The interplay between contribution and positioning roles of partner brands in a brand alliance

The interplay between Contribution

and Positioning Roles of partner

brands in a Brand Alliance

Master’s Thesis

MSc in Business Administration

Marketing track

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Amsterdam (UvA)

Student: Ilse Roos

Student ID: 10890238

Supervisor: Drs. R.E.W. Pruppers Submission date: 19 August 2016

Statement of originality

This document is written by Ilse Emilie Roos, 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 creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the

supervision of completion work, not for the contents.

Abstract

Never before has the influence of positioning been applied to the concept of brand alliance evaluation. Firstly, little is known about the role of different partners within an alliance, and in particular their positioning role. This research therefore studied the influence of the Alliance Role of brand alliance partners on the consumer’s Perceived Contribution and on their Positioning Role in an alliance. Results showed that if an alliance is presented as Asymmetrical, the role of Host and Ingredient is also perceived as such by the consumer. Furthermore, our findings showed that respondents allocate

different positioning roles to the brands, where the Host is recognized as the Point of Parity (POP) and the Ingredient as the Point of Difference (POD). Although

not hypothesized, it was interesting to find that even in a Symmetric alliance (brands have equal contribution), respondents tend to perceive one brand as Host (POP) and the other as the Ingredient (POD).

Secondly, this study also looked at the influence of contribution and positioning on the next step after brand alliances: Extension Evaluation. From our results we can conclude that in a brand alliance, the Positioning role of a brand is a stronger driver for positive Extension Evaluation than that brand’s Perceived Contribution. Furthermore, it showed that POD is even a stronger driver than POP. This indicates that it is not about the size of the brand’s contribution in an alliance (perceived contribution), but about the value (positioning role) of a brand’s contribution in the mind of the consumer. According to our findings, the brand that has the smallest contribution in the eyes of the consumer is often recognized as the POD and can therefore benefit most from positive extension evaluation.

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

1.1 Brand Alliances 5

1.1.1 The power of Brand Alliances 5

1.1.2 Consumer’s evaluations of brand alliances 6

1.1.3 The gap: role of positioning in the evaluation of brand alliances 7

1.2 Problem Statement 8

1.2.1 Main research question 8

1.2.2 Research outline 9

1.2.3 Delimitations of study 10

1.3 Contribution 10

1.3.1 Theoretical Contribution 10

1.3.2 Managerial Contribution 11

Chapter 2: Brand Alliances 12

2.1 Defining Brand Alliances 12

2.1.1 Brand Alliances 12

2.2 Main typologies within Brand Alliance literature 13

2.2.1 The Co-branding hierarchy 13

2.3 The role of individual brands within an alliance 15

2.3.1 Asymmetrical Brand Alliances 16

2.3.2 Symmetrical Brand Alliances 16

2.3.2 Contribution of brands within an alliance 17

Chapter 3: Consumer evaluations of Brand Alliances 18

3.1 Brands as an associative network 18

3.2 Direct factors 19

3.2.1 Prior Attitudes & Familiarity of brands 19

3.2.2 The impact of fit 19

3.3 Indirect factors 21

3.3.1 Spill-over effects in brand alliances 21

3.3.2 Feedback effect 22

Chapter 4: Fundamental Positioning Theory for Brand Alliance 23

4.1 Brand Positioning 23

4.1.1 Positioning Roles: POP and POD 23

4.2 Positioning & Brand Alliances 25

4.3 Positioning & Extension Potential 26

Chapter 5: Hypotheses Development 28

5.1 The effect of different Alliance Roles 28

5.1.1 The effect of Alliance Roles on Perceived Contribution 28

5.1.2 The effect of Alliance Roles on Positioning 29

5.2 Extension Evaluation 31

5.2.1 The effect of Perceived Contribution on Extension Evaluation 31 5.2.2 The effect of Positioning Roles on Extension Evaluation 32

5.3 Asymmetrical vs. Symmetrical Brand Alliances 33

5.4 Conceptual Model 34

Chapter 6: Methodology 35

6.1 Research Design 35

6.2 Qualitative pre-test 35

6.2.1 Stimuli Development Qualitative pre-test 36

6.2.2 Results Qualitative pre-test 38

6.3 Quantitative pre-test 39

6.3.1 Structure and design of quantitative pre-test 39

6.3.2 Results of the quantitative pre-test 40

6.3.2 Reliability analysis: Positioning Role (POD/POP) 45

6.4 Adjustments for the main study 46

6.5 Final questionnaire development 47

6.5.1 Main manipulation 48

6.5.2 Dependent Variables and Measures 48

6.5.3 Questionnaire design and structure 49

Chapter 7: Results 51

7.1 Sample characteristics 51

7.2 Reliability and Factor analysis 51

7.2.1 Attitude Towards Alliance 52

7.2.2 Attitude Towards Extension 52

7.2.3 Points of Parity (POP) 53

7.2.4 Points of Difference (POD) 54

7.2.5 Validity of POD and POP 54

7.3 Manipulation checks 55 7.3.1 Brand Familiarity 55 7.3.2 Product fit 57 7.3.3 Brand fit 58 7.3.4 Realism 59 7.4 Hypotheses Testing 60

7.4.1 Alliance Role: Contribution & Dominance 60

7.4.2 Positioning Role: Points of Parity (POP) 65

7.4.3 Positioning Role: Points of Difference (POD) 67

7.4.4 Multiple regression analyses: Attitude towards Extension 70

Chapter 8: Discussion 75

8.1 Discussion of Alliance Roles 75

8.1.1 Effect of Alliance Role on Perceived Contribution 75

8.1.2 Effect of Alliance Role on Positioning Roles 76

8.2 Discussion of Extension Evaluation 78

8.2.1 Effect of Perceived Contribution on Extension Evaluation 78 8.2.2 Effect of Positioning Roles on Extension Evaluation 78 8.2.3 Conclusion of effects on Extension Evaluation 80

8.3 Implications 81 8.3.1 Theoretical Implications 81 8.3.2 Managerial Implications 83 Chapter 9: Conclusion 86 9.1 Summary 86 9.2 Limitations 87

9.3 Suggestions for Future Research 89

References 91

Chapter 1: Introduction

Senseo + Philips, Coca Cola + James Bond, Lays + Heinz: just a few examples of the countless brand alliances that we have seen developing over the past couple of years. It has become increasingly popular for a brand to partner up with another brand in order to stretch their territory by creating new products or gain easier access into new product categories (Desai et al, 2002). Competitive advantages can be created, that otherwise would not be achievable for stand-alone brands. Now, brands worldwide have discovered this opportunity of brand equity leverage as part of their marketing strategy. Because why would you go through the complicated and costly process of creating a new brand image from scratch, when you can also work with brand alliances as a potentially more effective and cheaper alternative to drastically change or supplement the image of your existing brand?

1.1.1 The power of Brand Alliances

A strategic brand alliance can be described as two or more independent brands that are associated with each other to enhance the perceived value of the offering in the mind of the consumer (Ervelles, 2000). According to published numbers of the “Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals” there has been a tenfold increase of brand alliances over the period of 15 years from 1990 to 2005, with a stable growth every since (ASAP, 2005). Brand alliances are popular across many different markets (Norris, 1992). In the non-food sector, Robijn quite recently partnered up with the baby-brand Zwitsal to create a washing detergent with the traditional Zwitsal scent. Mother brand Unilever got

inspired to introduce this product after receiving many requests on the Robijn Facebook page (Bakhuys, 2014). The combination of the qualitative reputation of A-brand Robijn with the distinctive and nostalgic Zwitsal smell turned out a recipe for success:

In the Food sector, Milka is one of the leading brands when it comes to using brand alliances as their marketing strategy. In almost every supermarket, about 90% of the Milka chocolate bars are a result of a co-branding alliance. Milka has partnered up with many brands from different categories (e.g. Lu, Daim and Tuc), but probably their most popular brand alliance is that with the iconic cookie brand Oreo. As a result; the Milka Oreo bar became the best-selling chocolate bar in the Netherlands (Distrifood, 2014). On a more product level, Apple partnered up with Hermès to create a special luxury edition of their popular iWatch. The high quality leather band added a luxury touch to the iWatch. With this alliance, Apple leveraged Hermès luxury associations and was able to stretch their target market.

1.1.2 Consumer’s evaluations of brand alliances

Within academic literature, there are many different typologies and different types of brand alliances that have been described. Although there is not (yet) one generic definition of the different typologies within brand alliances, multiple sources agree that the main distinction is made on the functional contribution that both brands to the alliance (Blackett & Boad, 1999, Desai and Keller, 2002, Kotler & Keller, 2006). In some cases this can be asymmetrical, where one brand is the Host and one the Ingredient. However, when two brands have an equal contribution in an alliance, we can speak of a

symmetrical brand alliance. Further on in this research, this distinction is explained in

more detail. Apart from all the literature on the different typologies, there is also a lot written about how consumers evaluate brand alliances. A lot of attention has been paid on association transfer and what success factors determine if a consumer positively evaluates a brand alliance (Leuthesser et al, 2003). It is clear that there is already a lot known within academic literature about the factors that contribute positive evaluation of brand alliances. However, in order to really grasp exactly how and why brand alliances work, a deeper understanding is needed.

1.1.3 The gap: role of positioning in the evaluation of brand alliances

Existing branding literature has generally been focused on defining the different typologies and describing the different variables and success factors that are known to drive positive consumer evaluations of brand alliances. Interestingly enough, within the concept of brand alliances, there is only very little research that pays attention to the most fundamental part of branding: differentiation in the mind of the consumer. Little is known about the role brand alliance partners play from a positioning point of view: what added value do they bring to the alliance in the eyes of the consumer? This goes beyond the brands’ contribution from a functional point of view; where brands in asymmetrical brand alliance can simply be functionally classified as Host or Ingredient.

This research will focus on aggregating fundamental positioning theory with branding theory, to find out how and to what extent the role of positioning can be applied to the concept of brand alliances. More specifically, this research aims at diving into the consumer’s mind and looking at the influence of positioning on how the consumer evaluates the different roles within a brand alliance. Building on this, this study will also focus on the next step in brand alliance evaluation, namely the extension evaluation. In other words: what is the consumer’s attitude towards the product if it would be produced by this brand on its own after an alliance?

In order to add valuable insights to the brand alliance literature, we will apply basic positioning theory on the topic of brand alliances to illustrate the positioning roles that co-brands can play from a differentiation point-of-view. Keller (2002) identifies the two

main positioning roles as a fundament for successful positioning of a brand: Points of Parity (POP) & Points of Difference (POD). POP refers to the associations that are strong favorable but not unique, while POD refers to associations of being strong, favorable and unique. Both POD and POPs are valuable for the consumer; but we want to know: which positioning role is better in the mind of the consumer and, more importantly, why? And what does this mean for the extension potential of brand alliance partners; would you still buy the product if one partner quits? To find out what partner has the biggest added value in the mind of the consumer and therefore the most positive evaluations towards their extension potential, the positioning roles of the brand should be examined. The main aim of this research is therefore to fill this research gap by finding out what the influence is of positioning on the evaluation of brand’s contribution and extension potential in a brand alliance.

1.2 Problem Statement

From existing literature we know that a brand’s functional contribution role in an alliance can often be seen as a success factor for positive evaluations, since the brand with the highest contribution is often the one with the credible category associations (Keller, 2002). However, in this research we want to highlight the counter-intuitive part of this topic. By applying positioning theory to this concept, it is interesting to see how

positioning roles in an alliance can work also as a success factor for positive evaluations. What if the Ingredient brand (with smallest functional contribution) does fulfill the role of POD? In asymmetrical co-branding, it could be argued that although the POD's contribution from a functional point of view might be small; the added value for consumer might be larger and more important than expected, resulting in positive evaluations. Since there are no expectations, it can also be very interesting to take this concept and apply it to the case of symmetrical co-branding as well, where both brands have “equal” roles in the alliance to see what the effect of positioning is here.

1.2.1 Main research question

By having looked at the research gap in the topic of brand alliance evaluation, the following research question has been formulated;

“What is the influence of the Alliance Role of brand alliance partners on consumers’ Perceived Contribution and on their Positioning Role in an alliance, and subsequently, what are the consequences for Extension Evaluation?

Since little is known about the roles of the different partners within an alliance, and in particular their role as POD or POP, want to know: what is the added value of the alliance partner and how can we measure this? This raises the question: is it better in the mind of the consumer and more importantly: why? Building on this, would the consumer still buy the product if the other alliance partner quits? What determines that?

1.2.2 Research outline

Before we start to test possible relationships between our variables, it is important to provide an extensive literature review of all relevant concepts for this thesis. In order to make the research question more comprehensive, several sub-questions have been generated. In the first chapter “Brand Alliances”, the most important typologies and recent literature on brand alliances will be discussed. Furthermore, focus will be on what already has been written about the role of different alliance partners within the concept of strategic brand alliances from the brand’s perspective.

In the second chapter; “Consumer Evaluation of Brand Alliances”, relevant literature on brand alliance evaluation is discussed, taking into account the most important factors that drive consumer evaluations of brand alliances. Also, we will discuss what is already known about the role of association transfer for the evaluation of a brand alliance.

The last chapter “Positioning”, will build further on the concept of brands as associative networks, by addressing fundamental positioning theory for brand alliances. The concept of positioning roles & their associations is described, with the focus on Points of Parity and Points of Difference. After having covered the essential theory on associations, differentiation and positioning roles, the chapter will continue to apply these theories to the concept of brand alliances and ultimately on the effect on the brand's extension potential.

1.2.3 Delimitations of study

A proper classification of brand alliances types is hard to find, since current literature provide us with different views that are sometimes even contradictory. This research will therefore make a distinction between two main types of co branding: symmetrical & asymmetrical (Ervelles, 2000; Blackett & Boad, 1999). For the purpose of this research, we will only look at these two contexts of brand alliances since they provide an added value, being two opposites and providing us with an extensive frame of reference for this research. When applying the concept of positioning to the evaluation of brand alliances, we will make use of the positioning roles described by Keller (2002) namely Points of Parity and Points of Difference since they cover positioning roles as a fundament for successful positioning of a brand. Our experiment will contain realistic and familiar brands as our stimuli, since we need the brands to be activated in the consumer’s mind before we can test our variables. However, all presented alliances between those brands will be hypothetical, to prevent the interfering of pre-existing associations towards existing alliances with our results. To see if there is an effect of category on our results, three different category contexts will be used: Non-Food, Food and Electronics.

Furthermore, the respondents for our experiment will consist of consumers. Therefore, all outcomes of this research should be interpreted from a consumer’s perspective.

1.3 Contribution

1.3.1 Theoretical Contribution

First of all, literature on brand alliance typologies is very scattered and general accepted typologies still need to be found. Therefore, the first part of this study will provide an extensive overview of all typologies and conclude with two main typologies that were based on existing literature. Furthermore, previous studies have extensively covered the topic of brand alliance evaluation and the role of fit in the success of brand alliances (Lanseng, 2012), but never before has the concept of positioning been included. This research will therefore add to the existing literature by looking at the effect of positioning (in particular POD and POP positioning roles) on well-known concepts in brand alliance

literature. Subsequently, this thesis will add to the theory on how consumers evaluate brand alliances since the study will provide new insights on how the roles of alliance partners are evaluated by consumers (Simonin and Ruth 1998). This research will most likely have valuable updates for the existing extension literature as well, since there has not yet been a study that investigated the effect of a brand’s positioning role on extension evaluation (Desai and Keller, 2002).

1.3.2 Managerial Contribution

Brand alliances are a popular marketing tool nowadays. For brands all over the world it is important to understand exactly how and why brand alliances work, in order to benefit most from them (Rao and Ruekert, 1994). First of all, should alliance partners have symmetrical contribution or asymmetrical contribution? What is the effect on the positioning of the brand? And how can a manager use brand alliances to leverage associations needed for successful extension attitudes? This research will help to add value for marketeers who are contemplating if and how they should us strategic brand alliances as a marketing tool. Our findings will provide them with valuable insights on the role of positioning in the evaluation of brand alliances and subsequently the

evaluation of extensions. Since companies can manipulate the alliance roles within a brand alliance, it can be interesting for them to know what the impact is of these different alliance roles of brand within a brand alliances on the perceived positioning role of consumer and subsequently on the brands extension potential. With this knowledge, they can strategically think about how they want to present the alliance to the consumer, which can be especially of importance when they want to extent that brand after the alliance.

Chapter 2: Brand Alliances

Brand alliances have been around for many years and across technically all product categories and markets. Existing literature distinguishes many different types within the concept of strategic brand alliances, where one form might be only described as slightly different from another form. However, there is neither a single general definition of the term brand alliance nor a universally accepted definition of the different terminologies within the concept of brand alliances. A lot of academic literature has been published defining the broad term brand alliances, where many authors have been using the term “co-branding” and “brand alliances” interchangeably (Blacket and Boad, 1999, Kotler and Keller, 2006, Uggla, 2004). The purpose of this part of the research is to formulate a general definition of the concept of strategic brand alliances and taking away any

misconceptions, while also focusing on formulating the main distinctions in the different typologies within brand alliances in a way that this will be a logical groundwork for the rest of this study.

2.1 Defining Brand Alliances

This section will be focusing on clarifying the term by formulating a definition of “Brand Alliances” first as a broader concept and subsequently define the main typologies within this concept.

2.1.1 Brand Alliances

According to Kotler and Keller (2006), a brand alliance can be described as two or more independent brands that are associated with each other to enhance the perceived value of the offering in the mind of the consumer. Initially, it is another form of association leverage where, just like with brand extensions, one brand leverages existing associations to the other brand (Uggla, 2004). This in line with the definition by Park (1996), who defines brand alliances as “co-branding” where it is a strategy where two or more brands work together to create a separate and unique offering for the consumer. In the article of Ervelles et al. (2000), they define a brand alliance similarly as “the association between

two or more independent brands so that the perceived value of integrated offering is enhanced in the minds of the consumer”.

Amongst all the variations and rather inconsistent definitions of what a brand alliance is, Blacket and Boad (1999) seemed to have found a middle ground. Generally, they define brand alliances as: two or more independent brands that are associated with each other to enhance the perceived value of the offering in the mind of the consumer by creating a new unique market entity, which is in line with the definitions of Ervelles (2000) and Uggla (2004). This definition is also reinforced by Levin & Davis (1996), who states that a brand alliance entails that the two independent brands co-create a product or service, where both brands are visible in the communication towards the consumer. This study will be using the latter definition because of the theoretical reinforcement by other authors and to minimize misconceptions in the rest of this research. All relevant different typologies will be described in the next section.

2.2 Main typologies within Brand Alliance literature

Under the Brand Alliance “umbrella”, there are many different typologies that have been described in existing literature. Although there is a lot of variation and inconsistency in existing literature, several authors have attempted to break down the “richness” of typologies in Brand Alliance literature.

2.2.1. The Co-branding hierarchy

Simon & Ruth (1998) breaks down the broad term brand alliances in two main forms: symbolic and psychical brand alliances. In symbolic brand alliances two brands are presented together only symbolically (e.g. in joint promotions or advertisements) where in the physical brand alliances two brands co-create an actual product and are both presented physically on this product. Washburn et al (2004) reinforce this, by distinguishing between co-branding (physical attributes to a product) and Joint Promotions (symbolic attributes).

Blacket & Boad (1999) have made a more detailed version of this distinction in their brand alliance typologies definitions. According to their hierarchy, there are 4 different typologies within co-branding alliances, which all deliver shared value for the alliance.

The lowest level is “Knowledge co-branding” where the main focus of the brand is to create awareness with the customer base of the partner brand. Two companies might co-operate on marketing/promotional activities, but no new product is introduced, making it a symbolic alliance.

“Value endorsement co-branding” is the second level, where again the brand alliance is symbolic as in the previous type, since no actual product is co-created. The difference is that the aim is not to reach a larger audience, but to leverage associations of the partner brand to create alignment of their brand values in the consumer’s mind.

The third level, “Ingredient Branding”, not only leverages associations of the partner brand, but now the partner brand or “ingredient brand” also adds additional physical value by delivering a (often small) physical component to the (more dominant) host brand. The most dominant brand is always the Host brand, which means that even without the Ingredient brand the product could still exist. An example is the brand

alliance between Milka and Oreo; the actual function of the product (chocolate bar) could still exist if Oreo would quit the alliance. It gives added value but it is not indispensable. The un-balanced division of dominance or contribution in this type of alliance is why the brands are labeled as a “Host” or as an “Ingredient” (Blacket & Boad, 1999). For

example, IBM (Host) has co-branded a personal computer with the help of an Intel chip

(Ingredient) (Whitwell, 2005).

The last and highest level in this hierarchy is “Complementary Competence Branding” where, just as with Ingredient Branding, two brands combine forces to create a physical product with a higher perceived quality and/or performance; but in this case the Alliance Role of both brand within the alliance is (close to) equally distributed. (Blackett and Boad, 1999). In contrast to Ingredient Branding, with Complementary Competence Co-Branding two brands both play a dominant role in the alliance; to the point where they are dependent on each other since the alliance product could not exist without the other partner. For example, in the alliance between Sony and Ericson, both brands had an equal dominant role in the co-branding of the Sony-Ericson phone, since they both brought important physical as well as symbolic components to the alliance. Without one another, this particular product could not exist. Therefore, they are equally complementary to the product and therefore dependent and not replaceable.

2.3. The role of individual brands within an alliance

Based on the hierarchy by Blackett & Boad (1999), this part of the research will focus on the two highest levels of the co-branding hierarchy, mainly because the most important criteria for our research is that the brands co-create a physical product. The main distinction between both types is the role that the individual brands play within the alliance; namely unbalanced (Ingredient Branding) or balanced (Complementary

Competence Branding). As discussed earlier, both Simon & Ruth (1998) and Washburn et al (2004) distinguished between symbolic and physical brand alliances, where the definition of physical brand alliances are in line with the two top levels of Blacket & Boad’s (1999) value hierarchy. Furthermore, since this research will also be looking into the positioning roles of the alliance partner, the second criterion is that both brands must play an essential role in the marketing communication of the co-created product.

Therefore, it is important that the values are shared, meaning that both brands have a significant role and complement each other in the positioning of the brand alliance. Again, only the highest two levels of the hierarchy fulfill these criteria.

2.3.1. Asymmetrical Brand Alliances

An asymmetrical role division within in an alliance means that the one brand plays a significantly more dominant role than the other brand in a brand alliance (Uggla, 2004). According to Ervelles (2000), Asymmetrical co-branding is best defined as Ingredient Branding, where one brand only delivers a small attribute within an alliance. Other authors also refer to this type of brand alliance as “Ingredient Branding” (Blackett & Boad, 1999; Uggla, 2004), however there is not a consistent definition available that labels the role of the partners in an Ingredient Branding alliance. Several labels can be found in recent literature, where brand alliance partners in an asymmetric co-branding alliance are referred to as Header/Modifier (Park et al, 1996), others as Leader/Partner (Uggla, 2004) or Primary/Secondary (Hillyer and Tikoo, 1995) or some refer to it as Host/Ingredient (Blackett & Boad, 1999; Uggla, 2004; Desai and Keller, 2002; Keller, 2003). Because there is not one universally definition in existing brand alliance literature, this research will use the term “Asymmetrical Brand Alliance” with reference to the unbalanced alliance roles of two brands in an asymmetrical alliance. Furthermore, to indicate what brand does what, this study will use the most frequent re-occuring labels of “Host brand” (the partner with the largest role) and “Ingredient Brand” (the partner with the smallest role).

2.3.2. Symmetrical Brand Alliances

Symmetrical co-branding refers to the type of alliance where the two brands have an equally dominant role within the alliance. Blackett and Boad (1999) define Symmetrical alliances as “Complementary Competence Co-branding” as the highest level of shared value creation, where the roles of both brands are divided as “equally dominant”. The value of both brands in an asymmetrical alliance are functionally dependent and crucial for the outcome of the end product. Although most brand alliances can often be defined as asymmetrical, the role division in the case of Complementary Competence co-branding is usually symmetrical (Ervelles, 2000). In a symmetrical interpretation, consumers fuse the two concepts and both are given equal status (Goldvarg and Glucksberg 1998). Since there is not one main accepted definition that describes the “equally dominant” or “balanced” roles of two brands in an alliance, this research will

use the overarching term “Symmetrical Brand Alliance” as mentioned in several articles (Ervelles, 2000; Blackett & Boad, 1999, Goldvarg and Glucksberg, 1998)

2.3.3 Contribution of brands within an alliance

From extensive literature review we now know that brands can take on very different roles in a brand alliances. To conclude, in our research we are mainly interested in the brand alliances on a physical level, with the main distinction being “Asymmetrical” (unequal contribution; one brand is Host and one brand is Ingredient) or “Symmetrical alliances” (equal contribution, brands have equal roles). The rest of this study will built on this by examining the influence of the Alliance Roles on contribution and the positioning role of brands, with finally also investigating the link with extension potential.

Chapter 3: Consumer evaluations of Brand Alliances

In existing literature, various direct factors have been described to influence the

evaluations of brand alliance, such as perceived quality, brand equity, brand awareness and the importance of fit. These variables have been linked to positively influencing the consumer’s perception of the brand alliance, providing both brands with benefits. However, at a deeper level, related brands in brand alliances might also experience indirect association transfer in the form of positive or negative spillover of brand equity and feedback effects for the mother brand. Here, the associations with the two individual brands can affect the way the consumer’s attitude towards the post alliance, even after the alliances has taken place. After explaining the concept of brands as an associative

network, this section of the research will focus on the direct and indirect factors described in existing literature that can influence the consumer’s evaluation process of brand

alliances and the role of both brands in an alliance.

3.1 Brands as an associative network

In order to understand how consumers evaluate brand alliances, it is important to first dive into what happens when a brand is activated in the consumer’s mind. To start with, a brand is built up out of a broad set of associations, consisting out of all kinds of

attributes, benefits and attitudes that consumers link to the brand after marketing

exposure, personal interaction and direct experiences with the brand (Meyvis, 2004). The associative network in the mind of the consumer consists out of several connected nodes (with variations in strength) where associations are stored in their memory (Anderson, 1983). In a brands associative network, the brand node can be seen as the “core” node in a consumer’s mind, which is connect to all other nodes where associations are stored (Matlin, 2009). In the concept of a brand alliance, association transfer happens from- and to both brands, creating a complementary and more extensive set of associations in the consumer’s mind (Baumgarth, 2004). This concept of association transfer is the fundamental part of consumer’s evaluation of a brand alliance.

3.2 Direct factors

In a brand alliance, the consumer’s attitude towards the brand alliance can be influenced by several direct factors that are formed out of prior attitudes towards both brands (pre-alliance) as well as non-prior attitudes (during (pre-alliance).

3.2.1. Prior Attitudes & Familiarity of brands

Firstly, consumers evaluate brand alliances based on pre-existing attitudes towards both alliance partners (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). A seperate set of associations for each brand that has been formed prior to the alliance, and has an direct influence on the evaluation of the brand alliance. However, pre-existing associations are only formed if the brands are familiar enough for the consumer.

In the concept of brand alliance evaluation, brand awareness has proven to have a

moderating effect on the perceived brand fit (Aaker & Keller, 1990). If one partner has a significant high(er) brand familiarity, consumers will perceive the brand as having a better fit with the product which in turn will have an positive effect for the evaluation of the brand alliance. (Geuens et al., 2007). On the other hand, if brand familiarity of one of the alliance partners is relatively low, the effect of brand fit on the attitudes towards the evaluation of the brand alliance will be smaller. Also, relatively more familiar brands create a more broad association set in the consumer’s mind, resulting in a more positive attitude towards the brand alliance (Tasci and Guilliet, 2011).

3.2.2. The impact of fit

According to Uggla (2004), fit between two brands or between a brand and a category refers to the level of psychological congruency. Dwivedi et al. (2010) have talked extensively on the concept of fit in the evaluation of brand extensions, stating that brand extensions rely on fit for success in a new market. In many cases, without the

combination with fit, brand quality perceptions is not always enough for consumers to evaluate an alliance as succesful. Therefore, the concept of fit can also be seen as one of the successfactors in evalution of brand alliances (Uggla, 2004). The generally accepted paradigm is that the perceived fit of a brand alliance increases with the increase of similar

associations. (Simonin & Ruth, 2008). Fit results in minimilizing the negative associations of the individiual brands, while maximize the benefit associations of the brands, creating a positive effect on the attitudes towards the brand alliance (Keller, 2008). In existing branding literature, two main concepts of brand alliance fit have been described: brand fit and category fit (Simonin & Ruth, 1998.; Baumgarth, 2004.; Uggla, 2004.)

- Brand fit

Brand fit, or image fit, refers to the non-product related fit between the brand value associations network of both brands. Lanseng et al (2012) describe this type of fit as a consistency between the two brand concepts, where brand concepts are defined as category structures in the mind of the consumer. A brand alliance is likely to be more positively evaluated when consumers perceive the brand’s images as consistent. Brand fit is not limited to only a functional level (perceived similiarity between brands) but can also work on a more abstract level (perceived brand concept consistency). In order for consumers to create a positive attitude towards a brand alliance, it must create a “feeling” of fit rather than fit only based on actual similiarity. The most important succesfactor in brand fit is complementarity, not only similiarity (Simonin et al, 1998). To conclude, if consumers see the overall brand fit, taking into account the complementarity and similiarity between the two brands, they tend to evaluate the alliance more positively. (Park et al, 1996)

- Category fit

In the concept of brand alliances, category fit or product fit is based on the perceived fit between the main product category associations of the two partner brands. This type of fit can be defined as the similiarity or complementarity between the two product categories of the two brands (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). In the case of a more symmetrical alliance where two brands co-create a new product in a new category, the consumer’s evaluation of the brand alliance is based on the category fit between the two individual brands (Uggla, 2004). According to Meyvis et al. (2004), category fit impacts accesibile and diagnostic benefit associations, resulting in a more positive evalution from the consumer.

3.3. Indirect factors

Next to the direct factors than can influence consumer’s evaluations of brand alliances, several indirect factors can play a role as well. Positive as well as negative associations can be transfered indirectly even after the alliance has taken place. In the following section these so called post-alliance “spill-over” and “feedback” effects will be discussed.

3.3.1 Spill-over effects in brand alliances

Attitudes towards the brand alliance can influence the attitudes towards the individual partner brands post alliance. Lei et al. (2008) describe this spill-over effect as exposure to external associations (Brand A being associatiated with Brand B) which in turn can update the consumer’s associative network and have an influence on how the alliance is evaluated. Spill-over effects describe the consumer’s perceived relatedness of one brand to another, where in the concept of brand alliances, this perceived relatedness seems to be stronger. For example, a traditional biscuit brand can make use of creating an alliance with a partner brand known for its high quality chocolate, to enjoy the spillover effect of the unique quality association that consumers have with the chocolate brand, even after the brand alliance. This spillover effect increases the level of product complementarity which can help the co-branded product to be more positively evaluated by consumers (Uggla, 2004).

Brand familiarity also plays a role in the concept of spill-over effects. Helmig et al. (2008) have stated that when there is a big difference between the degree of brand

awareness between the two alliance partners, there is a inverse relationship where the less familiar brand experiences strong spill-over effects from his familiar partner. However, the effect on the attitude towards the brand alliance is not strongly influenced by this spill-over effect (Simonin & Ruth, 1998)

Based upon the concept of association transfer, co-branding arrangements can create long lasting image-transfer from one brand to the other (Uggla, 2004). One example is that of the alliance between Haagen-Dazs and Baileys. In this particular case, the partner brand (Baileys) added strong credibility associations to the alliance, which results in creating

long-term image transfer for the leader brand (Haagen-Dazs). The main reason for brands to participate in a brand alliance may not only be just because short-term (they want to sell more) but more than ever it seems that brands have discovered cobranding (with its associations transfer and spill-over effects) as a way to build their brand equity on the long term.

3.3.2. Feedback effects

From brand associatoins literature we know that the most succesful brand alliances are the ones that generate diagnostic and accesible associations (Dwivedi, 2010). Feedback effects occur when associations are transferred indirectly from the brand alliance towards the parent brands. This assumption is built on the fact that parent brand associations that are favorable and accesible, are easier transferred towards the brand alliance (Meyvis, 2004). According to Simonin and Ruth (1998), feedback effects do not necessarily affect both partners equally. Their research shows that brands who have a minor role in an alliance (seen as Ingredient brand), tend to benefit more from association transfer from both the other brand (spill-over) as well as the co-branded alliance (feedback). Simonin and Ruth (1998) take this even further by saying that associations from parent to

extension category also not happens equally, and that the success of a possible extension is likely to depend on the Alliance Role that brand had.

We will elaborate more on association transfer in the Positioning chapter of the literature review, where we will focus on the effect of post-alliance association transfer and its implications for a brand’s extension potential.

Chapter 4: Fundamental Positioning Theory for Brand Alliances

As described in the previous chapters, brands are associative networks where associations are transferred and constanty updated in the consumer’s mind. As a result, association transfer has effect on the evaluation process of alliances (chapter 2), as well as on the feedback & spillover effects for the mother brand (chapter 3). Furthermore, associative thinking is also the fundament of basic positioning theory. In order to locate a distinct place in the mind of the target consumer, a competitive value proposition must be created which consists out a set of positive brand associations (Leuthesser et al., 2003). In this section, we will elaborate more on this by addressing the fundamental concepts within brand positioning literature and how we can relate this to the main topic of brand alliances.

4.1. Brand Positioning

To successfully position a brand relative to its competition, it is important to take the necessary steps to differentiate the brand in the consumer’s mind. By positioning a certain offering and an image, brands try to occupy a distinctive place in the mind of the consumer. According to the theory by Suppehellen (2000), associations are the building block for brand positioning. Furthermore, Keller et al. (2002) stated that in order to be succesful in your brand positioning, there are three important questions (or steps) you need to consider for your brand. First of all, there must be a well defined and

communicated frame of reference, which makes it clear for consumers what the goal of the brand is. This is crucial in order to create the right brand associations with your target market, which brings us to the next essential step: determining the positioning role(s) of your brand. More explicitly, it is about determining the Points of Parity (POP) and Points of Difference (POD) associations in the consumer’s mind. In other words; what

association function as what? In this section we will dive further in to the concept of positioning roles and associations (focusing on POP and POD) as a crucial part of a brand’s positioning.

4.1.1 Positioning Roles: POP and POD

As a consequence of the concept of brand as associative networks, the positioning role of a brand plays a crucial part of the creation of a competitive value proposition. The

following section will compare and contrast the two main (complementary) positioning roles that we know from existing positioning and differentiation literature: Points of Parity (POP) and Points of Difference (POD).

- Points of Parity (POP)

Points of Parity are the important features that brands have in common with competitors in the same frame of reference. These features create minimum requirement associations in the consumer’s mind, making it a typical product offering in a certain category. In other words, the brand becomes part of the consumer’s consideration set: if they were to buy a certain product, these brands will be considered as one of the options to choose from. Points of Parity associations can be defined as strong, favorable but not unique (Keller, 1993). POPs are not seen as unique since the associations are shared with other competitors and not unique to the brand. However, this does not necessarily suggest that not being unique is a disadvantage. POPs actually strengthen the category assocations of a brand, making them legitimate and a credible player in a particular category (Mc lnnis and Nakimoto, 1991).

Keller (2013) defined three different types of POPs. First of all, the “category POP” can be used to establish category membership. This POP is very important especially for a brand that is looking into extension to new categories; since it means that the minimum requirements of that category should be met. For example, Dove is famous for their gentle and moisturizing personal care products. When they wanted to stretch their brand to deodorants, they first had to establish the “category POP” of being able to make a deodorant that stops unwanted odors. Secondly, there is the “correlation POP”, which is necessary when a brand has to cope with two negatively correlating associations (e.g. “super cheap” and “high quality”). The last type of POP is “competitive POP”; which refers to the POPs that are established to compete with PODs of competitors in the market.

- Points of Difference (POD)

After POPs, Points of Difference are the next crucial part of succesful brand positioning (Keller, 2002). In contrast to POPs, PODs are the associations that are strong, favorable and unique; the types of associations that makes a brand significantly different from their competitors. These differentiating associations are the benefits which are unique to the brand and which make the brand memorable for consumers. Keller (2002) has established two criteria for PODs in order to be really succesful. First of all, the POD should be desirable, meaning that the unique associations are both relevant and believable for the consumer. Second of all, the POD should be deliverable, meaning that it must be feasible for the brand to deliver on the POD claim.

Keeping in mind the importance of the combination of both PODs ánd POPs to succesfully position a brand (Keller, 2013), it can be easy to overvalue the power of Points of Difference and to undervalue the power of the Points of Parity. Subsequently, the more innovative a brand or product is (high POD), the harder it is to meet the minimum requirements of the POPs in a consumer’s mind (Mc lnnis and Nakimoto, 1991). Furthermore, it is important to reasses a brand’s POD’s once in a while, since we have seen in the previous section that over time, former PODs can turn into competitive POPs. This happens when the POD is also being copied by (new) competitors, making the (once unique) association a minimum requirement in the category rather than a benefit association that is unique to your brand.

4.2 Positioning & Brand Alliances

After having covered the essential theory on associations, differentiations and positioning roles, it is interesting to apply this to the concept of brand alliances. According to Keller (2002), succesful brands consists of the right associations creating the right brand

knowledge and image in the mind of the consumer. This consists of associations formed by each brand as well as associations formed from each product, creating association transfer in the form of spillover & feedback effects which were described in chapter 3. In a brand alliance, two (or more) brands join forces and capatalize on the strengths of each contributing partner (Leuthesser et al.,2003). Engaging in a brand alliance strategy is

therefore actually a form of positioning, since it updates a brand’s associative network and creates additional value for the consumer that the brand would not be able to achieve on its own (Helmig et al, 2008).

Staying in the concept of POD and POP associations, we often see brands bringing very different associations and benefits to an alliance. In many brand alliances, one brand delivers the function of the POP and is seen as the “acceptable” brand while the other brand delivers the function of the POD and can be seen as the “preferred” brand. This shows that a brand alliance is an effecting way of positioning a new product succesfully, as a “total package” of an established frame of reference, POP’s and POD’s are easier to obtain by two brands than by one brand alone (Leuthesser et al.,2003).

In Asymmetrical brand alliances, the alliance role of the two brands is very different. We know from existing literature on brand alliances (chapter 2) that we have a “Host” and an “Ingredient” brand in an asymmetrical alliance. The Host brand is the brand with the biggest contribution and often seen as the category driver; making the product one of the credible options for the consumer. Furthermore, the Ingredient brand is often the brand that delivers the smallest contribution; but which does bring the differentiating factor to the alliance. Interestingly, this role division is very similar to that of POPs and PODs which were discussed before. No literature can be found to provide strong evidence for this however.

4.3 Positioning & Extension Potential

Basic positioning theory also applies for brand extensions, where a brand can use the right positioning techniques to gain the right associations, and therefore to succesfully extend the brand into a new category. Suprisingly, not much is known about the effect of positioning roles in brand alliances on the consumer’s attitude towards extensions. What we do know however, is that positioning roles (PODs and POPs) can play a big part in developing the right associations that are needed for succes in a new category (Keller, 2012). Having the relevant POPs is important for a brand to be seen as a credible member of the new category; while compelling PODs give the distinctive feature to the extension

which makes the product unique and of added benefit for the consumer.

Existing literature tells us that establishing POP associations for an extension in an unkown category is even more important than establishing the POD (Dwivedi et al., 2010). This is built on the fact that extension succes is mainly based on whether the extension is a good fit with the new category (Park et al., 1991) and thus first needs the relevant and credible category POPs. For example, when the brand Dove (known for their moisturising ingredients) decided to extent to a dishwashing product, sales turned out to be dissapointing. Here, Dove focused too much on their differentiating POD associations (namely the moisturizing factor) but not enough on their category POP associations: getting the cleaning job done (Keller, 2012). This example shows that, although POD is very important to differentiate your brand in the mind of the consumer, first your POP’s have to be established to make the brand relevant in the new category.

Although there is not much research about this, it is presumed that the POD positioning role could also be a determined for a succesful category extension and therefore a positive attitude towards the extension, since POPs are related to only the minimum requirement to enter a new category. Nowadays, POPs are not always enough to win over a place in the consumer’s consideration set, since consumers often assume the presence of category membership is already there (Keller, 2003). Concluding, in order to achieve positive evaluation towards the extension, both relevant POPs and compellling PODs are needed for extension success (Keller, 2012).

When including the concept of brand alliances to this topic, the theory of association spill-over (chapter 3) tells us that choosing the right strategic alliance partner can update your own brand’s association set (with either PODs or POPs) which can make your brand more succesful when extending to a new category (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). This

indicates that the different positioning roles of brands in a brand alliance could contribute towards a positive evaluation of potential brand extension. Further on in this research, the effect of different positioning roles on extension potential after a brand alliance will be investigated to hopefully add valueable information to the existing literature.

Chapter 5: Hypotheses Development

From the literature discussed in the previous chapters, we have seen that a lot has already been written on brand alliances and on the consumer’s evaluation process of brand alliances. However, there seems to be a gap in the literature on brand alliance evaluation (and subsequently extension evaluation), namely, the role of positioning. Although a lot has been written on brand positioning and positioning roles, which is discussed in chapter 4, it has not been examined what role positioning plays in the evaluation of brand alliance roles and subsequently what this means for the brand’s extension evaluation. Findings from both the literature review as well as the empirical research will help to answer the main research question:

“What is the influence of the Alliance Role of brand alliance partners on consumers’ Perceived Contribution and on their Positioning Role in an alliance, and subsequently, what are the consequences for Extension Evaluation?

5.1 The effect of different Alliance Roles

The first part of the research will investigate what the effect is of different alliance roles firstly on the contribution role of each partner, and secondly on the positioning role of each partner. In other words, what are the consequences of manipulating the Alliance Role of a brand (Host or Ingredient) in terms of contribution and positioning?

5.1.1. The effect of Alliance Roles on Perceived Contribution

Several authors have studied the roles that different brands play within a brand alliance. From chapter 2 we can conclude that there are two main types of brand alliances, based on their different roles in the alliance: Asymmetric and Symmetric brand alliances

(Blackett & Boad, 1999). The difference between both is the “Alliance Role” that the two brands play, which refers to the functional contribution that brands bring to the alliance. In an asymmetric alliance, the alliances roles are distributed not equally, since one brand

fulfills the role of the “Host” (which often is the category driver with the biggest functional contribution) and the other brand the “Ingredient” (often functions as only a small psychical component in the alliance). (Blackett & Boad, 1999).

Little is known about how consumers evaluate the Alliance Role of brand alliance partners. So far previous studies have not been able to provide a clear distinction in how asymmetry in brand alliances can be linked to contribution (Uggla, 2002). However, other literature does suggest that consumers perceive the alliance role based on their total share of performance towards the final product (Washburn et al., 2004). In their study, they find that the Host brand is perceived as the alliance role with the highest share of performance towards the final product and the Ingredient brand with the lowest

performance. Furthermore, Venkatesh and Mahajan (1997) study found that the Alliance Roles in brand alliances are evaluated by distributing perceived value amongst both partners, where the Host brand is perceived as more valuable than the Ingredient. Building on this, Park et al (1996) and Uggla (2004) found that in an asymmetrical alliance, consumers perceive the Host brand as more dominating than the Ingredient brand. Although they talk about performance, value and dominance respectively, and not about contribution specifically, these findings do tell us that the Host brand is seen as the brand with the highest value, highest performance and most dominant, and therefore this suggest that the Host brand can be perceived as the brand a larger contribution than the ingredient brand. Based on this academic back up, we are confident to formulate our first hypothesis, which tests the effect of Alliance Type on Contribution, by measuring this using “Perceived Contribution” by the consumer:

H1: In an Asymmetric brand alliance, the Perceived Contribution of the Host brand in the alliance is higher than the Perceived Contribution of the Ingredient brand.

5.1.2 The effect of Alliance Roles on Positioning

In order to find an answer to our main research question, our second objective is to

determine if there is indeed a difference between the perceived Positioning Role of a Host brand and an Ingredient brand in an asymmetrical alliance.

In his study, Uggla (2004) talks specifically about the role of the Host and the Ingredient in an asymmetric alliance. In his description of what a Host brand is, he defines it as the brand that is the product category driver as well as the primary brand associated to the alliance. Looking into existing literature on positioning roles we find that the POP fulfills the role of category drives and consists of the relevant associations in order to conquer a place in the consumer’s consideration set (Keller, 2012). Building on this, other research further suggests that the POP is actually the association that strengthens the category associations of a brand, making them a legitimate and credible player in a particular category (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Mc Innis and Nakimoto, 1991). If we combine these two findings, there is reason to believe that the Host brand scores higher on the associations that define POP and therefore it is hypothesized that the Host brand scores higher on POP than the Ingredient brand.

H2a: In an Asymmetric brand alliance, the Alliance Role “Host” is more strongly associated with offering the Point of Parity in a brand alliance than the Alliance Role “Ingredient”.

In his definition of the roles within an asymmetrical alliance, Uggla (2004) defined the Ingredient brand as being the brand that delivers a specific attribute within a certain category. Other studies find that the Ingredient, or “Modifier” is actually the attribute that modifies the meaning and is the most important differentiating factor (Park et al, 1996). In turn, looking at the definitions of POD, authors state that the POD is the differentiating attribute that is known for creating distinctive value in a particular category, by being strong, favorable and unique (Keller, 2002). When putting these two findings together, this would mean that the Ingredient brand scores higher on POD associations and therefore there is reason to believe that the Ingredient brand will score higher on POD than the Host brand. Based on this line of reasoning, the following hypotheses has been formulated:

H2b: In an Asymmetric brand alliance, the Alliance Role “Ingredient” is more strongly associated with offering the Point of Difference in a brand alliance than the Alliance Role “Host”.

5.2 Extension Evaluation

In the first part of our study, we will look at the effects of the different roles within brand alliances. Subsequently, in the second part of our research, we are interested in what these different roles mean for the consumer’s Extension Evaluation after an alliance.

5.2.1 The effect of Perceived Contribution on Extension Evaluation

From literature on brand architectures we have seen that brands from the same brand portfolio can serve different roles to when linked to one product. In brand architecture, when two brands are involved, there is always one brand that takes on the main “Driver Role” (Aaker et al, 2000). A brand with a dominant Driver Role is the brand that people feel they are mainly buying. This brand is the driver for the consumer’s (purchase) decision and use experience (Aaker, 2009). Based on this, it could be concluded that in brand architecture, the brand with the most dominant driver role has the biggest influence on consumer’s attitude.

What we find in brand alliance literature is that brands also play different roles in driving consumers’ attitude. Park et al (1996) found that in an alliance, consumers perceive one brand significantly more dominant than the other partner. Washburn (2004) build on this, stating that in a brand alliance one brand is the “reason to buy” for consumers. This shows that consumers also allocate a driver role towards a brand in an alliance as well. Since we know from brand architecture that the brand with the driver role influences consumer’s attitude and purchase intention (Aaker, 2009), it is presumed that this can also be applied to the topic of brand alliances. Based on this, the following hypotheses has been formulated:

H3: In an Aymmetric Brand Alliance, the Perceived Contribution of a brand has a positive effect on the Evaluation of Extension of that brand

5.2.2 The effect of Positioning Roles on Extension Evaluation

According to Keller (2002), POD associations are strong, favorable and unique. The POD delivers the differentiating associations that give consumers a reason to buy that certain product over other alternatives. This is supported by Romuniak et al (2007) who found that differentiating elements are needed in order for a brand to stand out to

consumers. However, in terms of extension evaluation, POD associations are not enough. In order to obtain a place in the consumer’s consideration set to make a brand part of the options; POP associations are also needed (Keller et al, 2012). This would implicate that a POD brand would not be successful in extending their brand. However, when a POD brand participates in a brand alliance it’s a whole different story.

In a brand alliance the theory of association transfer applies (Simonin & Ruth, 1998), where brands in an alliance update their association set by leveraging associations from the product (feedback) as well as from each other (spill-over). This would mean that a POD brand is able to leverage the necessary POP associations in order to receive positive extension evaluation. On a deeper level, Simonin & Ruth (1998) also showed that this association spill-over effect between brands in an alliance is not distributed equally. Meyvis (2004) support their findings by stating that brands with the minor role in an alliance tend to benefit more from association transfer (spill-over) than the more

dominant brand. Since PODs are associated with delivering the smallest attribute (Keller, 2002), this would mean that PODs have more to gain in terms of spill-over than POPs. Concluding, this indicates that in a brand alliance, PODs (who already have the necessary differentiating associations) can benefit from spill-over in the form of category

associations from the POP brand, and can therefore expect positive extension evaluations.

H4a: In a brand alliance, the Points of Difference –score of a brand has a positive effect on the Attitude towards Extension

Furthermore, according to Aaker & Keller (1990) a brand’s extension evaluation is mainly based on the right category associations. This was supported by Park et al (1991), who found that positive extension evaluation is based on whether the brand has the right associations to be perceived as a good fit with the category. According to Meyvis et al. (2004), category fit impacts accesibile and diagnostic benefit associations, resulting in a more positive evaluation from the consumer. Furthermore, positioning literature tells us that POP associations make a brand credible, relevant, and legitimate. Mc Innis and Nakimoto (1991) build on this, stating that POPs actually strengthen the category assocations of a brand, making them a legitimate and a credible player in a particular category. Since POPs are known for having category associations, and category

associations in turn are a driver for positive extension evalution, the following hypothesis has been formulated:

H4b: In a brand alliance, the Points of Parity –score of a brand has a positive effect on the Attitude towards Extension

Concluding, while research on association transfer suggests that the POD brand is likely to have a positive extension evaluation after a brand alliance, the brand with the POP role presumably also has the right category associations in order to receive a positive

extension evaluation. In this study, it is interesting to find out if there is indeed a

relationship with both and if so, to find out which positioning role is more important for extension evaluation in the eyes of the consumer.

5.3 Asymmetrical vs. Symmetrical Brand Alliances

The first part of our hypotheses (1, 2a & 2b) in this research has been based only on the un-equal role divisions that we find in asymmetrical brand alliances. However, what would also be very interesting to look at, is to see what the difference in Alliance Role effects are if we apply this to Symmetrical brand alliances. In Symmetrical brand

alliance, there is no Host or an Ingredient, since the Alliance Roles are balanced amongst both partners (Blacket & Boad, 1999). Formally both roles are equal, but we are curious to find out if there is a difference in the Perceived Contribution or Positioning Roles of

both brands. No literature can be found to predict any outcomes about this, however we did want to take the results into account in this research to find out how the effects are different for Perceived Contribution, POP score and POD score for the Asymmetrical alliance versus the Symmetrical alliance so the interaction effect of Symmetry has been included in the conceptual model (see below).

5.4 Conceptual Model

Based on the hypotheses formulated, the following model displays the theoretical

framework of this research, where the + or – refers to the difference in scores between the Host and the Ingredient (“+” Host scores higher than Ingredient, “-” Ingredient scores higher than Host.

Chapter 6: Methodology

An deductive research approach was used for this thesis, since many theory can be found on consumer behaviour and branding literature on the topic of brand alliances, evaluation of brand alliances and brand positioning. The conceptual model and hypotheses have been based on existing literature from prior studies. An experimental research design has been used to test these hypotheses, since it gives the opportunity to manipulate variables to test the effects on different groups.

With the final research, the main aim is to test the effect of different Symmetry situations (Asymmetry or Symmetry) on Perceived Alliance Role, Positioning Role and ultimately the Attitude towards Extension of a brand. To gather the necessary data for this

experiment in a relatively short time period, a questionnaire was used. Since the questionnaire was distributed online, respondents could not be monitored, which could have an effect on the reliability of the results. To minimize the subject errors and effect on reliability of the final questionnaire; a qualitative as well as a quantitative pre-test was performed.

6.2 Qualitative pre-test

One of the most important components of the final questionnaire is the development of the right stimuli to ensure succesful manipulations. Our main manipulation is the role of the brands in the Alliance: does a brand indeed fulfill the host or ingredient role

(asymmetrical) or neither one of does (symmetric)? In order to a make sure the stimuli are perceived as intendent by the respondents; several requirements have to be taken into account. After formulating the requirements of our stimuli, a qualitative pre-test was performed to develop the stimuli according these requirements. In this research, the main stimuli are the six brand alliances, consisting out of 2 brands each. In the two symmetry situations the brands stayed the same but the co-branded product changed, as their contribution to the alliance changed (Asymmetric vs Symmetric). Our experiment will contain realistic and familiar brands as our stimuli, since we need the brands to be