Assignment I

Assignment I Part 1

Cobranding arrangements and partner selection:a conceptual framework and managerial guidelinesCasey E. Newmeyer & R. Venkatesh & Rabikar Chatterjee

When considering the rigidity of a conceptual paper there are four general criteria that we should consider as fundamental basements of a conceptual work[1]: 1. The first essential element is defining the variables, constructs, concepts and factors that are required for explanation of phenomena. These definitions should be both comprehensive and parsimonious, which means that the conceptual work must include all relevant factors and must exclude factors that do not add value to our understanding. For a theoretical construct to be meaningful it must rely on conceptual (pertains to thought) and linguistic (pertains to terminology) realms.2. The second fundamental element is identifying both relationships and causal inferences between the previously defined variables and constructs. This element is what brings value to a theoretical work. As stated by David A. Whetten, relationships, not lists, are the domain of theory[1]. 3. The third fundament is the most challenging step in theoretical work: justifying the purposed relationships by building on supporting theories and by constructing logically powerful propositions. The justifications that describe how constructs and variables interact with each other must be rationale, and must also be precise in making empirically testable predictions. It is important in this regard to consider the coherence of statements, assumptions or arguments of a theoretical paper, these elements must not contradict each other at any point or level, because any contradiction among arguments or assumptions affects the internal consistence and thus validity of the model. 4. The fourth and last element is defining the limitations or in other words defining the borders of the theoretical model. This part is of crucial importance because the authors who developed the model must define the temporal and contextual boundaries of generalizability of their model. When judging the value and contribution of a conceptual work we should first determine whether it is a new theory generated by authors or it is a development of a previous theory. A development of previous theory is an attempt in defining the boundaries of previous work, confirming or infirming the previous model and even refining the model and pushing the generalizability of the model by making it applicable to other contexts and times. Other than these four fundamental elements there are four other factors that although are not fundamental bricks of theory building, they for sure affect the contribution value of a theoretical paper. I. One of the most crucial ones is the innovativeness of a theory or model. A model which builds a fertile ground for future research receives high evaluations in academic environments. It is of essential need for every field to have such theoretical papers that encompass the direction of future empirical works[2].

II. The impact of a conceptual paper is another criterion for evaluating a paper. A paper with a wide scope of effect is of higher value than a paper that insignificantly affects a very narrow body of our knowledge, thus in evaluating a conceptual paper, considering its potential impact on our current body of knowledge is one of the criteria [2]. III. The third attribute of a paper that should be considered in evaluation is its counter-intuitiveness. A model or theory that questions the current held beliefs or theories has the potential of changing the direction of our thinking and thus becoming more effective and popular than a paper that confirms our intuition and common experience [1].IV. The last important attribute is implication part of the research. The final goal of academic world in the business area is to develop the actual performance of institutions and other business entities. It is a strength point for a paper in this field to have actual implications in the business world outside.

The paper Cobranding arrangements and partner selection: a conceptual framework and managerial guidelines is an attempt to address a recently raised issue of practical considerations about cobranding structures and selection of partner brands. In this regard the paper is the first attempt to bring a cobranding framework to the field of marketing. The authors consider three dimensions for cobranding: integration, exclusivity and duration. These three dimensions are proposed based on actual cases of cobranding at the business world and we can consider them as a development by the authors. These three variables are considered as the underlying or antecedent factors that predict or (at least) affect the results of a cobranding attempt. The authors also borrow two marketing constructs of brand consideration and brand value as the outcomes of a cobranding attempt. In my opinion the outcomes are what differentiate this paper as a marketing view on cobranding with works of strategic view on this phenomenon. I think this is one of the valuable contributions of this paper, because authors are trying to identify the marketing consequences or marketing benefits of cobranding, not the strategic or financial outcomes of such a decision. The authors add and define three moderating criteria (which are characteristics of the partner brand relative to the focal brand) to the three dimensions of cobranding (related to the structure of the cobranding relationship) and two outcomes of such a phenomenon to complete their framework. According to their model they have eight constructs, but to explain the relationships and interactions among these eight elements they, time to time, have to refer or use other constructs. For relating the three antecedents and 3 moderators to the brand evaluation outcome, they introduce three dimensions of attribution, which are locus, stability and control. To explain the relationship between antecedents, moderators and the second outcome which is brand consideration, the authors make use of three other constructs from works in categorization process which are strength, incidence and fit of association. As we can see, to map and construct their framework, the authors used at least fourteen constructs and thus in their paper they had to define at least fourteen constructs. What I can say about the definitions of these constructs is that although they are successful attempts in giving the reader an understanding of the variable, some of them draw a blurred outline of the purposed meaning. In some definitions the authors, although they devote two or three paragraphs to explain a construct (for example about cobranding integration) their attempt fails to give the reader a comprehensive definition. I will analyze the quality of these constructs below:Cobranding integration: the authors define this construct as the extent to which the partnering brands are intertwined in form and function, and although they use the terms form and function they dont give any explanation about the meaning of those terms. What is a brands form or function? This is a question that you cant find any answer for, at least in this paper! Cobranding exclusivity: this construct is defined as the number of partners with whom the focal brand pursues a cobranding arrangement. This definition is completely in line with the rules of comprehensiveness and parsimoniousness. Cobranding duration: this construct is defined as the length of time for which the cobranding arrangement lasts. The definition, as the previous one, is perfect for a theoretical model. These two last constructs were easy to define because they are not abstract or intangible variables. They are concrete tangible variables that can be defined and measured in numbers or in time amounts. Brand evaluation and brand consideration: the authors borrowed these two constructs from previous works of Gurhan-Caneli and Shocker et al. to define them as how favorably a brand is perceived by customers and the likelihood of a consumer to review the brand for possible choice. By using these two definitions the reader understands the intrinsic difference between these two related constructs.Locus and Control: which by this papers definition represents whether the cause of (bad or good) performance is viewed as internal or external to the focal brand, is well explained in the shortest possible sentence, but it is not well differentiated from the other construct which is called control and refers to whether a particular brand is (or was) in a position to drive or avoid a performance outcome. If these are two different constructs then why are they defined in the same way, and if they are the same why do the authors use separate names for them. If we look at the reference of these two constructs we can see Weiner defined them in this way:Causal locus, that is, whether the cause resides within or outside of the actor, and causal controllability, that is, the degree to which the cause is subject to volitional alteration and the outcome could have been otherwise.[3]And it is obvious that the original definition is much more understandable and to some extent different from the definitions used by the current paper. For example in the original definition causal controllability (unlike locus of control) is not a black and white variable, and Weiner considers a degree for having control over a cause or outcome, but in the current paper authors use the words whether a brand is in a position to change the outcome which describes an ON or OFF situation.Stability: which focuses on the constancy of the cause associated with the outcome is a fairly neat definition that authors borrowed from previous works. The meaning is explained to the readers by using examples and there is no ambiguity in this construct.Strength, incidence and fit: these three constructs are used in this paper but there are no direct definitions for them. Authors use these three constructs as terms to describe different dimensions of association between cobranding partners and this can be considered as a flaw in their work. Stability, locus and control are three dimensions of attribution and they have their own definitions, the same should be done for strength, incidence and fit which are dimensions of categorization process. Functional complementarity, Hedonic consistency, and Brand breadth: these three constructs that are aimed at describing the characteristics of the partner brand are well defined and explained in the paper. The definitions are borrowed from previous works and they completely fit with the standard of theoretical works.The next step is to analyze the accuracy of this conceptual work with regards to its structure and the relationships that it suggests to exist between the precedents and antecedents, and are moderated by moderating variables. As I previously explained this paper is bringing up propositions to explain the relationship between variables in the cobranding structures. It describes what is cobranding, why it should be studied, and how it works, and at the end it brings a roadmap for the future research in this area. According to MacInnis (2001) [4], we can consider this paper as an explicating and delineating work and we should evaluate its contribution on the quality of logical and deductive reasoning. The tool for this kind of reasoning, as the author used, is building on the previously existing theories.Main effect on focal brand evaluation: P1a, P1b, and P1c are dealing with the effect of the antecedents on one of the outcomes: brand evaluation. In justifying the propositions the authors mostly rely on logical reasoning, because there is not much work in the academic journals about these relationships. Authors make use of other constructs such as locus of control or stability of attribution to develop prepositions that explain these relationships. Their reasoning is logical and persuasive and they make strong justifications for propositions. Although the prepositions and justifications make sense and are totally acceptable, reader can understand that the proposed propositions are not counter-intuitive and they can even be considered as common knowledge. In this regard the results and impacts of this part of framework may not be interesting for both academic and business people. For example we can summarize these first three propositions as:Higher levels of integration, exclusivity and duration of a cobranding lead to greater impact (positive or negative) on the evaluation of the focal brand.The above sentence seems a state of obvious and can be seen as common knowledge for the reader. This is a side effect relying merely on logical reasoning and that is because the authors did not have access to sources of empirical or other kinds of previous research in the area (because of the lack of research about cobranding).Main effects on focal brand consideration: the structure of reasoning in this part is similar and to some extent parallel to the previous propositions, this time the authors make use of categorization terms to draw and support relationships between the antecedents and brand considerations. The first part of propositions that is devoted to describing the main relationships (i.e. between antecedents and outcomes) benefits from a smart idea:Using the attribution and categorization terms and theories, in addition to logical reasoning for describing the interactions among constructsAuthors made a very wise and creative decision to borrow from literature in categorizing and attribution to add theoretical and empirical references to their conclusions. Because the literature in the field of marketing did not cover the cobranding phenomena extensively, the authors made this wise choice and used logical reasoning in addition to attribution and categorization theories as a medium to relate cobranding structure to consideration evaluation outcomes. Without that choice, the authors had to draw only case samples and use mere logical reasoning to relate variables, but by this wise idea of using categorization and attribution as tools of justifying propositions, they made their framework much more credible.The authors, at the next step, bring propositions on explaining the effect of moderating factors on the previous six relationships. This part of the framework is where the reader can find counter-intuitive propositions and find a moderately detailed explanation about the relationship among the framework elements. For example in describing the effect of functional complementarity of the partner brand on the relationship between antecedents and outcomes, the authors conclude that complementarity level has an intensifying effect on correlation between brand evaluation and cobranding integration, exclusivity and duration when these three factors make a positive impact, but it has a weakening effect on this relationship when these three factors have a negative impact. The authors were aware of this counter-intuitiveness and thus correctly tried to explain the situation graphically (figure 2 of the paper).The same method that the authors used to justify the relationships continues to the end of the paper. In each part the authors bring three propositions to explain the relationship between the three antecedents on each of the two outcomes and the method stays the same; they make use of logical reasoning along with borrowing from findings about categorization to justify effects on brand consideration and findings from attribution to justify effects on brand evaluation.At the final part of the paper the authors bring some managerial implications of their proposed framework and relationships. They use actual business cases to explain how managers can use the framework to develop the quality and rationale of their decision about whether or not to cobrand, how to cobrand and at what level to cobrand. They explain how managers can use these elements to develop their brand or to develop their market. The implications part of this paper is one the advantage points of this work. Unlike what commonly happens in literature, that the implications part is considered as a formality and is a kind of listing some hypothetical applications of the academic findings in the real world, in this paper we see that the authors put forth tangible applications of their suggested framework and they also support these suggestions with real world cases. The future research suggestions at the end of this paper are again of high value. The authors not only give some broad suggestion such as using game theory approach to analyze the cobranding problems, they also give some direct questions than can be the main purpose of future works (questions such as While higher integration and duration are both posited to have a greater impact on focal evaluation, what if integration is low but the cobranding is of a very long duration? Or From the standpoint of brand evaluation, does an extra-long partnership mitigate the need for higher integration?). The authors made a very adequate and complete discussion about future researches and did not bounded the part to the clich of suggesting empirically testing the propositions as their suggestion for future research.At the end, by considering all the pros and cons of this work, in reviewers opinion the paper is both done well and well done and is highly suggested by the reviewer for publication.

References[1] Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?.Academy of Management Review,14(4), 490-495.[2] Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development.Journal of Marketing,74(1), 1-19.

[3] Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior.Journal of Consumer Research,27(3), 382-387. [4] MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing.Journal of Marketing,75(4), 136-154.