Abstract
The literature has identified factors that determine the favorable evaluation of a new brand extension, such as sharing a common product category or providing similar core benefits as the parent brand. However, there has been little research on which of these factors has a greater impact on consumer evaluation. This study explores how self-regulatory focus moderates the relative impacts of benefit overlap (i.e., the consistency of core benefits provided by extensions) versus product category similarity (i.e., the similarity among product categories that include the extensions) on brand extension evaluations. The results of an experiment support the prediction that benefit overlap extensions have greater significance for promotion-focused consumers, whereas category similarity extensions are favored by prevention-focused consumers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). ‘I’ seek pleasures and ‘we’ avoid pains: the role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33–49.
Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 16–28.
Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001). The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 439–449.
Chakravarti, D., MacInnis, D. J., & Nakamoto, K. (1990). Product category perception, elaborative processing and brand name extension strategies. In M. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 910–916). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.
Chernev, A. (2004). Goal orientation and consumer preference for status quo. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 557–565.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and prevention in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.
Dacin, P. A., & Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 229–242.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421–435.
Herr, P. M., Farquhar, P. H., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Impact of dominance and relatedness on brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 135–159.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. The American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). San Diego: Academic.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177–191.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 29, 1–22.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 35–50.
Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57, 71–84.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Meyers-Levy, J., Louie, T. A., & Curren, M. T. (1994). How does the congruity of brand names affect evaluations of brand name extensions? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46–53.
Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2004). When are broader brands stronger brands? An accessibility perspective on the success of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 346–357.
Pham, M. T. & Avent, T. (2004). Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503–518.
Shine, B. C., Park, J., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2007). Brand synergy effects in multiple brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 663–670.
Yeo, J., & Park, J. (2006). Effects of parent-extension similarity and self regulatory focus on evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 272–282.
Zhou, R., & Pham, M. T. (2004). Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: when financial products dictate consumers' investment goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 125–135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chang, CC., Lin, BC. & Chang, SS. The relative advantages of benefit overlap versus category similarity in brand extension evaluation: The moderating role of self-regulatory focus. Mark Lett 22, 391–404 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9131-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9131-0