1 The Impact of Elaboration on Brand Extension Evaluations on the Internet Vicki Lane University of Colorado at Denver Richard Yalch University of Washington at Seattle Seminar presented at the Haas School of Business University of California September 27, 2001
65
Embed
1 The Impact of Elaboration on Brand Extension Evaluations on the Internet Vicki Lane University of Colorado at Denver Richard Yalch University of Washington.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
The Impact of Elaboration on Brand Extension Evaluations on the Internet
Vicki LaneUniversity of Colorado at Denver
Richard YalchUniversity of Washington at Seattle
Seminar presented at the Haas School of Business
University of California
September 27, 2001
2
OverviewHow do consumers react to incongruous
brand extensions?How does this reaction vary with the
product category and brand associations transferred from the parent brand?
Is the relational-item specific elaboration perspective useful for explaining the above processes?
3
AGENDA
Brand Extension: Original IssueBrand Extension: The Fit IssueBrand Extension: Relevant researchItem Specific vs. Relational ProcessingResearch DesignResearch Results (very preliminary)Discussion, Limitations, and
Conclusions
4
Brand Extensions
VITAMIN C
SUNKISTORANGE
SODASUNKIST
5
Brand ExtensionControversy
Tauber- Lowers Introduction Costs
Trout & Ries- Erodes Brand Equity “dilution”
6
Tauber’s Work for Vaseline Intensive Care Paid Off
7
But Many Extensions Failed
$5 Perfume
For the woman who wants to be thought of as
“cheap and disposable” ?
8
Brand Extension Research
Aaker & Keller, 1990
- Determinants of Success
- Attitudesextension
Transferability
Quality x Complementariness
Quality x Substitutability
Difficulty in making extension
FIT
9
Congruity of Brand Extensions
Levi Jeans Levii Casual Wear Levi Suits
ModeratelyIncongruous
ExtremelyIncongruous
10
What is Congruity?Overlap in attributesChakravarti, MacInnis & Nakamoto (ACR, 1990)
ExampleHaagen Dazs Ice Cream & Haagen Dazs SherbetHaagen Dazs is rich & expensiveice cream is cold, sweet, high in calories & butterfat, chocolate & vanilla flavorssherbet is cold & sweet, but low in calories & butterfat, usually not chocolate or vanilla flavor
11
Related PerspectiveProduct Feature Similarity vs. Brand Concept ConsistencyPark, Milberg & Lawson (JCR, 1991)
ExampleRolex = Prestige & Luxury – time pieces & jeweleryTransfers to Grandfather clock, Bracelet & RingAlso to cologne, necktie & cuff links (low feature similarity)
Does not transfer to stopwatch, batteries & calculator (high feature similarity but low concept consistency)
12
Another PerspectiveProduct Category vs. Brand InstanceHerr, Farquhar & Fazio (JCP, 1996)
Example of Product Category DominanceCamera – Kodak; Beer - Budweiser
Example of Brand Instance DominancePolaroid – Camera; Coors - Beer
Finding for ExtensionsCategory Dominance enhances recall for close and distant extensions but affect transfers only for closely related extensions ( recall results)
13
Herr, Farquhar & Fazio - Recall
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Close Extension Distant Extension
Number of Extensions Recalled
Strong ProductWeak Product
14
Herr, Farquhar & Fazio - Attitudes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Close Extension Distant Extension
Attitudes toward Extensions
Strong ProductWeak Product
15
Final PerspectiveProduct Benefits vs. Peripheral Brand AssociationsLane (JM, 2000)
Example of Product BenefitsCrest – fights cavities; Michelin – safe tires
Example of Peripheral Brand AssociationsHeineken – green bottle; Keebler – elves
16
Results - Lane, JM 2000
3
4
5
6Attitudes toward
Extension
Benefi
t-Mod
erat
e
Benefi
t-Hig
h
Perip
heral
-Mod
erat
e
Perip
heral
-High
Effects of Ad Repetition for Moderate and Highly Incongruent Brand Extensions
Once Five
17
Summary I
Much of the Brand Extension Research has identified two types of information that may be activated by a parent brand name attached to an extension
Affect Transfer of Associations seem to depend on the Congruity of the ExtensionProduct (category) associations > Brand-specific associationsMore so as the extension becomes more incongruous.
19
Research Issue
How is product category and brand specific information processed by consumers when considering a new incongruous extension?
20
What is the Consumer Reaction to Incongruous Extensions?
Can consumer attitudes toward highly incongruous extensions be enhanced by altering their elaboration of product category and brand-specific information?
28
Item Specific vs. Relational Processing
Item Specific Processing focuses on properties that are distinctive or unique in the disparate pieces of information.
Relational Processing
focuses on similarities or shared themes among disparate pieces of information.
29
Hyundai Sonata Ad (Meyers-Levy 1991)
100 cubic feet of passenger spacecomfortable seating for 5 adultsspacious rear seatrich velour bucket seatssix-way adjustable driver’s seat36-month or 36,000 mile warrantyfree motor-club membership
30
Hyundai Sonata Ad (Meyers-Levy 1991)
100 cubic feet of passenger spacecomfortable seating for 5 adultsspacious rear seatrich velour bucket seatssix-way adjustable driver’s seat36-month or 36,000 mile warrantyfree motor-club membership
COMFORT
COMFORT
31
Malaviya, Kisielius & Sternthal 1996
Relational processing Generative“Comfort” – features associated with comfort
Item specific processing Discrimination
Warranty & roadside assistance are what’s not comfortEconomy was not mentioned
32
Hunt & Einstein, 1981
Combining the two different methods of elaboration is more effective for learning than using either one alone, even if done twice.At least, for free recall
33
Meyers-Levy 1991 (apartment ad)Ad Content (number of similar features)
Relational – 8 ? – 4Item-specific – 2
Processing InstructionsItem-specific – “Form a picture in your mind of each feature”Relational – pictures keyed to organizing principles (safety, aesthetics, convenience)Control – no instructions
34
Meyers-Levy - Recall
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0It
em
-
Sp
ecif
ic(2)
?(4)
Rela
tio
nal(
8)
Recall
Item SpecificInstructions
RelationalInstructions
CONTEXT
35
Meyers-Levy - Attitudes
2
3
4
5
6
Attit
ud
es
Item SpecificInstructions
RelationalInstructions
CONTEXT
36
Meyers-Levy - Summary
Recall Combination of item-specific & relational is better than either one alone
AttitudesClaims – more is better (relational)Processing – imagine each feature is better (item-specific)Combination is not better
37
Malaviya, Kisielius & SternthalJMR 1996
Ad ContentItem-specific processing – presenting ads with an attribute-focus (pictures of camera features)Relational processing – presenting ads with an image focus (pictures taken with camera)
Ad ContextItem-specific processing – presenting ads for unrelated brands (different category)Relational processing – presenting ads for competing products (same category)
38
Malaviya, Kisielius & Sternthal- Recall Results
0
1
2
3
Recall
Item Specific (attribute)
Relational (image)
CONTEXT
39
Malaviya, Kisielius & Sternthal Attitude Results
5
6
7
8
Item-Specific Relational
Att
itu
des
Item Specific Content
Relational Content
CONTEXT
40
Malaviya, Kisielius & Sternthal- Summary
Recall Item-specific content (attribute-focus) is better
Item-specific context (unrelated ads) is better Combination does not improve recall
AttitudesCombination of item-specific & relational is better than either one alone
Item-Specific Linked to brand-specific features/attributes What’s different about this particular camera?
RelationalLinked to product category (what are the uses of cameras?)
42
Summary
Type of Elaboration affects how consumers use advertising information in making product judgments.
Inconsistency in findings regarding whether it is better to use 2 types of elaboration (item-specific and relational) or only one (relational) for attitudes.
Item-specific & relational may be linked to brand vs. category associations
43
Present Research Focus
Apply the 2 methods of elaboration (item-specific and relational) to present a highly incongruent brand extension.Examine the effects on consumer judgments.Look at the results for both the parent brand and the extension (Loken & John, JM 1993).
44
Research Design
Highly incongruent extension – Michelin Sports Sandal (from Lane 2000)
45
Research Design
Ad Context (Malaviya et al)
Visual Ad Content (Malaviya et al)
Brand and category information(Park et al, Herr et al)
46
Research Procedure
Subjects recruited for an internet shopping exercise.Randomly assigned to view 1 of 9 different sequences of internet pages.Each one shown for 60 seconds.Subjects complete an on-line survey.
47
Unrelated Ad Context – control
48
Competing Products Ad Context – Product (relational)
49
Parent Brand Ad Context – (item-specific)
50
Visual Ad Content – Sandal (product)
51
Visual Ad Content – Brand Logo
52
Visual Ad Content – Uses
53
Visual Ad Content – Uses
54
Dependent Measure – Extension Attitudes
“best describes your feelings and thoughts associated with Michelin Sports Sandals”
Affect (good brand, high quality, satisfying, appealing, likeable, superior features)
FeaturesGood tread, many safety features, contemporary, unique features, high r&d, important benefits, high performance)
55
Dependent Measure – Michelin Attitudes
“best describes your feelings and thoughts associated with overall Michelin brand”
Affect (good brand, high quality, satisfying, appealing, likeable, superior features)
FeaturesGood tread, many safety features, contemporary, unique features, high r&d, important benefits, high performance)
56
Dependent Measure - Learning
Recognition10 true-false statementsFree recall – write down what you remember was stated on the web pageThoughts – write down your thoughts while looking at the web page
57
Dependent Measure - Fit
Congruity (pairing of Michelin and sports sandals)Extremely Surprising/Not SurprisingExtremely Unexpected/Completely ExpectedExtremely Inconsistent/Extremely ConsistentPoor Fit/Good Fit
Uniqueness (compared to other sports sandals)Similar/dissimilarTypical/atypicalSame/different
58
Results – Extension Affect
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
Mall Sports Michelin
Logo
Sandals
59
Results – Extension Features
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.0
Mall Sports Michelin
Logo
Sandals
60
Results – Michelin Affect
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
Mall Sports Michelin
Logo
Sandals
61
Results – Michelin Features
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
Mall Sports Michelin
Logo Sandals
62
Fit with Michelin
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Mall Sports Michelin
Sandals
Logo
63
Uniqueness of Michelin Sandals
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Mall Sports Michelin
Logo
Sandals
64
Summary
Extension Evaluation – Logo visual helps more following product ads than following brand ads.Parent Brand Evaluation– Sandal visual helps more following brand ads than following product ads.Fit – Helped by focusing on product category rather than the parent brand(reducing association to Michelin?).
65
Conclusions
We lack consensus on Product Category versus Brand-specific associations as they relate to brand extensions.
Item-specific versus relational processing issues not resolved.