Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What brand extensions need to fully benefit from their parental heritage

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

Abstract

It is well established that consumer acceptance of a brand extension depends on how strongly it fits with its parental origins. Less appreciated is how this acceptance also depends on the mental association created in consumers’ minds between the extension and its parent brand. Our investigation considers the gateway role played by this association’s mental accessibility in allowing extensions to fully benefit from their parental heritage. Six studies examine the effect of reinstating an extension’s association with its parent brand on extension evaluations. When reinstatement enhances the parental association’s accessibility, it strengthens the parent brand’s influence, leading to more or less favorable extension evaluations contingent upon the extension’s fit with its parental origins. These reinstatement effects carry important implications for brand-extension managers and researchers.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Keller, L. K. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). The brand relationship spectrum: the key to the brand architecture challenge. California Management Review, 42(4), 8–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia, R., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2000). The effects of extensions on the family brand name: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(12), 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alba, J. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1986). Salience effects in brand recall. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(9), 363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bambauer-Sachse, S., Hüttl, V., & Gierl, H. (2011). Can advertising elements improve consumer evaluations of brand extensions with a moderate or low fit? Psychology and Marketing, 28(2), 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J. (2005). The interactive effects of mood and involvement on brand extension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., Fedorikhin, S., & Hansen, D. E. (2017). The influence of positive affect on consideration set formation in memory-based choice. Marketing Letters, 28(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Mental construal and the emergence of assimilation and contrast effects: the inclusion/exclusion model. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 319–373). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(5), 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. R., & Srull, T. K. (1988). Competitive interference and consumer memory for advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(6), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C., Lin, B., & Chang, S. (2011). The relative advantages of benefit overlap versus category similarity in brand extension evaluation: the moderating role of self-regulatory focus. Marketing Letters, 22(4), 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. (2013). Apple passes Coca-Cola as most valuable brand. The New York Times, B5, September 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/business/media/apple-passes-coca-cola-as-most-valuablebrand.html. Accessed 16 May, 2018.

  • Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(11), 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskel, J., & Westlake, S. (2018). Capitalism without capital: the rise of the intangible economy. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulten, C. R. (2010). Decoding Microsoft: intangible capital as a source of company growth. NBER, Working Paper, #15799C.

  • Janiszewski, C., & Van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2000). A connectionist model of brand-quality associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(8), 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, R. D., Loken, B., & Joiner, C. (1998). The negative impact of extensions: can flagship products be diluted? Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(7), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch Jr., J., & Srull, T. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 18–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch Jr., J. G., Marmorstein, H., & Weigold, M. F. (1988). Choices from sets including remembered brands: use of recalled attributes and prior overall evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao, H., & Krishnan, H. S. (2006). Effects of prototype and exemplar fit on brand extension evaluations: a two-process contingency model. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, E., & Tybout, A. M. (2002). The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathur, P., Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2012). Consumers' implicit theories about personality influence their brand personality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, G., Raghubir, P., & Schwarz, N. (1995). Behavioral frequency judgments: an accessibility-diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(9), 212–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(9), 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milberg, S. J., Park, C. W., & McCarthy, M. S. (1997). Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: the impact of alternative branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(3), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miniard, P. W., Rose, R. L., Barone, M. J., & Manning, K. C. (1993). On the need for relative measures when assessing comparative advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: the influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 529–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2010). What makes brands elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayakankuppama, D., Priester, J. R., Kwonc, J. H., Donovand, L. A. N., & Petty, R. E. (2018). Construction and retrieval of evaluative judgments: the attitude strength moderation model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 54–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: influencing choice without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, S., & Houston, M. J. (2006). Exemplars or beliefs? the impact of self-view on the nature and relative influence of brand associations. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 519–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. C., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(9), 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. L., Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., Manning, K. C., & Till, B. D. (1993). When persuasion goes undetected: the case of comparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25(5), 638–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (2007). Mental construal processes: the inclusion/exclusion model. In D. A. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology (pp. 119–141). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S., Macinnis, D. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1997). The effects of incidental ad exposure on the formation of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, S., & Keller, K. L. (2012). The effects of brand name structure on brand extension evaluations and parent brand dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 373–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(12), 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(11), 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University of Minnesota Consumer Behavior Seminar. (1987). Affect generalization to similar and dissimilar brand extensions. Psychology and Marketing, 4(3), 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanke, M., Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in product line extensions: context is not destiny. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(9), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(11), 961–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessling, K. S., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. (2017). MTurk character misrepresentation: assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(June), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Florida International University, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Paul W. Miniard & Peter R. Dickson

  2. Monte Ahuja College of Business, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, 44114, USA

    Rama K. Jayanti

  3. ITAM, 01080, México, DF, Mexico

    Cecilia M. O. Alvarez

Authors
  1. Paul W. Miniard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rama K. Jayanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cecilia M. O. Alvarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter R. Dickson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul W. Miniard.

Additional information

Vikas Mittal served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1479 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miniard, P.W., Jayanti, R.K., Alvarez, C.M.O. et al. What brand extensions need to fully benefit from their parental heritage. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 46, 948–963 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0586-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0586-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation