, H. (2004). Brand extension is not a low risk option that firms think it is. Media Asia, p. 11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marketing Department, Faculty of Applied EconomicsUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  2. 2.Marketing Department, Faculty of Applied EconomicsUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  3. 3.Marketing Department, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations