The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions

The author challenges the view that incongruent extensions are doomed to fail and demonstrates that brand extension ad content and repeated exposure to those advertisements influence consumer reactions to incongruent extensions. In a study of four highly regarded brands, participants who viewed brand extension advertisements five times evaluated incongruent extensions more positively, expressed higher usage intentions, indicated more favorable consistency judgments, and exhibited increased elaboration and more positive elaboration than did participants who viewed the advertisements only once. This relationship was attenuated for highly incongruent extensions, for which the advertisement evoked primarily peripheral brand associations instead of benefit brand associations. However, for moderately incongruent extensions, advertisements that evoked either peripheral or benefit associations were equally effective. Process measures indicate the importance of the extent and nature of elaborative processing.

[1]  Sandra J. Milberg,et al.  Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency , 1991 .

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

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

[4]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  The Effect of Type of Elaboration on Advertisement Processing and Judgment , 1996 .

[5]  R. Batra,et al.  Situational Effects of Advertising Repetition: The Moderating Influence of Motivation, Ability, and Opportunity to Respond , 1986 .

[6]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. , 1979 .

[7]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Dimensions of Consumer Expertise , 1987 .

[8]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Is memory schematic , 1983 .

[9]  Mary T. Curren,et al.  How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions , 1994 .

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

[11]  A. Tesser.  Self-Generated Attitude Change , 1978 .

[12]  J. Edwards.  Genetic Epistemology , 1971 .

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

[14]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[15]  F. Bartlett,et al.  Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology , 1932 .

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

[17]  J. Bruner,et al.  On the perception of incongruity; a paradigm. , 1949, Journal of personality.

[18]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management , 1986 .

[19]  Kevin Lane Keller.  Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity , 1993 .

[20]  Susan M. Broniarczyk,et al.  The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension , 1994 .

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

[22]  Vicki R. Lane,et al.  The Reciprocal Impact of Brand Leveraging: Feedback Effects from Brand Extension Evaluation to Brand Evalution , 1997 .

[23]  B. Sternthal,et al.  Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. , 1990 .

[24]  A. Greenwald.  6 – Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change1 , 1968 .

[25]  Terence A. Shimp,et al.  Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in an Advertising Context , 1987 .