The Critical Role of Congruency in Prototypical Brand Extensions

Drawing on categorization theory, this empirical study focuses on the critical role of congruency in prototypical brand extensions. A survey, measuring reactions to 18 proposed extensions involving six well-known brands (Xerox, Kleenex, Band-Aid, Scotch-Tape, Coke, Sony Walkman), was administered to a sample of graduate students. For each prototypical brand, there were three proposed extensions: congruent, moderately congruent, and incongruent. Preliminary analyses, using a series of MANOVAs and post-hoc pairwise difference tests, revealed robust variations across the six brands with respect to the level of extension congruency. Using multiple-item indicators for three latent constructs (attitude towards parent brand, extension fit, and extension success) along with two additional variables (prototypicality and manufacturing complexity), we developed and tested three structural equation models linking these aforementioned variables, for congruent, moderately congruent, and incongruent extensions. Results indicate that—irrespective of the level of extension congruency—perceptions of fit had the strongest influence on extension success. However, while parent-brand affect directly and indirectly influenced success for congruent brand extensions, these parent-brand associations played no significant role for moderately congruent and incongruent brand extensions. Implications for brand managers and directions for future research are also discussed.

[1]  B. Loken,et al.  The Generality of Typicality Effects on Preference and Comparison: an Exploratory Test , 1988 .

[2]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[3]  E. Tauber,et al.  BRAND LEVERAGE: STRATEGY FOR GROWTH IN A COST-CONTROL WORLD , 1988 .

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

[5]  Vanitha Swaminathan.  Sequential brand extensions and brand choice behavior , 2003 .

[6]  Edward M. Tauber,et al.  Brand franchise extension: New product benefits from existing Brand Names , 1981 .

[7]  L. Barsalou.  Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  P. Bottomley,et al.  Do We Really Know how Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions? Empirical Generalizations Based on Secondary Analysis of Eight Studies , 2001 .

[9]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Understanding how Product Attributes Influence Product Categorization: Development and Validation of Fuzzy Set-Based Measures of Gradedness in Product Categories , 1999 .

[10]  B. Byrne.  Book Review: Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming , 1994 .

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

[12]  R. C. Goodstein.  Category-based Applications and Extensions in Advertising: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing , 1993 .

[13]  Durairaj Maheswaran,et al.  The Effects of Extensions on Brand Name Dilution and Enhancement , 1998 .

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

[15]  S. Reddy,et al.  The Impact of Brand Extension Introduction on Choice , 2001 .

[16]  Kevin Lane Keller,et al.  Communication Strategies for Brand Extensions: Enhancing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links , 2000 .

[17]  B. Loken,et al.  Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality , 1990 .

[18]  George R. Franke,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows , 1995 .

[19]  J. Wesley Hutchinson,et al.  The Prototypicality of Brands: Relationships With Brand Awareness, Preference and Usage , 1985 .

[20]  J. Murphy,et al.  Brands: The New Wealth Creators , 1997 .

[21]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Brand Equity and Vertical Product Line Extent , 1998 .

[22]  Jonlee Andrews,et al.  New but not improved : factors that affect the development of meaningful line extensions , 1998 .

[23]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  The Ownership Effect in Consumer Responses to Brand Line Stretches , 1999 .

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

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

[26]  Peter A. Dacin,et al.  The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions , 1994 .

[27]  William O. Bearden,et al.  The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: The moderating role of extension similarity , 2002 .

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