Exposé - Universität Kassel · PDF fileExposé Brand extension evaluation: ... Questionnaire will include 4 parts in terms of parent brand knowledge and evaluation, extension knowledge

Brand extension evaluation

Exposé

Brand extension evaluation:

The importance of direct experience in sample design

Submitted by Luan ZHOU

European Master of Business Studies


Table of content

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4

2 Review of literatures ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Overview of literatures ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Brand extension evaluation .............................................................................................................. 8

3 Problem statement .................................................................................................................................. 14

4 Purpose and research questions .......................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Research purpose ........................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Research question and hypotheses ............................................................................................. 16

5 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 21

6 Overview of chapters .............................................................................................................................. 24

7 Plan of work ............................................................................................................................................. 26

Reference ......................................................................................................................................................... 27


List of tables

Table 1: Overview of literatures

Table 2: Similarity effect: fit between parent brand and extension product

Table 3: Consumer direct experience

Table 4: Brand affection

List of figures

Figure 1: Brand attitude transfer model (Gierl & Huettl, 2011)

Figure 2: Overview of research dimensions

Figure 3: Research design

Figure 4: Questionnaire design

Figure 5: Sample design


Abstract

Keywords: brand extension; brand extension evaluation, sample design, consumer direct experience,

marketing strategy, perceived fit

Background:

Previous studies on brand extension evaluation mostly used university students as research sample

which led to some arguments on the accuracy of research result. Although some researches proved

that the used of students as sample will not lead to research bias, they could not explain why still 1/3

of tested variables showed significant differences in their experiments.

Purpose:

Considering that consumers’ experience would influence their perception of similarity between

parent brand and extended brands in the attitude transfer model, in which consumers evaluate brand

extension, the study aims at examining whether the direct experience of research samples in parent

brand will affect brand extension evaluation or not.

Methodology:

The study will use questionnaire as main research method. Four pretests will take place in order to

determine researched parent brands, extension categories and perceived fit respectively.

Questionnaire will include 4 parts in terms of parent brand knowledge and evaluation, extension

knowledge and evaluation, fit perception and demography session.


1 Introduction

Brand extension is not a new topic, but it is highly discussed since 80’s (Tauber, 1988) in virtue of its

contribution to the success of new produce introduction, such as reducing risk of entrance and

saving marketing cost, as a marketing strategy (Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Völckner & Sattler, 2006).

Previous studies on brand extension evaluation in the consumer side (thereafter call brand extension

evaluation) mostly used students in university as researched sample (e.g., Aaker & Keller, 1990;

Boush & Loken, 1991; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991; Völckner & Sattler,

2007). Some researchers pointed out that there is a result gap between using students and

non-students as sample in social science research. For example, Peterson (2001) found that student

subjects and non-student subjects tend to have different effect sizes in experiments. The former is

more homogeneous comparing to the latter (Völckner & Sattler, 2007).

However, in Völckner and Sattler’s (2007) experiment of brand extension evaluation, they used

controlled groups of students and non-student with big sample size, proving that there are only small

differences with respect to significance and relative important figures of success factors between

university students and non-student samples. This is contrary to Peterson's (2001) claim that the use

of student will lead to research bias (Völckner & Sattler, 2007).

According to Peterson (2001), the theoretical reason for different researched results in student and

non-student groups are that students have less life experience in terms of psychological and

behavioral aspects, as they are in their early adulthood phrase, which may give rise to less critical


attitudes, stronger cognitive skills and stronger peer pressure comparing to non-student group

(Völckner & Sattler, 2007). Although Völckner and Sattler (2007) overthrew Peterson’s (2001)

statement, they did not clearly explain what the main reason of different results in these two

experiments was. Besides, there were 5 out of 15 variables having significant differences in Völckner

and Sattler’s (2007) experiment, to which they cannot render a decent explanation.

Therefore, the study is dedicated to give a better understand of the contradiction between

above-mentioned experiments by developing restrictions on sample design in the survey of brand

extension evaluation. It begins with a review of theoretical literature on brand extension evaluations

and consumer behavior decision, following with the discussion of the problem, research purpose and

hypothesis. Methodology is introduced in chapter five, and will be embody after the submission of

exposé.

2 Review of literatures

This chapter provides an overview of literatures that support the current study. A table with the most

important research articles and books is presented at the first section, following by detailed

discussions in different topics respectively.


2.1 Overview of literatures

Table 1: Overview of literatures

Authors Publisher Title: Contents

Brand extension

Tauber, Edward M.

(1988)

Journal of Advertising

Research, 28

(August–September), 26–30

Brand leverage: strategy for growth in a cost-control world

Defines brand extension and introduces brand extension

history

Summarizes typology of brand extension

Successful factors of brand extension are “logical fit” and

“leverage”(perceived superiority from the brand)

Smith, D. C., & Park,

C.W. (1992)

Journal of Marketing

Research, 29, 296−313

The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising

efficiency

Effect of brand extension are moderated by three basic

elements: 1)core brand; 2) extended products; 3) market –

consumer knowledge and competitors

Broniarczyk, Susan M.

and Joseph W. Alba

(1994)


Research, 31 (May),

214–28

The importance of the brand in brand extension

Brand-specific associations may dominate the effects of brand

affect and category similarity, particularly when consumer

knowledge of the brands is high.

Völckner, F., & Sattler, H.

(2006)

Journal of Marketing,

70(April), 18–34.

Drivers of brand extension success

Fit between the parent brand and an extension product is the

most important driver of brand extension success, followed by

marketing support, parent-brand conviction, retailer acceptance,

and parent-brand experience.


Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K.

L. (1990)


Association, 54(1), 27–41

Consumer evaluations of brand

Attitude toward the extension is higher when (1) there was both

a perception of "fit" between parent brand and extended categories

or (2) the extension is considered as difficult to make.

Broniarczyk, S. M., &

Alba, J.W. (1994, May)


Research, 31, 214−228

The importance of the brand in brand extension

Brand-specific associations may dominate the effects of brand

affect and category similarity, particularly when consumer

knowledge of the brands is high.


Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K.

(2001)

Journal of Business

Research, 53, 111–122.

The impact of parent brand attributes associations and affection on

brand extension evaluation

Parent brand attribute associations have more significant

influence in brand extension attitude than parent brand affection.

Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer,

R. S. (2005)


Research, 42(4), 495–506.

Does Loving a Brand Mean Loving Its Products? The Role of

Brand-Elicited Affect in Brand Extension Evaluations

Consumers form initial impression on the brand extension

based on their affection elicited spontaneously by a brand or

consumer’s experience. This impression affects consumer’s

evaluation in brand extension regardless of the similarity between

the extension and the core brand.

The mediating impact of affection on perceptions of

core-extension similarity occurs only when consumers are explicitly

asked to estimate the extension's similarity to the core before they

evaluate it.

Kapoor, H., & Heslop, L.

a. (2009)

Journal of Research in

Marketing, 26(3), 228–237.

Brand positivity and competitive effects on the evaluation of brand

extensions. International

Singular evaluations leads to brand positivity effects; brand

positivity effects are mitigated when respondents were provided with

competitive information

Parent brand-extension fit plays a less critical role in a

comparative evaluation context when an extension's brand strength

is accounted for in relation to its competition.

Kim, K., Park, J., & Kim,

J. (2014)

Journal of Business

Research, 67(4), 591–597.

Consumer–brand relationship quality: when and how it helps brand

extensions

Strong brand relationship quality (BRQ) facilitates consumers’

evaluation on brand extensions.

Consumer knowledge and experience

Kim, B.

-D.,&Sullivan,M.W.

(1998,April)

Marketing Letters,

9,181−193

The effect of parent brand experience on line extension trial and

repeat purchase

Consumers’ expectation on extension quality is higher if they

have more experience with the parent brand.

Czellar, S. (2003) International Journal of

Research in Marketing,

Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model

and research propositions


20(1), 97–115. Experienced consumers evaluate new extension only base on

their attitude to the brand brands and the new extension products.

Fabrigar, L. R., Petty, R.

E., Smith, S. M., & Crites,

S. L. (2006)

Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 90(4),

556–77.

Understanding knowledge effects on attitude-behavior consistency:

the role of relevance, complexity, and amount of knowledge

Complexity of knowledge increase attitude-behavior

consistency when knowledge is low relevant.

Amount of knowledge had no effect on attitude–behavior

consistency.

Methodology

Völckner, F., & Sattler, H.

(2007)

International Journal of


24(2), 149−162

Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand

extensions

Generalising across students group and non-student group

Results derived from students are largely similar to

non-student samples.

Heribert Gierl & Verena

Huettl

International Journal of


28(2), 120–133.

A closer look at similarity: The effects of perceived similarity and

conjunctive cues on brand extension evaluation

Brand-attitude-transfer model best predict similarity

between parent brand and extended categories.

Peterson, R. A. (2001,

December)

Journal of Consumer

Research, 28, 450−461

On the use of college students in social science research: Insights

from a second-order meta-analysis

Samples formed by students are slightly more homogeneous

than non-student samples.

Effect sizes derived from student sample is differed from those

derived from non-student samples.

2.2 Brand extension evaluation

According to Smith and Park (1992), there are three basic elements of brand extension: 1) brand

being extended (so-called parent brand); 2) extended categories; 3) market which included

consumers and competitors. Each element contains respective characteristics which would affect


consumers’ evaluation process in brand extension (Smith & Park, 1992). Parent brands extend new

categories through market mechanism, thus built the basic relationship among these three elements.

All the characteristics of these elements will influence the outcome of brand extension by different

evaluation models. Among these models, the brand-attitude-transfer model was proved by Gierl and

Huettl (2011) as best predict the role of similarity between parent brands and extended categories.

2.2.1 Characteristics of market

There are two basic entities, consumers and brand competitors, in the market (Smith & Park, 1992).

In order to keep it simple, this study will only focus on consumer side, ignoring the effect derived from

the parent brand competitors. Three aspects of consumer entity is examined as important in the

evaluation of brand extension, which are consumer’ knowledge, experience and brand affection

(Kapoor & Heslop, 2009; Smith & Park, 1992; Völckner & Sattler, 2007).

2.2.1.1 Consumer knowledge

Previous studies show the effects of different areas of consumers’ knowledge in consumer buying

decision (Brucks, 1985; Hem & Iversen, 2009). The content, amount and complexity of knowledge

often play an important role in the impact of consumers’ attitudes (Fabrigar, Petty, Smith, & Stephen

L. Crites, 2006). The increase of knowledge will influence consumer’s attitude on behavior. Several

studies have proved this statement. For example, Davidson and Yantis (1985) found that high

amount of knowledge can better predict behavior comparing to lower amount of knowledge (Fabrigar

et al., 2006).


Consumers tend to evaluate products, either simple or complex ones, by using information stored in

memory in terms of products functions, benefits, and place where they can reach and time when they

can use it. In other words, consumer can easily evaluate similarity between core brand and extension

categories in terms of usage attributes. However, for other type of perceived similarity such as

associations, competence, some consumers will suffer difficulty since these evaluations require

more consumer knowledge and experience (Hem & Iversen, 2009). Thus, until they become more

familiar with the core brand, consumers tend to evaluate the “perceived fit” based on their previous

knowledge in the same categories instead of the parent brand (Bhat & Reddy, 2001). Therefore, the

knowledge of samples is significantly important to consumer decision process on extension

categories (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Keller, 2003).

2.2.1.2 Consumer experience

Consumers’ past experience in the parent brand will influence their decision on their choice of brand.

For examples, consumer may have different experiences with a brand, either positive or negative,

which will elicit positive or negative affection towards the brand, resulting in biased attitude and

decision making (Yeung & Wyer, 2005). What is more, experienced consumers are likely to try new

categories and have lower likelihood to repurchase the old categories. On the other hand,

inexperienced consumers may hold lower expectation on quality of extension categories before they

try them. Their knowledge of extension categories is learnt during the trial experience (Kim & Sullivan,

1998).


2.2.1.3 Consumer brand affection

Consumers’ brand affect is other proved important factor which will affect brand extension evaluation

(Aaker & Keller, 1990; Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Yeung & Wyer, 2005). Parent brand affect, as one type

of brand associations, is significant for consumers to form an initial impression on new extension

category (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Boush & Loken, 1991). Researchers have

proved that consumers’ affection on parent brand will transfer to new extension, that is, consumer

will evaluate new extension favorably if they have a positive affection on parent brands (Bhat &

Reddy, 2001).

Nevertheless, no all the brands can elicit consumers’ affect. For those brands which do not elicit

consumers’ affect, its new extension will be judged without any influence of brand effect.

Alternatively, consumers who have experiences with parent brand may generate positive or negative

affection degree, and such affect will influence their judgment on new extension. Besides, people’s

affect towards a brand may be elicited by other reasons instead of the brand itself. Such affect will

also influence consumers’ evaluation on new extension (Yeung & Wyer, 2005).

2.2.2 Characteristics of parent brand

Nature of parent brand is taken into considering when design an extension research, as Park (1991)

found out that brands included different concept or image (symbolic or functional) will influence

extension evaluation differently (Bhat & Reddy, 2001). Besides, whether the parent brands have

previous extension experience is also important factor for new extension success.


2.2.3 Characteristics of extended brand & perceived fit

The similarity between parent brand and extension category (perceived fit) is highly recommended to

evaluate brand extension. Tauber (1988) claimed that perceived fit is one of the essential factors for

extension success after studying 276 actual extensions. Specially, it is cited by numerous scholars

after Aaker and Keller (1990)‘s study based on 3 models which explains the role of similarity in

extension evaluation (Kaur & Pandit, 2014).

According to categorization theories, consumer evaluation on brand extension is determined by their

judgment on the perceived fit. The more similar the perceived fit they predict, the higher evaluation

they may give (Bhat & Reddy, 2001). Numerous empirical studies prove it (Aaker & Keller, 1990;

Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Hem & Iversen, 2009; Völckner & Sattler, 2006).

Völckner and Sattler (2007) summarized five factors which will generate similarity effect on brand

extension evaluation.

Table 2: Similarity effect: fit between parent brand and extension product

Global similarity (Aaker & Keller, 1990)

Brand concept consistency (Aaker & Keller, 1990)

Relevance of the extended association for the extension product (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994)

Symbolic value of the parent brand (Reddy, Holank, & Bhat, 1994)

Linkage of the utility of the parent brand to product attributes of the

original product category

(Rangaswamy, Burke, & Oliva, 1993)

Source: (Völckner & Sattler, 2007)


2.2.4 Model of brand extension evaluation: Brand-attitude-transfer model

Brand-attitude-transfer model refers to a process in which consumers can transfer attitude

associated with core brand to its new extensions (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). This kind of transfer is

not spontaneous. It mainly depends on the perceived fit between the parent brand and extension

category (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Boush & Loken, 1991; Peterson, 2001). Many scholars advocated

that the transfer of positive brand attitude to extension is the most significant successful factors on

extension evaluation (e.g., Czellar, 2003; Gierl & Huettl, 2011; Völckner & Sattler, 2006, 2007).

Although brand extension can be tested by using different models (e.g., Incongruity-induced-affect

model), Gierl and Huettl (2011) pointed out that brand-attitude-transfer model can best describe the

process of brand extension evaluation by consumers by testing three most popular models and

including three types of attitude during experiments (Gierl & Huettl, 2011).

Figure 1: Brand attitude transfer model (Gierl & Huettl, 2011)


3 Problem statement

The background introduction brings debate on the appropriateness of employing student group in the

research of brand extension evolution among scholars. It seems that Völckner and Sattler’s (2007)

experiment is more persuasive as they used large samples (e.g. 810 in student group and 2426 in

general group) and designed the consumer sample according to the characteristics of real “German

consumers in terms of age, gender, and number of household members” (Völckner & Sattler, 2007).

However, it should be noticed that Völckner and Sattler (2007) chose 48 FMCG (fast-moving

consumer goods) brands which have “highest awareness (N91%) and highest likelihood of having

been tried (N65%)” as research parent brands in study 1(student group). That is, a large proportion

of student group might be the users of these fast-moving consumer goods, and such proportion

might be close to those in the general group. In this case, the differences between student group and

consumer group were small in terms of user experience in parent brands. This can be the reason to

explain why in Völckner and Sattler’s (2007) experiment, the major indexes between student group

and consumer group were insignificantly different (users proportion were similar) but still 1/3 of tested

indexes showed significant differences (users proportion were not the same).

If the above reasoning was correct, the main argument of the discussion is no more same). whether

using students will lead to research bias or not, instead, it should be whether using non-user of

parent brand as samples in brand extension evaluation will result in research bias or not. This new

argument put emphasis on samples’ direct experience in parent brands while designing brand

extension evaluation research.


4 Purpose and research questions

4.1 Research purpose

The overall purpose of this study is to find out the fundamental restriction to sample design in the

research of brand extension evaluation which can reflect the real market situation as close as

possible and minimize the bias occurred in researches. To realize this goal, particularly, we aim to

examine whether the direct experience of research samples in parent brand will affect brand

extension evaluation or not. Additionally, we will compare the influence of brand affection on

extension evaluation in the experienced group and general group to prove the importance of

involving direct-experienced sample in brand extension evaluation research design.

The study responds to the call of Bhat and Reddy (2001) about examining extension evaluation in

the situations where samples have direct experience with the parent brands (Bhat & Reddy, 2001).

Additionally, it may help to explain why there was a controversy between Völckner and Sattler (2007)

and Peterson’s (2001) researches, if consumers’ experience was proved to have an impact on brand

extension evaluation research design. Furthermore, the study may overthrow previous researches

on brand extension evaluation which only used general samples without any restriction. It would thus

provide a sample design foundation for further research design in brand extension evaluation. In the

practical part, the findings of this study would help managers to understand the emphasis of

marketing targets while launching an extension category.


4.2 Research question and hypotheses

4.2.1 Consumer direct experience in parent brand

As consumer knowledge on a certain brand develops from several direct experiences (Sheinin,

2000), we assume for experienced consumers, the more direct experiences they have in parent

brand, the better knowledge they will embrace.

Based on the previous analysis, it is probably that the most important factor in successful research

model of “consumer evaluation on brand extension” is selecting direct-experienced samples that

have certain knowledge towards parent brand. According to Czellar (2003), consumers will evaluate

new extension categories only based on their experience with the extension category if they don’t

know the parent brand and its products at all (Czellar, 2003; Kim & Sullivan, 1998). In other words,

for non-experienced consumers, new extended category is just a pure new product, meaning that

they may judge this extension by the criteria they use in judging a new brand product. In this case,

research sample in brand extension evaluation should be a group of having direct brand experience,

instead of generally selected samples (e.g., students). Using direct-experienced sample in testing

brand extension evaluation is more realistic and closer to the real market situation where consumers

evaluate the brands’ new extensions, and may have different results comparing to which in general

samples group.

Therefore, we put forward our first hypothesis:

H1: Consumers’ direct experience has a significant positive influence on fit perception between

parent brands and extension. In other words, the perceived fit will vary between user group and


general student group.

To embody hypothesis one about research of brand extension evaluation, we refer several

dimensions in similarity effect on determining successful brand extension evaluation by Völckner and

Sattler’s (2007) with an aim to better compare our results whit those in their research. We exclude

the linkage of the utility of the parent brand to product attributes of the original product category

because researched showed this perceived fit was not important (Völckner & Sattler, 2007). We

combine symbolic value of parent brand and brand concept consistency into one category, namely

brand image fit to better measure and to remain the simplification of the research.

Table 3: Consumer direct experience

Dimensions Samples General group User Non-user

Global similarity

Brand image fit

Relevance of the extended association for the extension product


4.2.2 Consumer’ affection on parent brand

Previous researches show that consumer’s affection on parent brand will influence their reaction on

new extension (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Yeung & Robert S.Wyer, 2005). However, they did not restrict

consumer affect based on their direct experience in parent brand. For example, in Yeung and Wyer’s

(2005) first experiment, they asked students from one Asian university to pick up 4 brands among 20


different airline brands according to the scale of favorableness (e.g., highly favorite, highly

unfavorite), without considering about the experience of researched samples. One question arising

here is that how many students do have experience of these airline brands, especially those foreign

airlines? If they don't have such experience of these brands, the rating of affective brands and

non-affective brands may be just based on the flight names which are composed mainly by countries

names. In this case, the affection generated during this experiment may be not the affection level

they have toward a certain airline brand. Accordingly, to test the relationship between brand affection

and consumer brand extension evaluation based on the above-mentioned experiments is not

representative.

One point should be highlighted here that it is not a problem of using students from Asian university

as samples. It is the using of sample, from which the majority had no experience in the core brand

that led to the bias. In other words, same bias may occur if using a group of non-student, such as

people from remote village who have no real experience in airline brand, as research sample in this

case.

In fact, Yeung and Wyer (2005) admitted in their report that consumers may transfer the affect

elicited in other experience to their current feelings on a evaluated brand. In other words, for

non-experienced samples, once they do not have direct experience in parent brand, they may

evaluate brand extension categories based on affection elicited in other experience, which will result

in research bias.


We thus raise our second hypothesis:

H2: The relationship between perceived fit and consumer attitude transfer from parent brand to

extension is mediated by consumer direct experience in parent brand. In other word, the affection

transfer will vary between user group and general group.

Similarly, we refer different dimension of perceived fit employed in Hypothesis One to enrich the

perceived fit.

Table 4: Brand affection

Dimensions Samples General group User Non-user

Brand affect Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative

Global similarity

Brand image fit

Relevance of the extended

association for the extension

product


4.2.3 Perceived fit

Previous research on brand extension evaluation emphasized the positive effect of perceived fit on

attitude transfer from parent brand to new extension (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Bhat & Reddy, 2001;

Hem & Iversen, 2009; Völckner & Sattler, 2006). However, Yeung and Wyer (2005) discovered that

the influence of perceived fit only occurred when samples are specifically asked to assess the fit

before their evaluation of extension. Thus, in order t examine the relationship between perceived fit

and consumer attitude transfer, we put forth our third hypothesis in line with the majority:


H3: Perceived fit have a positive effect on attitude transfer from parent brand to extension.

Figure 2: Overview of research dimensions

Market -consumer

•Experience/knowledge

• Brand affection

Core Brand

•Symbolic brand

Similarity Effect

•Global similarity

•Brand imagefit

•Relevance of the extended association for the extension product

Extended Categories

•High Similarity

•Low Similarity


5 Methodology

The research design is compounded by 4 phrases.

Figure 3: Research design

5.1 Desk research

In the first phrase, a desk research in terms of researched parent brands will be done in order to

select a qualified parent brand for further study. We aim to classify a parent brand which exists in the

real market place and can be strongly link to a single category. It should also be well known by

students.

5.2 Researched subjects & pretests

Four pretests will take place to determine the researched parent brands and extended categories.

5.2.1 Selecting parent brand

Researched parent brand will be real brands in the market, given that the use of real parent brands

will enhance the accuracy in evaluation study (Bhat & Reddy, 2001). Product categories were

selected based on consumers’ prior brand familiarity and usage. A list of parents brand is collected

from the previous brand extension research as well as market observation and qualitative research

(informal interview).

Desk Research Researched subjects

& Pretest Questionnaire

Design Questionnarie

delivery


5.2.2 Selecting brand extension

A pool of extension possibilities will be developed after the decision of parent brands. We aim to

develop two extension categories for one parent brands, including two groups: high category fit and

low association fit, low categories fit and high association fit. Based on common sense and previous

pretests, we will set up 4 potential extensions for each group. Over 30 students will assess the

degree of similarity between parent brand and extension categories. Extended categories with

Highest and lowest scores will be chose as final researched categories. Besides, basic knowledge

and affection of extended categories will be controlled in the questionnaire section (Czellar, 2003;

Gierl & Huettl, 2011).

5.3 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire will contain 4 sessions. The first session is about the parent brand knowledge and

evaluation. In this session, subjects will be given a certain brand name and answer their experience

and attitude towards this brand. In the second session, subjected will receive information on 2

extended categories and assess 3 dimensions on extension similarity introduced by Völckner and

Sattler (2007). The third session aimed to collect subjects’ evaluation on the new extensions.

Subjects’ personal information will be collect in the last session. In order to test hypothesis three, the

order of section two and section three will change to form 2 different versions of questionnaire and

deliver them randomly.

Figure 4: Questionnaire design

PB experience & affection Extension evaluation Fit perception General Info


5.4 Questionnaire delivery - Samples

Samples are compounded by students. However, a classification of the total sample will be done

after collection of questionnaires based on samples’ brand experience and affection. The aim of this

method is to prove that using student as a study sample is acceptable if a division across experience

and affection is done in the case of brand extension evaluation. Ideally, sample size of different study

group will be controlled proportionally.

Figure 5: Sample Design

PB experience & affection Fit perception Extension evaluation General Info

Affection Experienc

e &

Knowledge

Whole Sample

Students

User

Positive Lover

Neutral Passenge

r

Negative Hater

Non-user

Positive Potensial

user

Neutral Stranger

Negative Fool

1/2

1/2

1/6

1/6

1/6

1/6

1/6

1/6


6 Overview of chapters

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Research gap

1.3 Research questions and methodology

1.3.1 Research questions

1.3.2 Methodology

1.3.3 Overview (draft of the whole dissertation)

2. Theoretical background

2.1 A general view of brand extension

2.2 Brand extension evaluation

2.2.1 Characteristics of market

2.2.2 Characteristics of parent brands

2.2.3 Characteristics of extended categories

2.2.4 Brand attitude transfer theory

3. Research questions and hypothesis

3.1 Problem statement

3.2 Research purpose and hypothesis

4. Methodology

4.1 Research design

4.2 Choose of research subjects & pretests

4.2.1 Samples


4.2.2 Core Brand

4.2.3 Extension Categories

4.3 Procedure

4.4 Measurement

5. Result and analysis

6. Conclusion

6.1 Summary

6.2 Implication for theories

6.3 Implication for management

6.4 Limitation and future development

References


7 Plan of work


Reference

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing,

54(1), 27–41.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, W. J. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer

Research, 13(411-454).

Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on

brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 53, 111–122.

Boush, D. M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal of

Marketing Research, XXVIII, 16–28.

Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of

Marketing Research, XXXI, 214–228. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3152195

Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of

Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–16. doi:10.1086/209031

Czellar, S. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: An integrative model and research

propositions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(1), 97–115.

doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00124-6

Davidson, A. R., & Yantis, S. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and

attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1184–1198.


Fabrigar, L. R., Petty, R. E., Smith, S. M., & Stephen L. Crites, J. (2006). Understanding knowledge

effects on attitude-behavior consistency: The role of relevance, complexity,and amount of

knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 556–577.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.556

Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2011). A closer look at similarity: The effects of perceived similarity and

conjunctive cues on brand extension evaluation. International Journal of Research in Marketing,

28(2), 120–133. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.01.004

Hem, L. E., & Iversen, N. M. (2009). Effects of different types of perceived similarity and subjective

knowledge in evaluations of brand extensions. International Journal of Market Research, 51(6),

797–818. doi:10.2501/S1470785309200979

Kapoor, H., & Heslop, L. A. (2009). Brand positivity and competitive effects on the evaluation of

brand extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 228–237.

doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.05.001

Kaur, H., & Pandit, A. (2014). Consumer evaluation of brand extension: Empirical generalization and

comparative analysis. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 15(1).

Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of

Consumer Research, 29, 595–600.

Kim, B., & W.Sullivan, M. (1998). The effect of parent brand experience on line extension trial and

repeat purchase. Marketing Letters, 2(9), 181–193.


Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product

feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2),

185–193. doi:10.1086/209251

Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a

second-order Meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461.

Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. R., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Brand equity and the extendibility of brand

names. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 61–75.

Reddy, S. K., Holank, S. L., & Bhat, S. (1994). To extend or not to extend: Success determinants of

line extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXI, 243–262.

Sheinin, D. A. (2000). The effects of experience with brand extensions on parent brand knowledge.

Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 47–55. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00116-7

Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising

efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, XXIX, 296–313. Retrieved from

https://archive.ama.org/archive/ResourceLibrary/JournalofMarketingResearch(JMR)/document

s/9602160654.pdf

Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost-control world. Journal of

Advertising Research, 26–30.

Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70,

18–34.


Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2007). Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand

extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(2), 149–162.

doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.11.003

Yeung, C., & Robert S.Wyer, J. (2005). The Role of brand-elicited affect in brand extension

evaluations. Advance in Consumer Research, 32, 134.

Yeung, C., & Wyer, R. S. (2005). Does loving a brand mean loving its products? The role of

brand-elicited affect in brand extension evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, XLII,

495–506. doi:10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.4.495

Documents

Exposé - Universität Kassel · PDF fileExposé Brand extension evaluation: ... Questionnaire will include 4 parts in terms of parent brand knowledge and evaluation, extension knowledge