The authors report two studies investigating the effectiveness of a composite brand in a brand extension context. In composite brand extension, a combination of two existing brand names in different positions as header and modifier is used as the brand name for a new product (e.g., Slim-Fast chocolate cakemix by Godiva). The results of both studies reveal that by combining two brands with complementary attribute levels, a composite brand extension appears to have a better attribute profile than a direct extension of the header brand (Study 1) and has a better attribute profile when it consists of two complementary brands than when it consists of two highly favorable but not complementary brands (Study 2). The improved attribute profile seems to enhance a composite's effectiveness in influencing consumer choice and preference (Study 2). In addition, the positions of the constituent brand names in the composite brand name are found to be important in the formation of the composite's attribute profile and its feedback effects on the constituent brands. A composite brand extension has different attribute profiles and feedback effects, depending on the positions of the constituent brand names.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid A., and KellerKevin Lane (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27–41.
2.
AlbaJoseph W., Wesley HutchinsonJ., and LynchJohn G.Jr. (1991), “Memory and Decision Making,” in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, RobertsonThomas S., and KassarjianHarold H., eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,1–49.
3.
BillingsRobert S., and SchererLisa L. (1988), “The Effects of Response Mode and Importance on Decision-Making Strategies: Judgment Versus Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 1–19.
4.
BouschDavid M., and LokenBarbara (1991), “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,”Journal of Marketing Research, 28(February), 16–28.
5.
BroniarczykSusan M., and AlbaJoseph W. (1994a), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 214–28.
6.
BroniarczykSusan M., and AlbaJoseph W. (1994b), “The Role of Consumers’ Intuitions in Inference Making,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21(December), 393–407.
7.
ChakravartiDipankar, MacInnisDeborah, and NakamotoKent (1990), “Product Category Perceptions, Elaborative Processing, and Brand Name Extension Strategies,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, PollayRichard, GoldbergMarvin, and GornGerald, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,275–79.
8.
CohenB., and MurphyG. L. (1984), “Models of Concepts,”Cognitive Science, 8(1), 27–58.
9.
CohenJoel B., and AreniCharles S. (1991), “Affect and Consumer Behavior,” in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, RobertsonThomas S., and KassarjianHarold H., eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,188–240.
10.
CohenJoel B., and BasuKunal (1987), “Alternative Models of Categorization: Toward a Contingent Processing Framework,”Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 455–72.
11.
CrockerJennifer, FiskeSusan T., and TaylorShelly E. (1984), “Schematic Bases of Belief Change,” in Attitudinal Judgment, Richard EiserJ., ed. New York: Springer-Verlag,197–226.
12.
DacinPeter A., and SmithDaniel C. (1994), “The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(May), 229–42.
13.
DarbyMichael R., and KarniEdi (1974), “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud,”Journal of Law and Economics, 16(April), 67–88.
14.
ErdemTulin (1993), “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon,” working paper, Haas Graduate School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.
15.
EysenckMichael W., and KeanneMark T. (1990), Cognitive Psychology.London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
FarquharPeter H. (1989), “Managing Brand Equity,”Marketing Research, 1(1), 24–33.
17.
FininT. (1980), “The Semantic Interpretation of Nominal Compounds,” in Proceedings of the First Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1, BalzerRobert, eds. Stanford University, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence,310–12.
18.
HamptonJames A. (1987), “Inheritance of Attributes in Natural Concept Conjunctions,”Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 55–71.
19.
HamptonJames A. (1988), “Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14(1), 12–32.
20.
HeathTimothy B., McCarthyMichael S., and MothersbaughDavid L. (1994), “Spokesperson Fame and Vividness Effects in the Context of Issue-Relevant Thinking: The Moderating Role of Competitive Setting,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March), 520–34.
21.
KellerKevin Lane, and AakerDavid A. (1992), “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29(February), 35–50.
22.
LakoffGeorge (1985), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
LokenBarbara, and JohnDeborah Roedder (1993), “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?”Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 71–84.
24.
MillerG. A., and Johnson-LairdP. N. (1976), Language and Perception.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MurphyGregory L. (1988), “Comprehending Complex Concepts,”Cognitive Science, 12(4), 529–62.
26.
MurphyGregory L., and MedinDouglas L. (1985), “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence,”Psychological Review, 92(3), 289–316.
27.
NelsonPhillip (1970), “Information and Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Political Economy, 78(March/April), 311–29.
28.
ParkC. Whan, JaworskiBernard J., and MacInnisDeborah J. (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,”Journal of Marketing, 50(October), 135–45.
29.
ParkC. Whan, and Parker LessigV. (1981), “Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Biases and Heuristics,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8(September), 223–30.
30.
ParkC. Whan, McCarthyMichael S., and MilbergSandra J. (1993), “The Effects of Direct and Associative Brand Extension Strategies on Consumer Response to Brand Extensions,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20, McAlisterLeigh, and RothschildMichael L., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,28–33.
31.
ParkC. Whan, MilbergSandra, and LawsonRobert (1991), “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency,”Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 185–93.
32.
PayneJ. W. (1982), “Contingent Decision Behavior,”Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 382–402.
33.
RatneshwarS., ShockerAllan D., and SrivastavaRajendra (1995), “The Managerial Relevance of an Adaptive View of Market Behavior,” working paper, College of Business Administration, University of Connecticut.
34.
RomeoJean B. (1991), “The Effect of Negative Information on the Evaluation of Brand Extensions and the Family Brand,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, HolmanRebecca H., and SolomonMichael R., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,399–406.
35.
RosenL. D., and RosenkoetterP. (1976), “An Eye Fixation Analysis of Choice of Judgment With Multiattribute Stimuli,”Memory & Cognition, 4(6), 747–52.
36.
SchmittBernd H., and DubeLaurette (1992), “Contextualized Representations of Brand Extensions: Are Feature Lists or Frames the Basic Components of Consumer Cognition?”Marketing Letters, 3(2), 115–26.
37.
SmithEdward E., OshersonDaniel N., RipsLance J., and KeaneMargaret (1988), “Combining Prototypes: A Selective Modification Model,”Cognitive Science, 12(4), 485–527.
38.
StormsGert, BoeckPaul De, Van MechelenIven, and GeeraertsDirk (1993), “Dominance and Noncommutativity Effects in Concept Conjunctions: Extensional or Intensional Basis?”Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 752–62.
39.
ThagardP. (1984), “Conceptual Combination and Scientific Discovery,” in PSA, Vol. 1, AsquithP., and KitcherP., eds. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association,3–12.
40.
TverskyAmos, SlovicPaul, and SattathShmuel (1988), “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–84.
41.
WernerfeltBirger (1988), “Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signaling by Posting a Bond,”Rand Journal of Economics, 19(Autumn), 458–66.
