The Effects of Extensions on Brand Name Dilution and Enhancement

In this article, the authors examine new product extension strategies that are likely to be effective in building brand equity. The framework accounts for mixed findings in brand equity literature by identifying motivation as a factor that moderates the dilution and enhancement effects observed in prior research. The authors find that the typicality of the extension and consumers’ level of motivation determine the effect of extensions on family brand name. In high-motivation conditions, incongruent extensions are scrutinized in detail and lead to the modification of family brand evaluations, regardless of the typicality of the extensions. However, in low-motivation conditions, brand evaluations are more extreme in the context of high (versus low) typicality. The less typical extension is considered an exception, which reduces its impact on evaluations. Results also show that brand name dilution or enhancement can occur in response to congruent extensions. However, processes that underlie the effect of congruent information are somewhat different.

[1]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. , 1992 .

[2]  Kevin Lane Keller,et al.  Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions , 1990 .

[3]  M. Sujan,et al.  Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments , 1985 .

[4]  Sandra J. Milberg,et al.  The effects of direct and associative brand extension strategies on consumer response to brand , 1993 .

[5]  M. Hewstone,et al.  COGNITIVE MODELS OF STEREOTYPE CHANGE .3. SUBTYPING AND THE PERCEIVED TYPICALITY OF DISCONFIRMING GROUP MEMBERS , 1992 .

[6]  R. Petty,et al.  Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. , 1992 .

[7]  F. Kardes,et al.  Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion , 1988 .

[8]  J. Crocker,et al.  Cognitive Processes in the Revision of Stereotypic Beliefs , 1983 .

[9]  Jean B. Romeo.  The Effect of Negative Information on the Evaluations of Brand Extensions and the Family Brand , 1991 .

[10]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Low-Involvement Learning: Memory without Evaluation , 1992 .

[11]  D. Aaker.  Building Strong Brands , 1995 .

[12]  David A. Aaker,et al.  The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions , 1992 .

[13]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Advertising Repetition and Variation Strategies: Implications for Understanding Attitude Strength , 1994 .

[14]  Sandra J. Milberg,et al.  Managing Negative Feedback Effects Associated With Brand Extensions: The Impact of Alternative Branding Strategies , 1997 .

[15]  K. Dodge,et al.  Effects of confirmations and disconfirmations on stereotype-based attributions. , 1977 .

[16]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation , 1989 .

[17]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[18]  David M. Boush,et al.  A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation , 1991 .

[19]  S. Harkins,et al.  Information Utility and the Multiple Source Effect , 1987 .

[20]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective , 1994 .

[21]  Deborah Roedder John,et al.  Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact? , 1993 .

[22]  J. Bettman,et al.  The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research , 1989 .