Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Branding access offers: the importance of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introducing access as an alternative consumption mode next to ownership constitutes a major business model innovation. Managers need to better understand how to brand these new access offers and how this innovation affects current customers of the parent brand. In a series of experiments, we show that the product brand affects consumers’ access attitude less strongly than the offer’s service convenience in the carsharing context. However, in the fashion context, we find that brand prestige becomes essential for consumers’ access attitude. Regardless of the context, we repeatedly find that owners of a prestige brand evaluate new access offers more favorably than non-owners. In the carsharing context, this effect reverses for value brand owners. Furthermore, we do not find evidence that the access offer affects the parent brand negatively. Instead, we find that the parent brand is considered more innovative when a new access offer is introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A. (1997). Should you take your brand to where the action is? Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 135–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. Boston: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (2014). Contributions to information integration theory. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: the case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: the mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. (2013). You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisvert, J. (2009). The impact of parent brand salience and extension innovativeness on reciprocal transfer of image and performance associations. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisvert, J. (2012a). The impact of vertical service line extensions and brand salience on reciprocal transfer of image and performance associations. Journal of Service Research, 15(4), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boisvert, J. (2012b). The reciprocal impact of vertical service line extensions on parent brands: the roles of innovativeness, quality, and involvement. Managing Service Quality, 22(6), 546–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. (2009). Possession and access: consumer desires and value perceptions regarding contemporary art collection and exhibit visits. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 925–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daimler (2013). 5 Jahre car2go: 500.000 Kunden und 1 Million Mieten monatlich. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-614319-49-1643832-1-0-0-0-0-1-12635-0-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html?TS=1383038472067.

  • Dall’Olmo Riley, F., Pina, J. M., & Bravo, R. (2013). Downscale extensions: consumer evaluation and feedback effects. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, K. K., & Keller, K. L. (2002). The effects of ingredient branding strategies on host brand extendibility. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durgee, J. F., & O’Connor, G. C. (1995). An exploration into renting as consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 12(2), 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esch, F.-R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 98–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: the role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153–179). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geron, T. (2013). Airbnb and the unstoppable rise of the share economy. Retrieved May 24, 2013 from http://onforb.es/XxuTa1.

  • Goodman, J., & Irmak, C. (2013). Having versus consuming: failure to estimate usage frequency makes consumers prefer multifeature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(1), 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagtvedt, H., & Patrick, V. M. (2009). The broad embrace of luxury: hedonic potential as a driver of brand extendibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, T. B., DelVecchio, D., & McCarthy, M. S. (2011). The asymmetric effects of extending brands to lower and higher quality. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. K., Lavack, A. M., & Smith, M. (2001). Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and core brands. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, S. J. (2011). Forsaking ownership: three essays on non-ownership consumption and alternative forms of exchange (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2877&context=etd.

  • LeBreton, J. M., Tonidandel, S., & Krasikova, D. V. (2013). Residualized relative importance analysis: a technique for the comprehensive decomposition of variance in higher order regression models. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 449–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemon, K. N., & Wangenheim, F. V. (2009). The reinforcing effects of loyalty program partnerships and core service usage: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Service Research, 11(4), 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 20–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milberg, S. J., Whan Park, C., & McCarthy, M. S. (1997). Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: the impact of alternative branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: a matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 146–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, J. H., Wünderlich, N. V., & Evanschitzky, H. (2014). Spillover effects of service failures in coalition loyalty programs: the buffering effect of special treatment benefits. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 967–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers’ brand and category perceptions: some insights from schema research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, V. A., & Bearden, W. O. (2002). The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: the moderating role of extension similarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: a useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, B. (2011). Today’s smart choice: don’t own. Share. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from http://ti.me/13XZQOI.

  • Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität München, Arcisstr. 21, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Christoph Baumeister

  2. Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zürich, Weinbergstrasse 56/58, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland

    Anne Scherer & Florian v. Wangenheim

Authors
  1. Christoph Baumeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Scherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian v. Wangenheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Baumeister.

Additional information

This paper is based on Christoph Baumeister’s doctoral dissertation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baumeister, C., Scherer, A. & Wangenheim, F.v. Branding access offers: the importance of product brands, ownership status, and spillover effects to parent brands. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 574–588 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0440-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0440-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation