MKC2110 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Construals, Rolex
6 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
AUTHOR
LITERATURE REVIEW
VARIABLES
FINDINGS
FUTURE RESEARCH/COMMENT
Aaker, A., &
Keller, K.
(1990).
Consumer
Evaluations
Brand
Extensions.
Journal of
Marketing,
54(1), 27-41.
• Success depends on certain assumptions
about consumer behavior
- Consumer hold positive beliefs and
attitudes toward original brand
- Positive associations facilitate the
formation of positive beliefs toward
brand extension.
- Negative associations are neither
transferred nor created by brand
extension.
- Perceived Fit
- Transferablity – degree
to which manufacturing
skill that is required.
- Substitutability – extent
to which one product can
replace the other in
satisfying the same need.
- Complementarity –
extent to which
extensions and existing
products share same
usage context.
Fit = Categorization theory.
Boush, D. M., &
Loken, B.
99. A
Process-
Tracing Study
of Brand
Extension
Evaluation.
Journal of
Marketing
Research,
28(2), 16-28.
Link back to Aaker and Keller in categorization
theory.
Processes categorization – Piecemeal or
categorical.
• Evaluation of extension of narrow brand
is more rapid than broad.
• Evaluation of extension of narrow brand
has fewer cognitive responses than
broad.
Fit – Typicality = Similarity.
Atypicality = Totally different
*Brand Breadth – Broad brand v
Narrow
Brand breadth refers to the
variability among product types
represented by a brand name.
Result of typicality of brand
extensions.
Piecemeal process – Looking at
attributes one by one.
Park, C.,
Lawson, R., &
Milberg, S.
(1991).
Evaluation of
Brand
Extensions:
The Role of
Product
Feature
Looks at Aaker keller → Only suggested product
similarity. Park looks at concept consistency
brand similarity.
• Evaluations of brand extensions depend
on the degree of perceived fit between
the extension product and the brand
name.
• Product-feature-similarity perceptions
depend on identifying the relationships
between product extensions and the
brand’s existing products.
• Concept-consistency perceptions rely on
Fit – Similarity
Brand Concept
• Consumers take into
account both the
similarity for new
product to existing and
degree of brand
concept consistency.
• Product similarity.
Concept similarity. →
Aaker and Keller.
Adding to the concept.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Similarity and
Brand Concept
Consistency,
Journal of
Consumer
Research,
18(9), 185-193
the extension product’s ability to
accommodate the brand concept.
• Consumers react more favorably to the
extensions of a functional brand name
when the extension products reflect a
functional concept when they reflect a
prestige concept.
• Consumers react more favorably to
extensions of a prestige brand name
when they reflect a prestige concept
than when they reflect a functional
concept.
• Prestige concepts may have greater
ability to accommodate different
product classes. Prestige brand
extensions may have greater
extendibility across different product
classes than functional brand
extensions. (E.g ROLEX)
• Brand extension depend on the
perceived fit of the new product in
relation to the existing brand, fit
function of two factors: product
similarity and concept consistency.
Broniarczyk, S.
M., & Alba, J. W.
99, The
Importance of
the Brand in
Brand
Extension.
Journal of
Marketing
Research,
31(5), 214-
228.
Uses Park as starting point.
Explore relative diagnosticities of cues that can
be used by consumer to predict attractiveness.
Consumers influenced by perceived diagnosticity
of cues and brand specific associations are
perceived to be more diagnostic.
1. Relative diagnosticities of
brand specific
associations/brand affect.
2. Associations v Category
similarity
3. Relative disgnosticities vary
as function of consumer
expertise.
Diagnosticities: How consumer
evaluates attractiveness of
extension on basis of queues.
Brand-specific associations:
What differentiates a brand.
*Expertise = Diagnosticity
Brand specific association is
influential – dominated brand
affect.
Meyvis, T., &
Janiszewski, C.
Links to Boush and Loken.
Discuss brand breadth
If consumer has high expertise they should have
1. Accessibility – Info.
2. Diagnosticity. *
3. Similarity → FIT.
Diganostic benefit association
vary in accessibility. Consumer
prefer brand that has most
Prefer similar > Dissimilar
Prefer brand dissimilar etc >
Narrow similarity
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Success depends on certain assumptions about consumer behavior. Consumer hold positive beliefs and attitudes toward original brand. Positive associations facilitate the formation of positive beliefs toward brand extension. Negative associations are neither transferred nor created by brand extension. Link back to aaker and keller in categorization theory. Processes categorization piecemeal or categorical: evaluation of extension of narrow brand is more rapid than broad, evaluation of extension of narrow brand has fewer cognitive responses than broad. Looks at aaker keller only suggested product similarity. Perceived fit to which one product can replace the other in satisfying the same need. to which manufacturing skill that is required. *brand breadth broad brand v extent to which extensions and existing products share same usage context. Brand breadth refers to the variability among product types represented by a brand name. Future research/comment: consumers take into account both the similarity for new product to existing and degree of brand concept consistency, product similarity.
