When fashion brands hold hands : the effect of perceived fit on the evaluation of co-brands

(1)

WHEN FASHION BRANDS HOLD HANDS

THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED FIT ON THE EVALUATION OF CO-BRANDS

WEEZENBEEK, FREDERIQUE VAN STUDENT NUMBER - 11403217 SUPERVISOR - MARCO MOSSINKOFF

DUE DATE – 26-01-2018 VERSION: FINAL

MSC. IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – MARKETING TRACK UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Frederique van Weezenbeek who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

List of tables and figures

Tables Table 1 One-way ANOVA Fit per Brand Pair 23

Table 2 Schematic Outline of all Experimental Conditions 25

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities 30

Table 4 Hierarchical Regression Predicting Alliance Attitudes Towards Fashion Co-Branding Alliances 32

Figures Figure 1 Conceptual model 20

(4)

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of perceived fit on consumer’s alliance attitudes and the moderating role of alliance duration, in the context of the fashion industry. Based on prior research it was expected that when consumers perceive high brand fit and product fit this would positively influence the evaluation of the co-branding alliance. In line with previous studies and based on the research context in the fashion industry where hedonic and symbolic values are key, it was presumed that brand fit would be relatively more important in

indicating the level of alliance attitudes, compared to product fit. Moreover, pioneering steps were undertaken into investigating the role of one dimension of the multi-dimensional relationship of co-branding alliances: alliance duration. It was assumed that alliance duration moderates the relationship between perceived fit and alliance attitudes, in such a way that this relationship would be stronger for higher values of alliance duration. In order to test these assumptions a two (high/low fit) times two (low/high duration) between-subjects experiment (N=310) was conducted, in which participants were asked to evaluate hypothetical

co-branding alliances. Findings provide empirical support for (1) the positive direct effects of both brand fit and product fit on alliance attitudes, (2) the relative equal importance of brand fit and product fit and (3) the absence of a moderating effect of alliance duration on the relationship between perceived fit and alliance attitudes. This study discusses implications for practice, limitations and suggestions for future research.

Keywords: co-branding, alliance attitude, fashion, brand fit, product fit, alliance duration,

(5)

1. Introduction

Branding is “the use of a variety of promotional techniques to build a sustainable and

differential advantage for a brand in a competitive marketplace” (Rooney, 1995). It is a core marketing competency that can be executed in various ways. One of these techniques is co-branding. Co-branding is where two brand names join their forces, during a short- or long-term business relationship to deliver a new or perceptually improved product (Besharat & Langan, 2014; Rao & Ruekert, 1994). Although the concept of co-branding has been used for many years, it has become an increasingly popular branding strategy over the past few years

(Chiambaretto, Le Roy, & Gurãu, 2016). Despite the fact that this co-branding technique is used by many brands it does not always prove to be successful. A well-known example of a success story is the collaboration of H&M and Balmain (Sowray, 2015). Contrastingly, the collaboration between DKNY and Veuve Clicquot was a failed co-branding initiative, as it failed to deliver a sufficient value exchange and was perceived as ill-matched. Consequently, it received negative consumer responses and disappointing sales (Besharat & Langan, 2014). With an estimated failure rate of 80/90 percent, it is important to gain insights on how

positive alliance attitudes by consumers can be influenced (Leuthesser, Kohli, & Suri, 2003).

There are several factors that can influence the consumer’s alliance attitude.

Considerable research work has been undertaken, however most of the existing co-branding literature focuses heavily on the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and electronics

industries and on alliances across categories and industries (Helmig, Hubr, & Leeflang, 2008; Oeppen & Jamal, 2014). Some key findings on factors playing a role in consumer alliance attitude are now discussed. Co-branding alliances can be executed by partners that have either a low or a high match. The role of this match between partners is in literature referred to as fit. One of the most important findings is that fit between partner brands is a fundamental factor in determining the success of co-branding. Co-branding alliances in prior research were more

(6)

positively evaluated when consumers perceived high between-partner fit, compared to low between-partner fit (Park et al., 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Dickinson & Heath, 2006). Therefore, in order to be successful in co-branding it is important to increase the between-partner fit. Next to this, Simonin and Ruth (1998) conclude that besides perceived fit, prior brand attitudes are positively related to attitudes towards a brand alliance. Thereby, research emphasizes the importance of partner selection. Furthermore, their study shows that attitude towards the alliance can ‘spill over’ to the individual brand, and thereby successful alliances can contribute to establishing more positive attitudes towards the individual brands (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Helmig et al., 2008). Although research provides relevant insights, it is

difficult to generalize these findings to every industry. Little (empirical) research on consumer’s alliance attitude has been conducted in the context of markets where

differentiation occurs on the basis of the hedonic and symbolic meaning of brands, like the fashion industry. In previous studies in the FMCG and electronics industries ‘ingredient co-branding’ is common. However, when two brands from the fashion industry collaborate, both brands exist independently and do not rely on ingredients for developing a new product and, therefore, present different co-branding contexts (Levi, Grau, Kleiser, & Warrington, 2013). Next to this, it is likely that consumer attitude processes differ across industries. In certain industries, such as the FMCG and electronics industry, attitudes are mainly based on functional values (Helmig et al., 2008), whereas in the fashion industry attitudes are potentially based on more symbolic and hedonic values. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate what factors influence alliance attitude in the fashion industry.

In the relationship between perceived fit and alliance attitude in the fashion industry, it is relevant to research under what conditions this relationship is present. Oeppen & Jamal (2013) emphasize that, although the type of relationship presented to consumers is known to have an impact on their attitudes towards the alliance, previous research has overlooked the

(7)

multi-dimensional nature of co-branding relationships. One dimension of the co-branding relationship that potentially influences the relationship of fit and alliance attitude is alliance duration. Although co-branding has been used for many years, we can see an increasing trend

in term co-branding alliances. This trend has resulted in an increasing ubiquity of short-term collaborations, especially in the fashion industry (Milnes, 2017). Examples include Louis Vuitton’s collaboration with Supreme, and Alexander Wang with Adidas (Milnes, 2017). Research has mainly focused on long-term alliances, whereby a highly integrated collaboration relationship was present (Newmeyer & Chatterjee, 2013). Little research has been conducted on the topic of short-term alliances. In addition, little is known about differences between these levels of duration and its impact on the relationship of fit and alliance attitudes. Therefore, alliance duration is one of the conditions that will be examined in this study.

This study is relevant for marketing managers that strategically form branding strategies and consider engaging in co-branding alliances. Firstly, from a strategical point of view, it is key to know what influence the partner selection, of a brand that has either a low of high level of fit with the focal brand, has on alliance attitudes in order to carefully select the partner brand. Secondly, it is beneficial to have an understanding of what duration level best suits the desired strategic outcome, in order to develop a co-branding strategy that is likely to be most successful.

Next to this, research in alliance attitudes has not yet examined the effect of alliance duration and little research in alliance attitudes has been done in the context of the fashion industry. Given the popularity of co-branding as a marketing technique in the fashion industry it is remarkable that this is not yet studied empirically. This study attempts to fill this research gap by providing relevant insights and knowledge in underlying processes of consumer attitudes.

(8)

Accordingly, the main research question in this study is:

“What is the effect of perceived fit on the evaluation of co-brands and does alliance duration moderate this relationship?”

In order to answer the research question, a quantitative study was performed by means of a two (low/high perceived fit) times two (high/low alliance duration) between-person experimental research design. Through an online survey, data was collected from a sample of Dutch fashion consumers. The survey presented news articles about announcements of co-branding alliances and asked participants to rate the alliances.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical framework and proposed hypotheses. This is followed by a section that describes the research method. The following sections, present and discuss key findings, implications for theory development, practice and limitations. Finally, a summary of the key contributions and conclusions of this study is provided.

2. Literature review

This chapter discusses the most relevant findings from the current literature on co-branding that have led to the hypotheses of this study. Finally, the chapter ends with a research model that graphically illustrates the proposed hypotheses.

2.1 Co-branding

Co-branding, a synonym for brand alliances, is often used as a form of brand management. It

“often serves as a strategic alliance in which two firms jointly offer their brand elements to the customer” (Blackett and Russel, 1999; Simonin and Ruth 1998). Besharat & Langan (2014) refer to a co-brand as a situation where two brand names combine their forces to

(9)

deliver a new or perceptually improved product. Norris (1992) was the first to discuss the potential benefits of co-branded products, such as sharing costs and benefiting from the awareness and quality perception of the collaborating partner. His study was followed by several conceptual studies that examined the influence of co-branded products on brand evaluation, followed by the first quantitative empirical researches around 1995 (e.g. Park et al., 1996; Helmig et al., 2008).

Within any co-branding alliance we can make a distinction between the parent or so-called focal brand, who initiates the effort for a possible co-branding arrangement and the partner brand. For both the parent and partner brand there are multiple reasons and drivers for entering a co-branding collaboration. First of all, it reduces the costs of entering new markets and accelerates adoption of a new product, as brands can share their resources, risks and associated costs (Blackett & Russell, 1999; Park et al., 1996). Co-branding offers a good opportunity to tap into new markets, leverage brand equity and to differentiate products in competitive environments. Moreover, co-branding offers opportunities to create or enhance partner brands’ brand image, attributes, associations and awareness (Keller, 2008). This will be elaborated on in the next section. Another fundamental benefit of co-branding is “to expand the customer base and market share of both sides by increasing awareness, exposure and brand recognition amongst a new target audience by accessing the partner’s customers” (Levi et al., 2013). For example, an Adidas customer may not be familiar with the designer Raf Simons. However, a co-brand between Adidas and Raf Simons introduces this designer to its customer groups. This gives the opportunity to increase sales in the short-term and acquire awareness and loyalty of aspirational shoppers that might become valuable customers in the long run. Next to this, co-branding provides brands with more access to sell the co-branded products, as they can be sold in both brand’s (online) stores. Brands are able to “capitalize on each other’s’ strengths and reputations and communicate a unique set of products attributes

(10)

that the parent brands alone cannot offer” (Monga & Lau-Gesk, 2007, p. 389). Based on the companies’ motives a corresponding co-branding strategy can be considered.

As there are numerous types of companies, brands and industries, one could imagine the various possibilities of co-branding collaborations. We can make a distinction between three main forms of co-branding strategies that can be considered by brands based on the intensity of the collaboration (Helmig et al., 2008).

- Firstly, joint promotions, in which brands attempt to establish corporate

endorsements that will improve the brands’ market position. For example, joint promotion of the services of Spotify and Uber, whereby you can create a soundtrack for your ride (Bernazzani, 2017).

- Secondly, we have physical product integration, where one branded product is inseparably linked with another branded product, like Philips and Douwe Egberts who create the Senseo coffee machine (Walchli, 2007).

- The third co-branding strategy is the ingredient co-branding strategy, where one brand is presented as an attribute of another. Though ingredient co-branding in the fashion industry is rare, two well-known examples are the use of YKK zippers and GoreTex fabrics (Shena, Choic, & Chowc, 2017). This form of co-branding has been studied thoroughly and is most common in FMCG and electronics industries (Helmig et al., 2008).

Collaborations exist both across and within product categories and industries. Prior research has mainly focussed on collaborations between different industries and or product categories (e.g. Ahn & Sung, 2012; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). In the fashion industry, we observe an increase in collaborations of brands that operate within in the same industries and product categories. Although there are some across-industry collaborations in the fashion

(11)

industry, such as a Prada phone by LG, this study focusses only on collaborations within the same industry with similar product categories. A well-known example of within industry and product category collaboration are the collaborations of H&M with several fashion designers, like Karl Lagerfeld and Balmain. In this situation where two fashion brands collaborate, the brands stand independently and do not necessarily rely on ‘ingredients’ for establishing a new product (Oeppen & Jamal, 2014).

2.2 Alliance attitude

An attitude is the tendency to respond to an object with some degree of favourableness or unfavourableness (Ajzen, 2014). Attitudes can be established towards various objects such as persons, products and brands. Attitude plays a central role in theories and research regarding consumer behaviour. This is partly caused by the general assumption that consumer attitudes toward brands are important determinants of their buying decisions (Ajzen, 2014).

In order to understand the effects of co-branding on consumers, it is key to look at the attitude that consumers hold towards the co-branding alliance. This attitude can ultimately result in purchase intention and profits and is the most immediate reaction that occurs in the mind of the consumer after being exposed to a co-branding alliance (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1968). It is important to evaluate how consumers respond to brand alliances as brand alliances come with complexities and potential negative effects. Simonin and Ruth (1998) examined consumer attitudes towards brand alliances, whereby they looked at spillover effects. Spillover effects are also referred to as ‘halo effects’. They arise when consumer’s

evaluations about something, in this case the co-branding alliance, transfer to something else, in this case the constituent partnering brands. The study by Simonin and Ruth (1998) shows that consumer attitudes toward brand alliances influence their consecutive attitudes towards

(12)

the individual partnering brands, thereby indicating that co-branding alliances can indeed represent strategic marketing opportunities to add to or alter a brand’s specific associations. The degree to which a brand alliance ‘helps’ or ‘hurts’ partner brands is dependent on the degree to which the brand alliance itself is evaluated favourably (Simonin & Ruth, 1998, p. 39). Hence, alliance attitudes are an important indicator of the success of a co-branding alliance.

2.3 Fit

Research highlights the importance of careful partner selection as key to success of co-branding strategies and has, therefore always focused on the concept of between-partner fit (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Rao & Ruekert, 1994). Various studies examine the consumer evaluation of co-branded alliances and indicate fit as one of the factors that could influence co-branding evaluation (e.g. Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Geylani, Hofstede, & Inman, 2006). Consistently with brand extensions theories, researchers in general agree that for a consumer to evaluate a co-branding alliance positively, there needs to be some degree of fit (Ahn & Sung, 2012; Aaker & Keller, 1990). Between-partner fit can be defined as the perceived match between two brands, which is based on the consistency and complementarity of the brands (Aaker & Keller, 1990). Ashton & Scott (2011) describe that for consumers, high fit strengthens positive values towards the alliance and decreases the prospect of negative outcomes for the brands. On the contrary, poor fit can negatively impact overall brand image after a collaboration, thereby potentially damaging the brands. Furthermore, Ahn & Sung (2012) state that generally people tend to like similarity as it gives reassurance and self-confirmation, which clarifies why good fit leads to more positive outcomes.

(13)

co-branding alliances needs to be coherent, thus have fit between the partnering brands. The study of Simonin and Ruth (1998) describes that when consumers are exposed to a brand alliance, several factors influence the favourableness of their attitudes towards the alliance. They emphasize the influence of two forms of perceived fit. In line with other studies, they state that fit should not only be seen as a unitary concept, as fit can be divided into two dimensions: brand fit and product fit. Both dimensions of fit have been considered important for facilitating positive alliance attitudes and spillover effects, though empirical evidence of the importance of these two dimensions of fit within fashion collaborations is rare (e.g. Ahn & Sung, 2012; Baumgarth, 2004; Lafferty, Goldsmith & Hult, 2004; Wang, Soesilo & Zhang, 2015). The next paragraph will further elaborate on these two dimensions.

2.3.1. Product fit and Brand fit

The first dimension, product fit, refers to the extent to which consumers perceive the two product categories to be compatible. Prior research acknowledges the significant role of product fit in how consumers perceive the brand alliance and state that "a poor fit may actually stimulate undesirable beliefs and associations” (Aaker & Keller, 1990, p. 30; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Moreover, research by Ahn & Sung (2012) demonstrates that high product fit derives more positive perceptions of an alliance. This effect can be explained by the ‘categorization theory’ (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Ahn & Sung, 2012; van der Ham, 2016). This theory explains that people use existing schemas to categorize the world around them, and try to adapt new information into existing categories. When the new information is consistent with existing schemas, affect that is stored concerning that category is used to evaluate the new information immediately, without great effort. Therefore, brands are seen as categories. When a consumer perceives high fit between partners in an alliance, this is

(14)

processing is used, signifying that the co-branding alliance is perceived in the same category (Ahn & Sung, 2012, p. 416). As a result, the perception of an alliance partner will transfer directly to the other alliance partner. This allows the consumer to easily evaluate the

collaboration (Ahn & Sung, 2012). Contrastingly, when there is incongruity between a new stimulus and a schema, in this case low fit, the alliance is not seen as fitting into one category. This strengthens gradual processing of the separate attributes of both brands. This takes more time and constrains the transfer of affect. The person will experience frustration and will question the validity of the co-branding alliance (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Ahn & Sung, 2012). Since prior research has focussed on co-branding alliances between different product

categories, this raises the question whether product fit has a similar effect when an alliance is established between partners that operate in the same product category, in this case fashion (clothing).

Therefore, it is predicted that:

H1a: There is a positive direct relationship between product fit and alliance attitudes.

The second form of perceived fit, brand fit, refers to the similarity or compatibility of the brand concept or image. Brand images “are the perceptions of a brand that reflect consumer associations of the brand in memory” (Keller, 1993). When the brand images of the partnering brands are presented together in a context, the evaluation of both brands can be evoked. When the brand images are perceived as inconsistent, consumers can trigger an attributional or causal search (Aaker & Keller, 1990). Hereby, consumers might question why the two brands are presented together. When consumers have a low perception of brand fit, undesirable beliefs and judgements can be activated, and directly influence the relationship with the alliance. When there is an overall perception of fit between the brands concepts, image or meaning, the alliance will be evaluated more favourably compared to conditions in which

(15)

these elements are inconsistent or incompatible (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Similar to product fit, the categorization theory provides an explanation for this.

Therefore, it is expected that:

H1b: There is a positive direct relationship between brand fit and alliance attitudes.

As to the relative importance of brand fit and product fit, mixed results have been found in some studies. Where some studies overlook the different dimensions of fit, others claim that product fit is the most important dimension of fit to influence the co-branding alliance attitude (Geuens & Pecheux, 2006). Contrastingly, most studies argue that brand fit is relatively more important in facilitating positive attitudes and creating spillover effects compared to product fit (e.g. Ahn & Sung, 2012; Baumgarth, 2004; Wang et al., 2015). The main research focus of prior studies has been on industries where functional meanings are dominant in forming attitudes, like the FMCG and electronics industry (Helmig et al., 2008). When we look at industries where attitudes are mainly based on hedonic and symbolic values, like the fashion industry, symbolic meanings, which are part of the brand image are particularly important (Liu, Li, Mizerski, & Soh, 2012). All things considered, this would imply that also in this research context brand image will be more important than product fit.

Therefore, it is predicted that:

H1c: Brand fit is the most important indicator of alliance attitudes, compared to

(16)

2.4 Alliance duration

When brands consider stepping into a co-branding relationship, it important to consider the factors that can influence the way consumers evaluate a co-branding alliance. Potential partner brands benefit from assessing what level of fit consumers perceive. When the partners have determined the estimated level of perceived fit, it can be beneficial to evaluate what other relationship characteristics and structures are likely to influence the alliance. As fit seems to play an important direct role, it is relevant to look at the proposed effect of fit under different circumstances.

Within different co-branding alliances we identify different types of intensities in alliance relationships. Research of Blackett and Russel (1999) describes two criteria that determine the level of co-operation between partners and nature of agreement from a

managerial perspective. The first criterion is the expected duration of the relationship and the second is the potential value that can be created by co-operation. Levels of integration/value-creation and duration are strongly interlinked, as often more integrated and intense

collaborations are longer. Low levels of shared involvement and value-creation exists in situations where the alliance enables the brands to rapidly increase brand awareness through exposure to their partner's customer base. High and moderately high levels of value-creation occur when “partner brands aim to gain competitive advantage by committing a selection of their core skills and competences together” (Oeppen & Jamal, 2014). Blackett and Russel (1999) argue the usefulness of examining the perceived levels of value-creation from the perspective of the consumer (Blackett & Russel, 1999, pp. 168-169). Research of Oeppen and Jamal (2014) investigates the nature of co-branded relationships within the fashion industry. They provide empirical evidence for value-creation through different relationship levels (e.g. brand/awareness branding, values endorsement and complementary competence co-branding). Their study shows that levels of integration and relationship dynamics differ

(17)

considerably across alliances. The lowest level of shared value-creation occurs with low integration where partner brands mainly collaborate to build awareness via co-branding efforts. High levels of value-creation and integration occur in alliances that have high sharing value and creation of strategic resources (Oeppen & Jamal, 2014).

When we look at the first criterion that Blacket & Russel describe to characterize the level of co-operation between partners, duration, we see that co-branding relationships can vary in duration from three months to ten years (Blackett & Russel, 1999). This depends on the characteristics of the markets involved and the life cycle of the products. As argued before, most prior research focusses on ingredient co-branding, where alliances are generally perceived as long-term (e.g. Blackett & Russel, 1999; Helmig et al., 2008). Research that observed short-term market practices of alliances, often studied co-branding projects, for example by luxury brands and fast fashion brands (e.g. H&M), that are usually one-shot projects for limited-edition products (Shena, Choic, & Chowc, 2017).

Newmeyer & Chatterjee (2013) identify three key dimensions of the structure of a co-branding alliance, namely (1) exclusivity, (2) integration and (3) duration (Newmeyer & Chatterjee, 2013). The study defines exclusivity as the number of partners the focal brand engages in co-branding arrangements. High exclusivity occurs when the parent brand only has a single or very few partner brands. Low exclusivity exists when a parent brand has many partners. For example, H&M partnering up with many luxury designers. This dimension, though relevant, will not be part of the research scope of this study. The second dimension, the level of integration, refers to the extent to which the brands are intertwined in form and function. There is high integration, when brands collaborate to make a complete product, attaining the highest utility. While in “low integration, there is a joint presentation but partner brands remain separate in form and brands have both joint and individual utility” (Oeppen & Jamal, 2014). The third dimension, duration, refers to the length of time that the arrangement

(18)

lasts. Newmeyer et al. (2013) describes that the level of each dimension, thereby type of relationship, impacts the consumer’s focal brand evaluation. The research shows that co-branding with higher integration and longer duration require great commitment. Empirical results imply that such arrangements, “if successful, are likely to have a stronger positive impact on brand evaluation and, in turn, on the brand’s value to the firm. If the co-branding encounters are not successful, the loss of brand value is likely to be magnified” (Newmeyer & Chatterjee, 2013).

In line with the study of Oepen & Jamal (2014), we see that “previous research has overlooked the multi-dimensional nature of co-branding relationships, although the type of relationship presented to consumers impacts their perception of the alliance” (Newmeyer & Chatterjee, 2013). To the best of our knowledge, aside from the study of Newmeyer and Chatterjee (2013), little research has been done to the specific role of this difference in duration in its effectiveness. Where Newmeyer and Chatterjee (2013) focus on the (post-alliance) evaluation of the individual brands, little is known about the effect of the

relationship structural elements of duration on the actual evaluation of the alliance itself. This gap in the current understanding of co-branding from a managerial perspective is under investigation in this study. Based on the findings of Newmeyer and Chatterjee (2013) it is expected that duration and integration have a positive moderating effect on the evaluation of the alliance, in such a way that higher values of duration and integration lead to

stronger/higher/more positive values of alliance attitude.

Based on the study of Newmeyer & Chatterjee (2013), the term alliance duration is operationalised as a combination of both levels of integration and duration. A low alliance duration thereby refers to a short-term alliance, where two brands create only just one limited (capsule) collection. High alliance duration is referred to as a long-term alliance, where two brands for instance repeatedly engage in creating collections over several years.

(19)

The research of Levi et al. (2013) studies luxury designers co-branding with

mainstream retailers. In this study, they discuss the role of alliance duration in the relationship between fit and alliance attitudes. In the study of Levi et al. (2013) it is argued that when two brands have dissimilar brand images, and thereby low brand fit, this effect on alliance attitude becomes stronger over time. Therefore, it is expected that when the alliance has a low

perceived brand fit, it is better to have a short-term collaboration opposed to long-term collaboration. This because low brand fit over the long run may result in brand dilution and distrust to the core brands. Levi et al. (2013) highlight that this assumption may have stronger effects for luxury brands. When duration is low, resulting in a perception that the co-brand is an infrequent or rare event, consumers can continue relying on their existing beliefs and positively evaluate the alliance. Opposed to when duration is high, consumers may alter their beliefs so that they can incorporate the new incompatible information of the alliance attitude (Loken & Roedder-John, 1993, p. 82; Levi et al., 2013). The other way around, it is likely that the effect of high perceived fit becomes stronger over time, as the consumer continues to see the strong link. This might indicate that the relationship between fit and the alliance attitudes somewhat depends on the alliance duration, whereby the relationship becomes stronger when the alliance is longer and more integrated.

Based on this, the following hypotheses is proposed:

H2a: Alliance duration positively moderates the relationship between perceived fit

and alliance attitude, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of alliance duration compared to high values.

H2b: The relationship between a low brand fit in co-branding alliance and alliance

attitude is negatively moderated by alliance duration, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of alliance duration.

(20)

Figure 1. Conceptual model

This study proposes that when consumers develop attitudes towards a co-branding alliance, several factors influence the favourableness of their attitudes towards the alliance, including the perceived fit, moderated by alliance duration. The hypothesized relationships are captured in Figure 1. The next chapter describes what research design and data collection method were used to test the proposed relationships.

3. Data and method

3.1 Method

To answer the proposed research question, a quantitative study is performed, by means of an experiment. This methodological approach is selected because it allows for experimental control over the manipulated variables and follows the lead of various prior studies (e.g. Aaker & Keller, 1990; Baumgarth, 2004; Helmig et al., 2007; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). To gather cross-sectional data an online survey is used as data collection instrument (Field & Hole, 2003).

A two (low/high alliance duration) times two (low/high perceived fit) between-person research design was created. In this way four experimental conditions were created (see Table 2). Participants are randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios. Each participant was

(21)

presented with one of the four carefully constructed and realistic scenarios of a short-term or long-term alliances (see Appendix C). In line with various prior studies, the scenarios in this study include hypothetical co-branding alliances between existing well-known brands (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Helmig et al., 2007; van der Ham, 2016). This is a critical element, considering that the use of well-known brands enables us to measure the perceived fit

between the partnering brands, since participants should have prior brand knowledge to assess the degree of fit.

In order to increase external validity and enhance experimental realism, the

experiment was designed to increase the level of immersion experienced by the participants (Field & Hole, 2003). Hence, the alliances were presented in the form of news articles on the website Fashion United (see Appendix C). This presentation allows for the manipulation of degree of fit and alliance duration. In order to control for potential side effects, like influences from the presentation of the alliance, the news articles were presented in a similar manner, using the same fonts, colours and way of formatting.

3.2 Sample

The population of interest for this study is fashion consumers in the Netherlands. Since the population is large and the sampling frame is unknown, this study used a non-probability convenience sample of 310 participants (Field & Hole, 2003). The participants were recruited through e-mail and Social Media. The participants were required to fill in control questions, in order to test whether the participant accurately read the news article. Inconsistent responses with the condition manipulations (partner brands, alliance duration) were recorded as missing data and excluded from the sample. Moreover, respondents with a low completion time (< 90 sec) and low brand familiarity were excluded from the sample. In total 110 participants were excluded from any further analysis. The total sample of 200 Dutch fashion consumers

(22)

consisted of 66,5% female and 33,5 % male participants. The age of the participants ranged from 17 to 75 years with a mean age of 35.71 (SD = 15.07).

3.2.1. Pre-test

A pre-test among 65 participants is conducted to measure the variation in alliance duration and perceived fit, in order to ensure maximum variation in the manipulated variables. Of this sample five cases were excluded from the research, due to missing data. The remaining pre-test sample of 60 participants, consisting of 18 men and 42 women, had a mean age of 23.6 (SD = 2.86). All participants were shown one of the eight conditions ranging from low fit to high fit brand pairs and collaborations with high and low alliance duration, with either Chanel or Burberry as parent brand (see Appendix A).

For each brand collaboration respondents were asked to evaluate the degree of brand fit and product fit. This was measured on a 7-point bi-polar Likert scale of Simonin and Ruth (1998). The hypothetical brand collaborations were selected based on corresponding or contrasting brand concept, image and meaning. The main distinction was made between luxury fashion brands (Burberry, Chanel, Louis Vuitton & Hermès) and fast-fashion brands (ZARA & H&M). This distinction was made in order to find conditions with extreme values of fit, considering that the product categories, fashion, of all brands are relatively consistent.

As explained in the literature review, research has shown the effect of parent brand attitudes on the evaluation of the alliance (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Aaker & Keller, 1998; Helmig et al., 2008; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). In order to keep all conditions in the main experiment as constant as possible, it is preferable to use similar parent brands for both short and long-term conditions.

A one-way ANOVA test allowed for comparison in means between the brand pairs. Results showed that the predicted high fit brand pairs, Burberry x Hermès (M = 4.71, SD = 1.11) and

(23)

Chanel x Louis Vuitton (M = 4.65, SD = 0.79) were indeed perceived as a collaboration with high fit. Likewise, the results indicated that the predicted low fit pairs, Burberry x Zara (M = 3.26, SD = 1.01) and Chanel x H&M (M = 4.1, SD = 1.06) were perceived as having low fit. The difference in perceived fit between these two low fit collaborations might be explained by H&M’s reputation for often collaborating with high-end brands. It is possible that because of H&M’s prior collaborations participants might evaluate the collaboration with Chanel as more logical and fitting. An overview of all compared means can be found in Table 1.

Table 1

One-way ANOVA Fit per Brand Pair

M SD N

Burberry & Hermès 4.71 1.11 14

Chanel & Louis Vuitton 4.65 0.79 10

Burberry & Zara 3.26 1.01 16

Chanel & H&M 4.1 1.06 20

A post-hoc test revealed that the perceived fit was significantly higher for the Burberry x Hermès collaboration compared to the Burberry x Zara collaboration (F(3.56) = 6.23, p < .01). Moreover, there was a significant difference between the perceived fit of the Burberry x Zara collaboration and the Chanel x Louis Vuitton collaboration (F(3.56) = 6.23, p < .01). There was no statistically significant difference of the perceived fit of the Chanel x Louis Vuitton collaboration with the Chanel x H&M collaboration (F(3.56) = 6.23, p = .53). As it is preferred to have a similar parent brand for each condition, and due to the significant

difference in fit, the collaborations with Burberry as parent brand are the best suitable choice for this experiment.

(24)

3.2.2. Alliance Duration

The manipulation of alliance duration was conducted by subtly informing the participants on the level of integration and duration. In the news article, low values of alliance duration were referred to as “a one-time collaboration, whereby a capsule collection was created”, whereas high values of alliance duration were referred to as “a collaboration that lasts for several years, whereby the co-brand becomes part of the permanent collection”. The participants were asked to rate their perceived alliance duration on a 7-point bi-polar scale, ranging from short-to long-term alliance. Results from this control question for the manipulation check revealed that the conditions significantly differed in terms of perceived alliance duration. The low alliance duration conditions (M = 2.68, SD = 1.38), significantly differed from the high alliance duration (M = 6.2, SD = 1.27), F(7.52) =1.86, p < .01. However, feedback from participants indicated that small adjustments would more clearly indicate the alliance

duration. For this reason, the formulation of the conditions was slightly adjusted for the main experiment (see Appendix A and C). An additional pre-test of eight participants showed that the manipulation was now more clearly observed. This allowed for better manipulation of the alliance duration in the main experiment.

3.2.3. Perceived Fit manipulation

Following the results of the pre-test, the high fit condition was created by pairing Burberry and Hermès, and the low fit condition was created by pairing Burberry and Zara. The news article does not reveal what exactly the collaboration entails, for example what kind of fashion items or what they would look like. The reason for presenting the alliance in such a way, is to make it more realistic and focus on the consumer’s perceived attitudes towards the partner selection procedure. A schematic outline of all experimental conditions can be found in Table 2.

(25)

Table 2

Schematic Outline of all Experimental Conditions

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4

Alliance Duration Low Low High High

Perceived Fit High low high low

Manipulation Burberry x Hermès Burberry x Zara

Burberry x

Hermès Burberry x Zara

3.3 Measures

All items used in the online survey were derived from English studies. Considering that the sampling frame is Dutch, the original items were translated into Dutch to ensure a better understanding by the participants. A parallel-translation procedure was used in order to assure that the content of the items remains unchanged. All complete constructs and translations can be found in Appendix B.

3.3.1. Alliance Attitude

In order to measure alliance attitude, the validated five items 7-point bipolar scale by Ahn and Sung (2012) was used (e.g. likable versus unlikable). This scale is anadaptation of the scale by Burnkrant and Rao Unnava (1995) adjusted to the context of co-branding (α = .97). One scale item was reverse coded, meaning that a relatively low score on that item refers to a relatively high alliance attitude. Counter-indicative items were used to minimize common method bias (Field & Hole, 2003). Scale means of the five items were used for further analysis.

In order to examine the consistency of measurements reliability checks were run for all items of alliance attitude. The alliance attitude scale has a high reliability, with a

(26)

good correlation with the total score of the alliance attitude scale (> .30). Moreover, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.

3.3.2. Perceived Fit

The validated four items 7-point bipolar semantic differential scale used by Simonin and Ruth (1998) will be used to measure the participants’ perceived fit on two levels, namely brand fit and product fit(e.g. is/is not consistent). This scale is an adaptation of Aaker and Keller’s scale (1990) (α = .94). With Cronbach alpha scores > .7 indicating high levels of internal consistency, the Cronbach’s alpha of perceived fit in this study, is marginally

acceptable (see Table 3, α = .678) (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Again, none of the items would substantially affect the Cronbach’s alpha if they were deleted. Scale means of the four items of fit were used for further analysis. Asking participants to evaluate the level of perceived fit between partnering brands, allowed us to check if manipulation of low and high fit between partner brands condition was succeeded.

3.3.3. Control variables

The survey asked participants for the participant’s demographics such as their gender (nominal variable), age (ratio variable), and educational background (ordinal variable).

Moreover, respondents were asked for their brand familiarity and brand liking of both partner brands. Various prior studies have showed both brand liking and familiarity may influence the evaluation of a co-branding alliance (e.g. Simonin & Ruth, 1998). For this reason, brand familiarity and brand liking were used as control variables. All participants that were not familiar with one of the partnering brands were excluded from any further analysis.

(27)

3.3.4. Procedure

The experiment was held by means of an online survey. Before entering the survey,

participants were able to read an informed consent and additional relevant information about the research (see Appendix D). Participants were informed that all collected data would be kept confidential and that by continuing they would accept the consent of data usage. Afterwards, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.

Participants were then asked to carefully read the presented news article of Fashion United. In this news article the collaboration between two brands was announced.

In order to check whether the participant carefully read the news article, control questions were asked. Participants were asked to recall the two brands they just read about and whether they perceived the collaboration as short or long-term. While answering these questions the participants were able to scroll back and re-read the news article. In this way, the

manipulation check for alliance duration took place, high involvement by the participant was established and the chance of missing data was minimized. Initially, after reading the news article participants were sent to a new block where they were asked to answer the described control questions. However, this sequence was altered based on feedback that was collected in an additional pre-test of the online survey by fifteen participants. This pre-test included

several follow up questions, in order to detect any flaws, uncertainties and to test correlations. Results of this small pre-test indicated that over 50% of the participants did not carefully read the article and since the experiment randomly divided the participants to one of the four conditions, participants were not able to go back to the article. Therefore, they missed

relevant information regarding the manipulations. In order to overcome this problem, control questions were proposed in the same block as the new article.

Next, participants were asked to evaluate the complementarity and consistency of the product categories (product fit) and brand image, meaning and concept (brand fit).

(28)

Afterwards, participants were asked to evaluate their attitude towards the alliance on a 7-point bi-polar scale. In the next block, the brand familiarity and brand liking of both partner brands were measured.

In the final block, participants were asked to answer questions regarding their demographic characteristics. Finally, respondents were informed that the news articles included hypothetical collaborations and were thanked for their participation. The entire experiment took on average four to five minutes.

4. Results

Below, first the distribution of the data and manipulation checks will be discussed.

Subsequently, the results from the regression analyses will be outlined. Direct relationships between perceived fit and alliance attitudes are discussed in advance to the moderating effect of alliance duration.

4.1. Control variables

After recoding the reverse coded items, descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities and normality tests were computed. A Chi-Square test was conducted to see whether control variables gender, educational level, parent brand liking and partner brand liking were normally distributed across the four conditions. Outcomes of the crosstabs showed no significant difference, indicating that the two variables were equally distributed across the four

conditions (gender χ2 _{(3, N = 200) = 5.79, p = .13; education level χ}2 _{(12, N = 200) = 8.92, p =} .71; parent brand liking χ2 _{(18, N = 200) = 19.46, p = .36; partner brand liking χ}2 _{(18, N = 200)} = 19.09, p = .39). A one-way ANOVA test was used to check whether age was equally

distributed across the conditions. Again, no significant difference was found (F(3,197) = 0.616, p = .605), indicating that age is equally distributed across the conditions. Moreover,

(29)

brand familiarity was used as a sample filter, whereby participants with low brand familiarity scores for either the parent or the partner brand were excluded from the analysis. Since you need to be familiar with both brands in order to be able to evaluate the level of perceived fit.

4.2. Manipulation check

To test whether the manipulation of high versus low between-partner fit were actually observed as such by the sample, several t-tests were conducted per condition. Prior to this, total mean scales of product fit, brand fit and overall fit were created for all further analysis (see Table 3). When looking at the overall fit, outcomes of the t-tests show that participants in high fit conditions (C1 & C3), indeed perceived a significantly higher fit (M = 4.91, SD = 0.12) compared to participants in low fit conditions (C2 & C4) (M = 4.15, SD = 1.35), t(200) = -4.41 (p < .001). The manipulation for perceived fit is thus considered successful.

Additionally, similar t-tests were conducted to check the manipulation of the two components of between-partner fit; product fit and brand fit. Results show that perceived brand fit was significantly higher in the high fit conditions (M = 4.91, SD = 1.20) compared to the brand fit in low fit conditions (M = 3.88, SD = 1.45), t(200) = -5.48, (p < .001). Moreover, perceived product fit was significantly higher in the high fit conditions (M = 4.91, SD = 1.20) compared to the product fit in low fit conditions (M = 4.42, SD = 1.53), t(200) = -2.53, (p < .05). This indicates that the manipulation of fit was successful.

Moreover, the manipulation of alliance duration was checked by filtering answers of the control questions on alliance duration. All participants that did not provide the corresponding answer were excluded from any further analysis. Remarkably most missing data occurred from respondents in the conditions with high alliance duration, namely 42 in high versus 7 in low duration.

(30)

(31)

4.3. Hypothesis testing

Regression analyses were undertaken to test the hypothesized direct and moderation effects between the variables. Direct relationships were examined by the use of hierarchical

regression. The regression analyses were conducted for the dependent variable; alliance attitude. Table 4 shows a summary of the hierarchal regression table. Four regression models were created. In model 1, the control variables gender, age and education level, were entered into the equitation. In model 2 all variables of model 1 plus the independent variables

perceived brand fit and perceived product fit were entered into the equitation. In model 3, the moderating variable alliance duration was added to the equitation of model 2. Finally, in model 4, the interaction effects between alliance duration and perceived fit were added to the equitation of model 3.

(32)

(33)

Hypothesis 1a and 1b postulated that consumers would have more favourable alliance attitudes for co-branding alliances with higher perceived (brand and product) fit compared to alliances with a lower perceived fit. The hierarchical linear regression analysis revealed that perceived brand fit significantly predicted alliance attitude scores, B = 0.142, t(200) = 2.12, p < .05. Likewise, perceived product fit significantly predicted alliance attitude scores, B = 0.285, t(200) = 4.071, p < .001. Perceived brand and product fit also explained a significant proportion of variance in alliance attitude scores, R² = .324, F(7,193) = 13.243, p < .001 Hence, Hypothesis 1a and 1b are confirmed (see Table 4, model 1 and 2).

Hypothesis 1c proposed that brand fit is relatively more important in indicating the level of alliance attitudes towards the co-brand. The hierarchical regression analysis allows for comparison in the standardized beta coefficients, to compare the strength of the effect of individual variable (brand- and product fit) to the dependent variable (alliance attitude). When we compare these standardized coefficients, we see that the values are very close to each other, though product fit (β = .39) relatively slightly more important than brand fit (β =. 38). Therefore, we cannot accept Hypothesis 1c.

Hypothesis 2 was concerned about the moderating effect of alliance duration, a multi-categorical independent variable. This allowed for the following comparison of two

conditions: (1) low alliance duration and (2) high alliance duration. The statistical model including coefficients of both comparisons can be found in Table 4, model 3 and 4. We show interest in whether model 3 explains the dependent variable, alliance attitude, better than model 2. If the difference of R² between model 2 and 3 is statistically significant, we can say that the added variable in model 3, alliance duration, explains the dependent variable alliance attitude above and beyond the variables in model 2.

When adding the independent variable duration to the model, we see that as expected there is a positive effect between alliance duration and alliance attitude (B = .047), indicating

(34)

that alliances with higher perceived alliance duration will have higher alliance attitudes. However, this effect is not significant. An additional one-way ANOVA test also showed that participants in high duration conditions (H) evaluated the alliance only slightly more

positively than participants in low duration (L) conditions (H = 4.89 and L = 4.86). As showed in Table 4, the proportion of explained variance alters with 0.001 (R² = .324; R² = .325). Alliance duration did not explain a significant proportion of variance in alliance attitude scores, R² = .325, F(8.192) = 11.55, p > .05.

Furthermore, the interaction effect of alliance duration with brand fit and alliance duration with product fit is analysed (see model 4). There are no significant interaction effects found between brand-and product fit and alliance duration. We see an increase in R² of .006, which is not significant (R² = .331). Therefore, the results do not provide any prove that alliance duration influences, or moderates, the effects of fit on alliance attitudes. Hence, we cannot accept Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b.

5. Discussion

This chapter discusses the most evident findings, together with the implications of these findings with respect to the literature and management practice. Furthermore, the limitations regarding the conclusions of this study are outlined. Finally, a number of suggestions for further research will be given.

This study aimed to expose the effect of consumer’s perceived brand fit and product fit in branding alliances in the fashion industry on the consumers evaluation of the

co-branding alliance. The role of the alliance relationship dimension, alliance duration, was also explored. From the results, we can conclude that there is positive direct effect of perceived fit

(35)

to the alliance attitudes. This finding is in line with previous studies and provides empirical evidence for the claims in a new context (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Basharat et al., 2014;). When assessing the individual dimensions of between-partner fit, we identify interesting findings. Results show that when consumers perceive a high product fit, this leads to more positive alliance attitudes, than when they perceive a low product fit. Also from analysis on the perceived brand fit we can conclude that when consumers perceive a higher brand fit, this leads to higher or more positive alliance attitudes, than when lower values of brand fit are perceived. From this we can conclude that there is a positive direct effect on co-branding alliance attitudes of both brand fit and product fit. This is in line with the study of Ahn and Sung (2012) and Simonin and Ruth (1998), which shows that when there is high fit between the brands image and concept or product categories the alliance will be evaluated more favourably compared to conditions in which these elements are inconsistent or incompatible. This increases the generalizability of the findings of these studies to the context of markets where differentiation occurs on the basis of the hedonic and symbolic meaning of brands, like the fashion industry.

Contrary to the expectations, the results do not show a significant moderating effect of alliance duration on the relationship between fit and alliance attitudes. The results show a small positive effect of alliance duration on alliance attitudes, which visualizes the expected relationship as proposed by the literature. However, results show that this effect is too small and not significant. These findings are not in line with the study of Levi et al. (2013) who suggest that the relationship between fit and alliance attitude becomes stronger when duration is higher. This finding may be due to the fact that this effect is potentially better measurable over a longer period of time. Potential explanations for these outcomes are discussed in the limitations and future research section.

(36)

Another unexpected finding includes the relative importance of product fit in the research context, contradicting the expectation and previous research that considered the relative importance of the dimension of fit. Where it was expected that brand fit would be relatively more important for indicating alliance attitudes, results show that both types almost equally explain the values of alliance attitude. This could be explained by research of Walchi (2007) and Ahn and Sung (2012), which shows that the relationship of alliance attitude and product fit may be non-monotonic rather than linear. This means that a moderate product fit is most favourable for high levels of alliance attitude, as low product fit is too difficult to

process and high product fit is too easily processed. In this study, the perceived product fit is significantly different across the conditions, though it is arguable that the mean values indicate moderate levels of product fit (L = 4.42, H = 4.91). These moderate values may explain why product fit is slightly more important than brand fit in this research context.

5.1. Implications

The findings of this study can be useful for marketing managers that consider starting a co-branding alliance. It provides understanding in how alliance attitudes are formed and what role partner selection plays into forming a successful co-branding alliance, which remains one of the most important and difficult choices focal brands have to make. Insights of previous studies are confirmed and provide extendibility to industries where hedonic and symbolic values are key, like the fashion industry.

First of all, this study suggests looking for a co-branding partner that is perceived as having a high product- and brand fit with the focal brand. In this selection procedure brand managers should critically evaluate whether the potential partner brand is both consistent as complementary in its product categories, brand image, concept and meaning. Following this

(37)

advice helps lower the potential risk of alliance failure, which is essential considering the high failure rates (Leuthesser et al., 2003). The results of this study provide a good foundation for the many co-branding alliances that are undertaken. Especially, in the fashion industry where collaborations between brands that operate in the same industry and product categories continues to be popular.

Next to this, brand managers should be aware that when engaging in a co-branding alliance with a partner that operates in the same product categories, the role of product fit should not be underestimated. Operating in similar product categories does not necessarily mean that a high product fit is established. Since this study shows that both product and brand fit have a direct positive effect and seem to be almost equally important in indicating alliance attitudes, it is important to carefully consider both dimensions of fit.

Furthermore, this study provides initial insights in the role of alliance duration on the relationship between fit and alliance attitudes. This study shows that alliance duration does not significantly strengthens or weakens this relation. This helps simplify the choice of alliance duration, and lets managers give priority to other reasons for having an alliance relationship with a higher or lower duration level, such as the amount of available company resources.

5.2. Limitations and future research

Although this study discusses important aspects of perceived fit and its role in consumer’s alliance attitudes, it has some limitations to be addressed in future research.

First of all, there are some limitations as a result of the chosen research method. Common method bias may exist in this study due to the cross-sectional design, as participants

(38)

are asked to complete all questions at the same time-point through a self-report method. In order to minimize the detrimental effects of method acquiescence, responses were checked and common scale properties eliminated. Moreover, while convenience sampling provides the ability to collect a larger amount of data in a short timeframe, a limitation of a non-probability convenience sample is that it reduces the generalizability of the data.

Furthermore, when filtering participants for whom the alliance duration manipulation does not succeed, it should be mentioned that most participants were excluded from long-term alliances. This may be explained by the possibility that people perceive any co-branding alliance as short-term, especially for low-fit alliances. Another explanation is that the conditions were not successfully enough manipulated. In a real-life scenario a longer-term alliance results in repeated exposure of the partnering brands and co-branding alliance, which strengthens the links between the brands in consumers’ categorization structure (Alba,

Hutchinson & Lynch, 1991; Loken & Roedder-John, 1993). Newmeyer & Chatterjee (2013) describe that “while any additional links created by co-branding increases the likelihood of recall, and thereby the consideration of the focal brand, a short-term relationship implies that these links are not as well established, because consumers have had limited opportunity to grasp and internalize inter-brand associations”. This potentially explains why no significant effect was found, as alliance attitudes of participants in this study were measured in a short time-frame. Although it is possible that consumers generally do not consider this information and that there indeed is no moderating effect of alliance duration, it may be interesting to investigate this phenomenon in a more realistic setting over a longer period of time. Therefore, it is suggested to study the role of alliance duration in a longitudinal research setting.

Next to this, as this study was one of the first in which the role of alliance duration on the relationship between fit and alliance attitudes was measured, it may be interesting to

(39)

repeat this study in different contexts. The results of this study are dependent on specific information of the alliance that were used a stimulus material in the experiment. Since the co-branding alliance in the present study are fictive and did not provide detailed information on the actual products, participants had to evaluate the alliance based on limited information and their own imagination. The absence of this information may have caused differences in information processing. Future research could replicate the study in a more realistic setting using actual co-branding alliances and products to see if different results are found.

6. Conclusions

Altogether, this study is an important step in understanding how alliance attitudes are formed, especially in the fashion industry. Empirical evidence is provided for the common claim that careful partner selection is one of the most important steps in effectively performing co-branding strategies. This study aimed to provide insights in what effect perceived fit has on the evaluation of co-brands and what the moderating role of alliance duration is on this relationship in a fashion industry context. The findings show that perceived fit plays a key role in how co-brands are evaluated and demonstrate a positive direct relationship. Higher perceived fit will lead to more positive alliance attitudes. Contrary to expectations both dimensions of perceived fit play an almost equally important role in the studied alliance context. Pioneering steps are undertaken into understanding the overlooked role of one of the dimensions of alliance relationships, alliance duration. No moderating effect of alliance duration on the relationship of fit and alliance attitudes is found in this study. Hereby, this study makes important initials steps in filling this research gap and provides insights and knowledge in underlying processes of consumer attitudes formation.

(40)

References

Aaker, D., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-44.

Ahn, H., & Sung, Y. (2012). A two-dimensional approach to between-partner fit in co-branding evaluations. Journal of Brand Management, 19(5), 414-424.

Ahn, S., Kim, H., & Forney, J. A. (2010). Fashion collaboration or collision? Examining the match-up effect in co-marketing alliances . Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An international Journal, 14(1), 6-20.

Ajzen, I. (2014). Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. 525-548.

Alba, J. W., Hutchinson, J. W., & Lynch, J. G. (1991). Memory and decision making. Handbook of Consumer Behavior, 1-49.

American Marketing Association. (2017). American Marketing Association. (American Marketing Association) Retrieved from AMA:

https://www.ama.org/resources/pages/dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B

Ashton, A. S., & Scott, N. (2011). Hotel restaurant co-branding: the relationship of perceived brand fit with intention to purchase. 17(4), 275-285.

Baumgarth, C. (2004). Evaluations of co-brands and spillover effects: further empirical results. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 115-131.

Bernazzani, S. (2017). 10 Examples of Successful Co-Branding Partnerships (And Why They're So Great). Retrieved from Hubspot: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/best-cobranding-partnerships

Besharat, A., & Langan, R. (2014, February). Towards the formation of consensus in the domain of co-branding: Current findings and future priorities. Journal of Brand Management, 21(2), 112-132.

Blackett, T., & Russel, N. (1999). What is Co-Branding? Journal of Brand Management, Vol.7(3), 161-170.

Burnkrant, R. E., & Rao Unnava, H. (1995). Effects of Self-Referencing on Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 17-26.

Chiambaretto, P., Le Roy, F., & Gurãu, C. (2016). Cooptitive branding: Definition, typology, benefits and risks. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 86-96.

Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955, January). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to Design and Report Experiments.

Geuens, M., & Pecheux, C. (2006). Co-branding in advertising: the issue of product and brand-fit . Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, 1-33. Hayes, A. F. (2012, January). PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed

Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. 1-67.

Helmig, B., Hubr, J.-A., & Leeflang, P. (2008). Co-branding: the state of art. Schmalenbach Business Review, 60, 359-377.

Keller, K. L. (1993, January). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.

Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause–brand alliances. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 509-531. Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C., & Suri, R. (2003). 2+2=5? A framework for using co-branding to

leverage a brand. Journal of Brand Management, 11(1), 35-47.

Levi, L., Grau, S., Kleiser, S., & Warrington, P. (2013). Luxury designers co-branding with mainstream retailers: desirable or dangerous? Texas: Texas Christian University. Liu, F., Li, J., Mizerski, D., & Soh, H. (2012, July). Self-congruity, brand attitude, and brand

When fashion brands hold hands : the effect of perceived fit on the evaluation of co-brands