Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 237–251 | Cite as

Spillover effects of ingredient branded strategies on brand choice: A field study

  • Vanitha Swaminathan
  • Srinivas K. Reddy
  • Sara Loughran Dommer
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Ingredient branding, or the use of two or more brand names on a single product, is widely seen as providing significant benefits in terms of increased product differentiation and greater market share. The association between two brand names can both enhance and dilute the brand equity of the host brand name and the ingredient brand name. This research examines the behavioral spillover effects associated with cobranded strategies across segments of consumers that vary in their prior brand commitment or loyalty. Different from previous research, this paper uses A.C. Nielsen scanner panel data to investigate the behavioral spillover effects of ingredient branded products on choice of the host and ingredient brands in a field setting. The results suggest that there is a significant behavioral spillover impact of trial of the cobranded product on the purchase probability of both the host and ingredient brands. This effect is greater among prior non-loyal users and prior non-users of the host and ingredient brands and when there is a higher degree of perceived fit between the host and ingredient brands.

Keywords

Ingredient branding Cobranding Brand commitment Brand loyalty 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ainslie, A., & Rossi, P. E. (1998). Similarities in choice behavior across product categories. Marketing Science, 17(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba, J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Connelly, M. (2001). Tire recall turns off non-Ford owners. Automotive News, 76(5947), 3.Google Scholar
  5. Desai, K. K., & Keller, K. L. (2002). The effects of ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(December), 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(August), 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guadagni, P. M., & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2(3), 203–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  10. Kempf, D. S., & Smith, R. E. (1998). Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: a structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kotler, P., & Pfoertsch, W. (2010). Ingredient branding: making the invisible visible. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Kumar, P. (2005). The impact of cobranding on customer evaluation of brand counterextensions. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li, S., Sun, B., & Wilcox, R. T. (2005). Cross-selling sequentially ordered products: an application to consumer banking services. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances: an investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rao, A., Lu, Qu, & Ruekert, R. W. (1999). Brand alliances as information about unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Russell, G. J., Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, A. D., Bell, D., Bodapati, A., Degeratu, A., et al. (1999). Multiple-category decision-making: review and synthesis. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seetharaman, P. B., Ainslie, A., & Chintagunta, P. K. (1999). Investigating household state dependence effects across categories. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1982). Information response models: an integrated approach. Journal of Marketing, 46(Winter), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, D. C., & Whan Park, C. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 296–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swaminathan, V., Fox, R. J., & Reddy, S. K. (2001). The impact of brand extension introduction on choice behavior. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Voss, K. E., & Gammoh, B. S. (2004). Building brands through brand alliances: does a second ally help? Marketing Letters, 15(2/3), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanitha Swaminathan
    • 1
  • Srinivas K. Reddy
    • 2
  • Sara Loughran Dommer
    • 3
  1. 1.Katz Graduate School of ManagementUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Center for Marketing Excellence, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of BusinessUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations