Master Thesis
Aydin Basoluk – 10398058
The influence of the visual presentation of partner brands on
partner brand contribution and attitude towards the alliance
University of Amsterdam
2015-2016
MSc. in Business Administration
Marketing Track
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Aydin Basoluk, 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.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: BRAND ALLIANCES ... 1
1.2 SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION: HOW TO PRESENT BRAND ALLIANCES ... 2
1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION ... 3 1.3.1 Problem Statement ... 3 1.3.2 Delimitations of the research ... 4 1.4 CONTRIBUTION ... 4 1.4.1 Theoretical Contributions ... 4 1.4.2 Managerial Contributions ... 5 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH ... 6 2. BRAND ALLIANCES ... 7
2.1 DEFINITIONS OF BRAND ALLIANCES ... 7
2.2 TYPES OF BRAND ALLIANCES ... 8
2.3 CONSUMER EVALUATION OF BRAND ALLIANCES ... 9
2.3.1 Evaluation Through Category-Based Processing ... 10
2.3.2 Evaluation Through Piecemeal Processing ... 11
2.3.3 Evaluation Through Conceptual Combination ... 13
3. BRAND DOMINANCE IN AN ALLIANCE PRODUCT ... 15
3.1 DOMINANCE RESULTING FROM MEMORY-BASED JUDGMENTS ... 15
3.2 DOMINANCE RESULTING FROM STIMULUS-BASED JUDGMENTS ... 17
3.3 DOMINANCE IN BRAND ARCHITECTURE ... 20
4. PRODUCT AND PACKAGE APPEARANCE ... 22
4.1 COLOR ... 23
4.2 SHAPE ... 25
5. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ... 28
5.1 HYPOTHESES FOR PARTNER BRAND CONTRIBUTION TO ALLIANCE ... 28
5.1.1 Brand Order ... 28
5.1.2 Visual Dominance ... 29
5.1.3 Product Category Dominance ... 30
5.2 HYPOTHESES FOR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ALLIANCE ... 32
6. METHODOLOGY ... 36
6.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 36
6.2 PRETEST ... 37
6.2.1 Qualitative Pretest: Stimuli Selection and Development ... 38
6.2.2 Quantitative Pretest: ... 43
6.3 RESULTS OF THE QUANTITATIVE PRETEST: ... 43
6.3.1 Manipulation Check for PCD: Context 1 ... 44
6.3.2 Manipulation Check for PCD: Context 2 ... 47
6.3.4 Manipulation Check for VD: Context 1 ... 49
6.3.5 Manipulation Check for VD: Context 2 ... 52
6.4 ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE MAIN STUDY ... 53
6.5 MAIN STUDY ... 54 6.5.1 Dependent Variables and Measures ... 54 6.5.2 Development of the Main Questionnaire ... 55 7. RESULTS ... 59 7.1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: ... 59 7.1 CONTROL VARIABLES ... 62
7.2 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ... 64 7.3 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR PCD ... 64 7.3.1 Manipulation Check for PCD: A separate Analysis per Context ... 66 7.4 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR VD ... 72 7.4.1 Manipulation Check for VD: A separate Analysis per Context ... 74 7.5 HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... 80 7.5.1 Partner Brand Contribution ... 80 7.5.2 Attitude towards the Alliance ... 90 8. DISCUSSION ... 95
8.2 DISCUSSION OF PARTNER BRAND CONTRIBUTION ... 95
8.3 DISCUSSION OF ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ALLIANCE ... 97
8.4 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 100
9 CONCLUSIONS ... 103
9.1 SUMMARY ... 103
9.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ... 105
9.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ... 107
REFERENCES ... 109
APPENDIX ... 115
APPENDIX 1 ... 116
1.1 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR PCD: CONTEXT 1 ... 116
1.2 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR PCD: CONTEXT 2 ... 118
1.3 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR VD: CONTEXT 1 ... 121
1.4 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR VD: CONTEXT 2 ... 124
APPENDIX 2 ... 127 CONTROL VARIABLES: ... 127 2.1 Attitude ... 127 2.2 Familiarity ... 127 2.3 Category Attitude ... 128 2.4 Realistic ... 129 APPENDIX 3 ... 130 3.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ... 130 APPENDIX 4 ... 132 4.1 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR PCD ... 132
4.2 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR PCD: A SEPARATE ANALYSIS PER CONTEXT ... 136
4.3 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR VD ... 143
4.4 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR VD: A SEPARATE ANALYSIS PER CONTEXT ... 150
APPENDIX 5 ... 156
5.1 DV: CONTRIBUTION100 BRAND A CONTEXT 1, 2 ... 156
5.2 DV: CONTRIBUTION7LIKERT BRAND A CONTEXT 1, 2 ... 161
5.3 DV: ATTITUDE CONTEXT 1, 2 ... 167
APPENDIX 6 ... 171
6.1 PRETEST SURVEY ... 171
1. Introduction
1.1 General Introduction: Brand Alliances
The consumers of the 21st century are exposed to more brands than ever before.
Today, we can witness not only the development of this increased brand exposure but also the development of the manner in which this takes place. Brand managers today are not attempting to influence consumers’ brand knowledge by means of exposing them to just one single brand at a time. A brand is often linked to brands from the same or a different company through brand alliances. In one’s next visit to a store it is not so difficult to observe shelves stocked with paired examples of well-known and established brand names. In fact, today there are many examples of brands that come in the same packaging, and that appear in one single product. Take for instance, Lay’s potato crisps with Heinz ketchup, or Oral-B Braun electric toothbrushes. Earliest examples of such practices date back to 1961, when Betty Croker, a came mix brand, teamed up with Sunkist, a brand of orange flavored soft drinks, to market a lemon flavored cake (Adage, 1994).
More and more brand managers choose to collaborate with other brand managers’ products, in an effort to jointly increase their brands’ awareness. As Keller, Aperia and Georgson (2012, p.16) underline “marketers can benefit from branding whenever consumers are making a choice.” And as the following brand alliance illustrates, marketers of the present time are certainly taking advantage of this. The year 2014 saw the rather “shocking” partnership between the famous Scotch whisky producer Jonnie Walker and the British shoemaker Oliver Sweeney (Figure 1.1). The two brands introduced a pair of limited edition Oliver Sweeney dress shoe with miniature bottles of scotch by Jonnie Walker concealed in its heels, available for
purchase exclusively on the shoemaker’s website. (Business Insider, 2014; Daily Mail, 2014).
Figure 1.1 An unusual alliance: This Oliver Sweeney dress shoe features cut outs in its heels for miniature bottles of Jonnie Walker scotch.
1.2 Specific Introduction: How to Present Brand Alliances
For many firms looking to grow, line and brand extensions are the most common ways of leveraging successful brands (Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri, 2003). Rao and Ruekert (1994), however, argue that a brand alliance is often viewed as an efficient alternative to in-house development of a brand name and traditional brand extension strategies. Despite this argument, the complications involved in forming an alliance certainly do not make it an easy alternative. As Keller and Lehmann (2006) describe, an alliance involves “the combining of two brands in some way as part of a product or some other aspect of marketing program”. There are, however, no clear guidelines available for managers on how partner brands can be combined and presented as part of a product. A research exploring this phenomenon, therefore, becomes not only interesting for managers, but also for the stream of literature that support it.
1.3 Problem Definition
1.3.1 Problem Statement
The concept of co-branding is not new and has, to this date, received much research attention. As the use of brand alliances in practice grew, researchers too have started to show increasing interest in brand alliances (Washburn, Till and Priluck, 2004). Despite the growing popularity, as Keller and Lehmann (2006) outline in their conceptual paper on branding, there are still a number of questions that need to be addressed in the co-branding literature, two of which relate to the presentation of partner brands in an alliance:
1. “What is the proper executional approach to combining brands?”
2. “When brands collaborate, how should it be determined whether or not one brand should dominate?”
As the above questions illustrate, the phenomenon of how brand managers should present the two partner brands in an alliance requires more research attention. The present paper, therefore, aims to contribute to the alliance literature, addressing above research gaps by exploring the different ways in which partner brands can be combined and presented as part of a product.
The present study attempts to contribute to the co-branding literature by building on the two research questions above that are essentially concerned with how partner brands are presented in an alliance. Conceptually, the paper is interested in studying the implications of the different ways, in which partner brands are visually presented in an alliance. In particular, the paper explores the different ways, in which the visual presentation of a partner brand is organized - in terms of a) brand order (BO), b)
visual (package or product design) dominance (VD) and c) product category dominance (PCD) - and the influence this presentation has on partner brand
contribution to the alliance and attitude towards the alliance. The research question of this paper is:
§ How does the way the visual presentation of partner brands is organized
influence partner brand contribution to the alliance and attitude towards the alliance?
1.3.2 Delimitations of the research
This research will attempt to contribute to the co-branding literature by studying an essential component of executional approaches to combining brands: the visual
considerations around creating a cobranded product. The present study is particularly
interested in studying the presentation of constituent brands on the cobranded product and the role each brand play in the mind of the consumer when a purchase is to be made. The goal is to provide possible understandings for whether the way the partner brands are presented in an alliance lead consumers to perceive a partner brand to be more dominant (indicating its larger contribution). Even though brand alliances can involve a number of brands, the present paper will only examine alliances formed between two brands. It will use real, established and well-known brands from the world of marketing today. Furthermore, the paper will study alliances in two different contexts. In Context 1, an alliance between two different non-durable (fast moving consumer) goods will be formed. In Context 2, the focus will be on alliances formed between two durable (consumer electronics) goods.
1.4 Contribution
1.4.1 Theoretical Contributions
Previous studies examined the effectiveness of a composite brand in a brand extension context (Park, Jun and Shocker, 1996), however when it comes to combining brands in a brand alliance context, the research lacks clear guidelines on
how to effectively present partner brands to consumers. Prior research also does not adequately explain whether consumers perceive one partner brand to be more dominant, when that same partner brand is presented in visually different ways. The present study, therefore, aims to contribute to the brand alliance literature by using the concepts of brand dominance and visual presentation of partner brands to organize and draw connections between streams of cobranding research that, in many cases, have been explored independently.
1.4.2 Managerial Contributions
The risks involved in establishing new brands in the marketplace today are extremely high. As several researches emphasize, co-branding strategies may be an effective shortcut to these complications surrounding brands (Rao and Ruekert, 1994). Still, managers of partner brands are faced with a range of questions. Should partners contribute equally to an alliance? Which attributes of partner brands should and should not combined in product and package design of a cobranded product in order for it to be considered an attractive product? Does the visual appearance of a cobranded product support how attractive a product is? In this regard, finding a proper executional approach to combining brands is an essential component of managerial decision-making. In particular, decisions involving the appearance of package and product could play a vital role in conveying marketing messages to consumers. With its specific focus on visual presentation of partner brands, the findings of this research can help manager in providing possible answer to the above questions before positioning their product in the market. In particular, for those managers who aim to take advantage of co-branding as a way for their brands to extend from one category to another, the paper’s attention on brand dominance could be a valuable source of point.
1.5 Structure of the Research
In order to form the relevant theoretical background for the present research, the following sections will discuss the literature review. In particular, Chapter 2 explores the existing literature on brand alliances, followed by a discussion of brand dominance in Chapter 3. Next, Chapter 4 discusses product and package appearance of a cobranded product. Chapter 5 then goes on to introduce the developed hypotheses. In Chapter 6, the methodology applied to the research is presented. The consecutive chapters will then outline the results, followed by a discussion, and lastly a conclusion.
2. Brand Alliances
2.1 Definitions of Brand Alliances
A lack of universally agreed-upon definition for brand alliances has led researchers to form different definitions of the concept. To develop a proper understanding of the concept, recognizing these differences in definitions becomes important. For instance, Helmig, Huber and Leeflang (2008, p.360) describe a brand alliance as a strategy “in which one product is branded and identified simultaneously by two brands”. In another work, Lebar, Buehler, Keller, Sawicka, Aksehirli and Richey (2005, p.413) describe an alliance as “the agreement between two or more firms to market some product or service in tandem”. Keller and Lehmann (2006, p.750) argue that a brand alliance occurs “when two brands are combined in some way as part of a product or some other aspect of marketing program”. The present paper concentrates on alliances formed between two brands. With each partner presented either on packaging or new product design, they are virtually inseparable in the eye of the consumer (Levin, Davis and Levin, 1996). A narrower definition by Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri (2003), therefore, becomes useful, who describe a brand alliance as the combination of two brands to create a single and unique product. Building on the above definitions, a brand alliance is described as a practice that occurs “when two brands are combined in some way as part of a product or some
other aspect of marketing program to create a single and unique product” (Keller and
Lehmann, 2006; Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri, 2002). Adhering to this definition, this paper assumes that a cobranded product possesses the following characteristics. First, the pairing of two brands creates a single and unique cobranded product. Second, the combination of the two participating brands is visible to consumers on the visuals of
the product or on its packaging. Third, the partner brands are physically inseparable (both brands should be purchased at the same time).
Having reviewed its definitions, it is also vital to have a good understanding of the different forms alliances can take, as this knowledge will be valuable when developing and selecting the right stimuli for the main study of the present paper. Types of alliances are, therefore, presented next.
2.2 Types of Brand Alliances
Brand alliances today come in all forms (Keller et.al, 2012). Academic research has explored and defined various forms of brand alliances. Researches have used different terminologies to define a brand alliance, which has, consequently, led them to develop its different types. Simonin and Ruth (1998) consider two overarching forms, in which two brands are presented physically (e.g. paired package of two or more brands) and others presented symbolically (e.g. an advertisement, joint sale promotion) by association of brand names or logos and the like. Relatedly, Washburn, Till and Priluck (2004) distinguish between joint promotions, in which partner brands act as complements to one another and co-branding, which involves physical integration of two brands. Helmig, Huber and Leeflang (2008) identify two different variations of the concept: cobranding from a value chain perspective and a product
category perspective. From a value chain perspective, cobranding is divided into
vertical cobranding and horizontal cobranding. While the former - often compared to ingredient branding (Desai and Keller, 2002) - involves vertical integration of two brands from different value chains into one cobranded product (e.g. Intel chips in an HP computer), the latter concerns the production of a cobranded product by the producers at the same value chain. In another work, Blackett and Russell (1999) suggest two different criteria to distinguish between different co-operation forms. The
first criterion is the expected duration of the co-operative efforts by the participating brands. The second criterion is the amount of shared value that can be created in the cooperation. Having examined a number of alliances, Blackett and Russell (1999) point to a hierarchy of shared value creation, where the researchers distinguish four different levels. At the lowest level of the hierarchy is reach/awareness co-branding, in which partner brands collaborate in an attempt to increase their awareness through exposure to its partner’s customer base (e.g. credit card companies trying to engage with other company’s customers). In the next level of the hierarchy is value
endorsement co-branding, in which each partner brand tries to benefit from one
another through the endorsement of brand values and positioning. The third level of shared value creation is ingredient co-branding. In this type of co-branding, the ingredient brand functions as an identifiable and physical component of the cobranded product. The fourth level, where the highest level of shared value creation is achieved, is complementary competence cobranding. At the heart of this type of co-operation is the notion that two complementary brands join forces to create a stronger product that exceeds the sum of the parts. All in all, complementary competence cobranding would be the most suitable alliance type for the purposes of the present paper, as it would be more likely to accommodate the definition and the characteristics of alliances the present study deals with.
2.3 Consumer Evaluation of Brand Alliances
The present study focuses on brand alliances, in which two brands are physically combined to create a single, unique product. Even though this type of alliance implies the consumption of a single new product (i.e. the cobrand itself), the consumer is essentially exposed to two individual brands. As theory suggests, a general understanding of how consumers’ perceptions of a cobrand are influenced by their
perceptions of the two parent brands becomes an important pre-requisite for assessing the relative attractiveness of cobranding (Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri, 2002). With this in mind, it is; therefore, fair to assume that a consumer’s perceptions of the cobrand will be influenced by his or hers perceptions of the two parent brands.
A number of studies have been conducted in search of uncovering the different routes people take when evaluating stimuli. Three distinctive perspectives guide the research: evaluation from the perspectives of category-based and piecemeal processing and those from conceptual combination theory. The following paragraphs discuss these in the context of consumer evaluation of brand alliances.
2.3.1 Evaluation Through Category-Based Processing
According to categorical processing, when exposed to a product, a consumer makes quick and simple interpretations of it, as he retrieves information from memory (Pavelchak, 1989). These interpretations stem from hierarchical cognitive structures called schemas, which are organized collections of beliefs, feelings, and associations, each linked by interconnected sets of nodes (Solomon, Bamossy and Askegaard, 2002). A schema consists of general nodes known as category labels at the upper levels, and more specific nodes known as category attributes at lower levels. For instance, a schema for cigarettes may include associations such as “tobacco”, “smoking” and “Marlboro”. According to Klink and Smith (2001), a brand name can often times serve as the category label, as it paves the way for activation of a particular category held in memory (Boush and Loken, 1991). For example, when exposed a product labeled by the brand name Kit Kat, a consumer is expected to activate the category of chocolate.
People often group products they consider having similar characteristics and attempt to assign a product to a category as a member at a particular level of
specificity (Kumar 2005). The schema to which a product is then assigned becomes an important determinant of how consumers choose to evaluate this product at a later time (Solomon, Bamossy and Askegaard, 2002). Similarly, exposure to prior stimuli is likely to influence subsequent stimuli (Levin and Levin, 2000). If a consumer identifies a new product as belonging to a previously defined category retrieved from memory, then the attitude associated with that category can be transferred to the new item (Boush and Loken, 1991). Indeed, there is growing research support for affect transfer from the categories of partner brands to the cobranded product (Rao and Ruekert, 1994; Levin and Levin, 2000; Dickson and Barker, 2007). If a consumer successfully identifies a cobrand as a member of a category, the affect associated with the category label is then applied to the cobrand and the evaluation process is concluded (Boush and Loken, 1991).
2.3.2 Evaluation Through Piecemeal Processing
Recalling a brand name from memory does not necessarily depend on a single cue, e.g. the product category (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004). And in the context of an alliance, categorization of a cobranded product into a single category is often not so easy. The presence of two brands makes the evaluation process more complicated, as each brand reinforces the activation of its own schema (James, 2005). Categorization
ambiguity is said to exist when certain information about a product (e.g. presence of
two brands) makes it difficult or impossible to put a new offering (e.g. cobrand) into a single, existing category (Gregan-Paxton, Hoeffler and Zhao, 2005). Interestingly, a number of psychology studies investigate whether consumers respond to categorization ambiguity by using single or multiple category inference strategy. In these studies, researchers find evidence that consumer have a strong tendency to categorize an object into a single category even though an ambiguity, making
categorization difficult, exists (Murphy and Ross, 1994, 1999). Nevertheless, if a successful categorization is not achieved, for example due to a lack of close enough match between the cobranded item and a schema stored in memory (Pavelchak, 1989), evaluation may be processed in a piecemeal fashion. The absence of a fitting category or schema evokes a more effortful piecemeal process (Boush and Loken, 1991), in which evaluations are processed based on an integration of stimulus attributes (Pavelchak, 1989). As a result of being exposed to a brand in a specific context, a consumer can activate links in memory between the brand and its specific attributes (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004). For instance, for some consumers Persil brand may conjure up the images of liquid capsules (its attributes), rather than laundry detergent (its category). Indeed, Viswanathan and Childers (1999) point out a product may vary in the degree to which it is a member of a product category and this degree of category membership can also be inferred from specific product attributes. In other words, information gathered from product attributes can be merged to arrive at a categorization decision.
Taking attitude research as basis, some researchers have tried to explain how consumers may evaluate cobranded products using piecemeal process. In this regard,
Information Integration Theory underlines the significant role the prior partner brand
attitudes play in the evaluation of a brand alliance. The theory suggests that when people receive new information, they first interpret, evaluate and then integrate it into their existing beliefs or attitudes (Anderson, 1981). If this holds, then the partner brand, about which a consumer already holds information in memory, is more likely to predominate the evaluation of the co-branded product. In another work, Simonin and Ruth (1998) find that existing attitudes towards parent brands have a significant positive influence on attitudes toward the co-brand, but partners do not necessarily
contribute equally to the alliance. In a manner consistent with information integration theory, they show that the relative contributions of partner brands to brand alliance evaluations are likely to be dependent on each partner’s comparative “brand familiarity”. In fact, they find support that when one partner brand is more familiar than the other; it has a stronger impact on attitude towards the cobrand than the less familiar partner.
2.3.3 Evaluation Through Conceptual Combination
As the above discussion indicates, evaluations based on categorical and piecemeal processing symbolize two endpoints on a continuum (Pavelchak, 1989), with evaluations based on category classifications retrieved from memory representing one end point and those computed from attribute evaluations representing the other. However, consumers do not always process their evaluations of cobranded products exclusively on the basis of “pure” categories or attributes. Instead, they may merge both types of information from each endpoint, transferring a subset of attributes and category cues from each of the two partner brands into a “coherent composite concept” (Kumar, 2005). In other words, cobranded product can be viewed as a combination of two partner brand categories, or as the creation of a new category derived from some or all attributes of two partner brands (Walchli, 2007). The cognitive psychology literature groups this perspective under the several theories of conceptual combination. According to one perspective; explained by
Cognitive Consistency Theory; consumers will try to maintain consistency and
internal harmony amongst their attitudes (Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri, 2002). In the context of a brand alliance, this implies that assuming a consumer has had previous usage experience with the partner brands, when evaluating the cobrand, his or her attitudes towards the cobrand will be an averaging of the parent brand attitudes
(Levin, Davis and Levin, 1996). In contrast, Kumar (2005) argues that consumers evaluate cobrands by selectively assigning the attributes of the two partner brands to the attributes of the combined concept (the cobranded product), pointing at the unequal or asymmetric contributions of partner brands. Relatedly, within the conceptual combination literature Dual-Process Theory predicts that consumers interpret a cobranded product by “placing a partner brand of the combination into a role in a relation belonging to the other brand”, consequently making the combined concept more consistent with the attributes or schema of the former brand. (Costello and Keane, 2001, p.256). As a result, the cobranded product is perceived to resemble one of the partner brands more than the other (Kumar, 2005). When a cobranded product is more closely identified with and interpreted in terms of the attributes of one partner brand, then “dominance effect” occurs (Murphy, 1988; Park, Jun and Shocker, 1996).
In sum, given that not all alliances are the same in the way they are presented to consumers, it is fair to assume that consumers may take different routes when evaluating different alliance products. Some alliances will be evaluated based on a category classification retrieved from memory, while others may be evaluated based on an integration of different product attributes. As the following chapter discusses, how each partner brand is presented in the alliance may also affect the appreciation of the cobranded product.
3. Brand Dominance in an Alliance Product
In general, partner brands in alliance often times do not assume equal roles. Already at first sight, this asymmetry might be evident to consumers in the way the partner brands are presented on either the cobranded item itself or its packaging. With each brand varying in the relative emphasis it receives in the combined product, a partner brand may visually look more dominant than the other. In the evaluation of an alliance product, the concept of partner brand dominance is important, because the appreciation of the cobranded product depends on consumer motivation, or his ability to develop an explanation for the relationship that they see between partner brands (Walchli, 2007). For example, when purchasing a pack of Lay’s potato chips with Heinz tomato ketchup, some consumers might argue that they are simply buying another flavor of Lay’s chips (Lay’s dominant), while others may insist the presence of the iconic Heinz bottle showcasing the brand’s distinctive logo, placed on the packaging, not only signals quality ingredient but also is the main driving force behind their purchase decision (Heinz dominant). According to the studies of consumer decision-making, consumers may make such brand choice decisions as a result of memory-based or stimulus-based judgments (Lee, 2002; Lynch and Srull, 1982). Building upon this distinction, the following section reviews the concept of dominance within the context of brand alliances.
3.1 Dominance Resulting from Memory-Based Judgments
A consumer is said to make a memory-based judgment any time he engages in the retrieval of information stored in memory (Lynch and Srull, 1982). Decisions involved in choosing brands are memory-based (Lee, 2002). For instance, a consumer craving for a bar of chocolate makes a choice on the basis of alternative chocolate brands retrieved from memory. In an alliance setting, a brand may be perceived to be
more dominant on the basis of information retrieved from memory, when it is the first one to come to mind. For instance, consumers may perceive a partner brand to be more dominant because of the perceived differences in brand salience. Brand salience, referred to as the “accessibility or ease of activation of a brand in memory” (Gluck and Indurkhya, 2001), is conceptualized as a brand’s propensity to be “top of mind” or mentioned first when the category related to it is retrieved from memory (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004). According to Alba and Chattopadhyay (1986), a brand with higher chances of early and easy recall from memory, i.e. a brand that is higher in salience, will have a dominant effect on other brands recalled. Herr, Farquhar and Fazio (1996) explore how consumers evaluate brands belonging to different product categories and find a dominance effect, defined as “the strength of the directional association between product category and branded product” (Herr et.al 1996, p.135). In fact, when a brand is strongly related to a specific product category, it is expected to prosper in that category, isolating itself from competing brands. This is closely related to what Leong, Ang and Liau (1997) refer to as a master brand, a brand that is so dominant in a product category that it “owns” that category in the mind of consumers (e.g. Hallmark in greeting cards category).
Next to differences in brand salience, another possible explanation for memory-based cause of dominance is the perceived differences in corporate production and
marketing capabilities of partner brands. The associations that consumers have with a
company’s innovation, or the perceptions they hold about its investments in research and development and its employment of advanced manufacturing capabilities play an important role in shaping consumer product evaluations (Gürhan-Canli and Batra 2004). When consumers hold such expert associations in memory about the products of a certain partner brand, they consider that brand to be more able to manufacture the
new product, and consequently perceive it to be the more dominant one in the alliance. In the context of ingredient and component co-brands, researchers indeed distinguish between primary brands that “contain” secondary brands (Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri, 2002). While the more dominant primary brand owns the co-branded product and is often accountable for the production and marketing of the final product (e.g. Tefal), the secondary brand often acts as the supplier or licensor of an ingredient, and is usually not marketed as a separate product (e.g. Teflon).
3.2 Dominance Resulting from Stimulus-Based Judgments
Instead of engaging in a cognitive information retrieval processes, consumers also make judgments on the basis of information that is directly present at the time of consideration (Lynch and Srull, 1982). When all the information relevant to consumer decision is readily available in the physical environment (e.g. an encounter with a cobranded product during supermarket or store purchases), consumer judgments are stimulus-based (Lee, 2002). If the retrieval of brand information from memory fails, then a brand that is perceptually salient in the environment, in other words, one that is readily recognizable among its alternatives would be more likely to benefit from stimulus-based judgment (Lee, 2002). This notion may also apply to brands in an alliance when, as a result of the information available in the environment, one of the partner brands becomes perceptually more prominent. To illustrate this in a supermarket shelf context, imagine the Philadelphia cream cheese with Milka flavor being displayed amongst other cream cheese alternatives by Philadelphia (Figure 3.1). According to experiments by Desai and Rathneshwar (2003), when a cobranded variant prominently features an “atypical attribute” (i.e. purple Milka packaging) it should get perceptually highlighted, isolating itself from the more “typical” products in its proximity. Since the cobranded variant is contrasted to its alternatives on the
basis of the atypical visual attributes of Milka, consumers are more likely perceive Milka to be the dominant partner within this alliance.
Figure 3.1 An example of stimulus-based cause of dominance: atypically purple colored Philadelphia with Milka is differentiated from other typically silver colored Philadelphia variants.
Another contextual aspect motivating consumers to perceive a stimulus-based dominance in an alliance relates to the order in which partner brands are presented. In their pioneering study, Park, Jun and Shocker (1996) examine the composite brand extension concept, where a combination of two brand names is presented in different order. They expect the brand presented first in order to be more dominant in influencing understanding of the composite brand, since the composite brand is perceived as a member of the first brand’s category. The results of their study indeed support their hypothesis that a partner brand has a greater effect on the composite brand when that brand is presented first in order than when it appears second in order.
Brand order in an alliance between brand A and brand B becomes important as
it could indicate the relative powers, responsibilities and controls of the partner brands over the alliance (Li and He, 2011). In practice, the name of the brand with greater production and marketing power is expected to appear first in order. The case of the former alliance between Sony Corporation and Ericsson telecommunication illustrates
this point. The alliance brand was marketed as Sony Ericsson until 2012 when Sony, the brand with greater power, acquired Ericsson’s share, to consequently market phones with Sony name only. Several concepts and theories addressed in the literature can help understand the brand order effect and these are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Primacy effect refers to the cognitive bias resulting from overrated salience of
initial information or stimuli for evaluation and judgment (Li and He, 2011). Consumers indeed tend to attach more weight to the first piece information they are exposed to. For instance, Scarpi (2004) finds that when the presentation order of two products is changed, the first product that shoppers are presented is more likely to be preferred over the next. Moreover, the first product shown is evaluated with greater attention and more positively than the second. The importance of the first stimulus is also highlighted in Habituation Theory, which focuses on the relativity of the stimuli (Kahneman, Wakker and Sarin, 1997). The theory suggests that every stimulus is assessed on the basis of its adaption level, which has its origins in past experience. With every stimulus evaluated on its degree of novelty, new stimuli are assessed with greater attention (Scarpi, 2004). If this holds, then, the first product a consumer reads on alliance product would be most carefully assessed, as the stimuli associated with it are totally new. By the notion of adaption level, the second product read is then likely to have stimuli already rooted in the first one, and will therefore receive less attention. Similarly, according to Theory of Differential Learning, the relevance of additional information in learning processes depends on its degree of novelty (Kahneman, et.al, 1997). Scarpi (2004) argues that stimuli experienced by consumers during purchase of products can also be viewed as a form of information. Therefore, the first stimulus, being the first piece of information in the learning curve, is associated with the
highest degree of novelty. Furthermore, the theory suggests that the first stimulus is the only one to be assessed fully, as the next (second stimulus) is analyzed in terms of differences from the previous (first stimulus) (Scarpi, 2004).
The next section continues to explore the concept of brand dominance and the different ways in which brands can be presented by a review of brand architecture. Borrowing from brand architecture literature is useful because, similar to brand alliances, brand architecture involves decisions on how to visually present different brand names - corporate brand name with an individual one – on a single product.
3.3 Dominance in Brand Architecture
The brand architecture literature deals with what is referred to as the prominence of a brand element from different levels of a brand hierarchy. In this context, prominence of a brand element (i.e. a brand name, logo, symbol) signifies “its relative visibility compared with other brand elements” (Keller, Aperia and Georgson, 2012, p.601). The prominence of a brand name element can be affected by factors such as its order, size and appearance. A brand element is generally believed to be more prominent when it is presented first in order, is larger in size and looks more attractive or distinctive (Keller, 2014).
Through a content analysis of brand packaging, LaForet and Saunders (1994) investigate the different ways in which brands from the same company can be presented. They list three overarching strategies to this end: Corporate Dominant,
Brand Dominant and Mixed Brands. Corporate dominant is a true corporate brand
structure, in which corporate brand name covers all a firm’s products (e.g. Heinz).
Brand dominant companies do not prominently display corporate name and logos on
product, although these can usually be seen on the back of product’s package (e.g. Snickers). In mixed brand structures, two or more brand names appear on the package
of a single product. Mixed brands are further divided into dual and endorsed brands. In dual brands, most often a corporate, house or family brand name is paired with a mono brand name, with each name roughly receiving equal prominence. This is illustrated in a package of Lindt Lindor chocolate box, where both Lindt and Lindor names appear in an equally prominent size (Figure 3.2). On the other hand, in the Nestle Kit Kat example, the endorser brand name Nestle, presented smaller in print, is less prominent than the individual brand name Kit Kat.
Figure 3.2 Dual versus endorsed brands: While Lindt and Lindor names are presented in an equally prominent fashion, Nestle appears less prominent in relation to Kit Kat.
As can be inferred from the above examination of brand architecture, beyond facilitating the recognition of a particular brand, a product’s visual design also helps communicate to consumer the relationships between the products sold by a single firm. Comparable to brand alliances, mixed structures contain two brand names that are paired as part of a product to market a single, physically inseparable product. The following chapter discusses how the combination of two brands can be visually organized on the package or exterior of an alliance product.
4. Product and Package Appearance
The study explores how the way the visual presentation of partner brands is organized influence partner brand contribution to the alliance and attitude towards the alliance. With brand managers and design teams able to influence the visual appearance of an alliance product by a chosen mix of visual elements, it is essential to explore the roles different visual elements can play in the presentation of partner brands. While not minimizing the importance of other visual elements, the focus of this paper will be limited to visual elements of color and shape and how these two elements can be leveraged to present brand in an alliance.
In studying the visual presentation of partner brands, the paper distinguishes between two types of products, namely non-durable (fast moving consumer goods) and durable (consumer electronic goods) products. For the first context, it studies the visual presentation of partner brands on the package of the cobranded product. For the second context, it focuses on the exterior of the cobranded product. In limiting the research to the above scenarios, the paper makes following assumptions. Generally speaking, for non-durable consumer goods, packaging tends to be the first point of encounter with a brand. Indeed, the novelty of fast moving consumer goods is often dictated by their package (Schoormans and Robben, 1997). Furthermore, beyond protecting, preserving, and facilitating its handling and storage, packaging plays an important role in helping consumers identify a non-durable product (Ares, and Deliza, 2010). Certain characteristics of a package, such as the brand name or logo on it, its color or shape may help identification (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). As illustrated in the green bottle of Heineken, one of the strongest associations consumers might have with the brand relates to the appearance of its package (Keller, Aperia and Georgson, 2012). In contrast, for durable goods such as a pair of shoes, the visual
elements of the product itself - rather than the package it comes in – may play a more important role in identifying the product. Indeed, a product’s form “represents a chosen mix of elements blended into a visual whole by the design team”, which communicates particular information to consumers (Bloch, 1995, p.17). Similar to the significant role packaging plays in identifying non-durables, the product form, or the external appearance of a durable product helps its identification, acting as the first point of contact between the product and the consumer (Kumar and Noble, 2015). And regardless of its product class, a consumer’s judgments of that product follow from this sensory experience (Bloch, Brunel and Arnold, 2003).
There is a variety of research conducted studying the role visual appearance of a product or package plays in consumer product evaluation and choice. For instance, in an experiment studying the influence of package color, 77% of the subjects were found to believe that French fries served in the red colored McDonald’s bag taste better than those same fries served in a plain package (Nicholas, 2007). In another work, Creusen and Schoormans (2005) indicate that consumers frequently use shape of a product as cue to draw inferences about important product attributes. For example, they argue that a consumer may reach a conclusion that a hairdryer larger in size has more power than a smaller one, even though they may be just as powerful. In the next sections, the visual elements of color and shape are explored further.
4.1 Color
Color research in marketing remains very fragmented and to this date no color theory has emerged (Kauppinen-Räisänen and Luomala, 2010). A number of researchers studied color in different contexts and these studies suggest that package color, beyond serving aesthetic purposes (Bloch, Brunel and Arnold, 2003), has the functions of attracting attention (Schoormans and Robben, 1997), conveying product
quality (Funk and Ndubisi, 2006) as well as identifying brands (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). According to Hine (1995) people experience color on three different levels: the physiological, cultural and associational. Physiological experience with color is universal and involuntary, while cultural experience stems from the visual norms established over time in different societies (e.g. white for peace in Europe). Associational experience with color requires voluntary attention, with consumers recalling information from memory (Lynch and Srull, 1982) and relates to their color expectations for a particular product category (e.g. white for milk) or a brand as a consequence of marketing activities (e.g. purple for Milka). Indeed, consumers are found to experience colors in this way when color is used as a cue to search for and identify brands (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). Given the suggestion that color accounts for about 62-90 % of the consumer purchase decisions it is not surprising that color alone can evoke brands (Singh, 2006). Indeed, marketers employ colors for the creation and communication of brand identity, particularly for homogenous low involvement consumer nondurables (Underwood, 2003). Unilever, for example, uses color to differentiate its fabric softener brand Robijn with Zwitsal from other softeners by presenting the alliance product’s packaging prominently in yellow, a color that Zwitsal has long been associated with.
Unlike package shape, a change in color of a package does not affect the product’s function (e.g. cleaning dishes), however, it might have implications for the meaning that a product’s package communicates to the consumer (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). In this regard, color can convey a product’s ingredients or usage situations. This is best illustrated in the category-specific packaging conventions or color norms developed in dishwashing liquids. For example, in P&G’s dishwashing liquid brand Dreft, the use of color yellow suggests a lemon scent, while the blue
color is employed to bring to consumer mind extra hygiene benefits. In its cobranded variant, Dreft with skincare ingredient of Olaz, the color pink serves as a code for gentleness and softness for extra sensitive hands.
4.2 Shape
In product design, ergonomics relates to the “matching of a product to target consumer’s capabilities to maximize safety, efficiency of use, and comfort” (Bloch, 1995, p.18). Product ergonomics also concerns the “suitability of a product to perform, and to correctly convey its utilitarian functions” (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005, p.67). Consumer often use shape as a design cue to gather ergonomic value, especially when inferring more important but less readily accessible attributes of a product (Berkowitz, 1987). For instance, Landau, Smith and Jones (1988) investigated the role of product shape in children’s and adult’s ability for naming novel products. They have shown that subjects tended to generalize a novel product’s name to other products that are similar to the exemplar product in shape. This suggests that consumers make category membership judgments on the basis of product shape similarity. Ideal shapes of objects often correspond with what consumers are most familiar with and believe appropriate or natural (Berkowitz, 1987).
It is suggested that there are two central relationships between design and brands (Kreuzbauer and Malter, 2005). The first concerns a consumer’s affective response to product form, where a positive relationship is expected between aesthetically appealing product designs and brand evaluations (Berkowitz, 1987). The second relates to a cognitive response, where product design is regarded as an important facilitator for product and brand categorization. Consumers are, indeed, found to use product or package appearance as a cue for categorization (Bloch, 1995). Through
manipulating visual aesthetics, or the characteristics that create a product or package’s appearance (i.e. color, ornamentation and shape), marketers can influence consumer cognitive response to product categorization. An important finding of categorization research is that the shape of a physical object determines its category membership, as many products in the same category are expected to share overall shape (Kreuzbauer and Malter, 2005). For instance, the unique oval shape of a rugby ball differentiates it from balls used in other sports. In this regard, proto-typicality of an object or “the degree to which it is representative of a category” makes consumer product identification easier (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005, p.65). Relatedly, studies focusing on category relatedness suggest that a product is often judged on the basis of its product feature similarities with other members in its category (Park, Milberg and Lawson, 1991).
According to Hekkert, Snelders and van Wieringen (2003), the more prototypical a product is, the more it will be aesthetically preferred due to consumer preference for familiarity over novelty, with the exception of variety-seekers (Kauppinen-Räisänen and Luomala, 2010). However, consumers are also found to prefer an object with an appearance that is slightly different from the prototype. For instance, Schoormans and Robben (1997) find a positive relation between the attention a package gets and the degree of its atypical appearance in terms of different colors and forms. An atypical appearance is especially preferred when the intention is to deliberately differentiate a product from other products in the category (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005). Color is one such design element that marketers use to influence a consumer’s aesthetic judgment. In a study, the attention-grabbing ability of a package appearance, facilitated by the changes in package color, has been found to increase the likelihood of purchase (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). The attention-getting ability of color is
further emphasized in a study where color is found to be the first package cue consumers notice (Danger, 1987).
As discussed before in Section 2.4.2, not all categorization attempts are successful, as consumers experience categorization ambiguity when a new product they encounter is difficult to place in a single category existing in memory (Gregan-Paxton and Zhao, 2005). Under such conditions, consumers are likely to infer category membership information from perceptual or visual cues of a product. Indeed, given consumers rely on physical appearance of an object to determine the function it performs or to simply understand what it does (Matan and Carey, 2001); there is reason to believe that category membership is a result of a product’s physical form or its shape.
5. Hypothesis Development
This paper is interested in studying how, in a brand alliance setting; the visual presentation of partner brands is organized influence a) partner brand contribution to the alliance (first dependent variable) and b) attitude towards the alliance (second
dependent variable). The literature review provided in the previous chapters of the
present paper suggests that consumers may perceive a partner brand to be dominant over another as a result of a memory based or stimulus-based judgments. In this section, the separate hypotheses for the aforementioned dependent variables are presented.
5.1 Hypotheses for Partner Brand Contribution to Alliance
5.1.1 Brand Order
In the section exploring brand architecture, the discussion of prominence of brand elements is presented. According to this discussion, one factor affecting the relative visibility of a brand name in comparison to other brand elements is its order or
position (Keller, 2014). A brand name is believed to be more prominent when it
appears first in order than when it is second in order. Furthermore, the order, in which partner brands are presented on the alliance product, indicates the relative powers of brands. The partner brand, equipped with greater production and marketing power, whose contribution towards the alliance is thus larger, is typically presented in first in order (Li and He, 2011).
Combining the above lines of reasoning, the order in which a partner brand appears in the cobranded product is expected to influence the perceived contribution that brand makes to the alliance product. Particularly, when a partner brand appears first in order, it is perceived more dominant than when it appears second in order. Hence, Hypothesis 1 is defined as:
H1: In an alliance between two brands, the contribution a brand makes to the alliance is larger when that brand is mentioned first than when it is mentioned second.
5.1.2 Visual Dominance
Among other visual elements, the appearance of an alliance product can be organized by color and shape. To create its appearance, an alliance product can be presented in a specific color or shape, both of which are usually borrowed from a partner brand. According to conceptual combination, consumers interpret a cobranded product by “placing a partner brand of the combination into a role in a relation belonging to the other brand” (Costello and Keane, 2001, p.256). This makes the combined concept more consistent with the attributes or schema of the former brand. The cobranded product is then perceived to resemble one of the partner brands more than the other (Kumar, 2005). Thus, when an alliance product is presented to look more like one of the partner brands in terms of the visual elements of color or shape, then that brand has visual dominance over the alliance product.
Given that color is the first package cue consumers notice (Danger, 1987), it is likely to be one of the first product attributes that consumers recall from memory when thinking of a brand. This is an example of a piecemeal evaluation, where a consumer activates links in memory between a brand and its specific attributes (Romaniuk and Sharp, 2004). In fact, over time consumers can develop associational experiences with a brand and its color, forming color-specific expectations for a brand. This, in turn, can result in a specific color evoking a brand (Singh, 2006). Indeed, consumers are found to experience colors in this way when it is used as a cue to identify brands (Garber, Burke and Jones, 2000). A specific product or package
shape can also be recalled from memory when thinking of a brand (e.g. Toblerone chocolate for its distinctive triangular prism shape). Indeed, consumers tend to make product generalizations on the basis of how similar a product is in terms of its shape to an exemplar (Landau, Smith and Jones, 1988). Therefore, if an alliance product is presented in a specific color or shape that consumers strongly associate with a partner brand, consumers are likely to identify the cobrand more closely with that brand. Consequently a “dominance effect” is expected to occur (Murphy, 1988; Park, Jun and Shocker, 1996), whereby that brand is perceived to be visually more dominant over the alliance product than its partner.
Consequently, when an alliance product is presented in a way that it bears more visual resemblance to a partner brand (due to its color or shape), the alliance product is identified more with that brand. As result, the contribution that brand makes to the alliance is expected to be larger than its partner. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is introduced as:
H2: In an alliance between two brands, the contribution a brand makes to the alliance is larger when that brand is visually dominant over the alliance product than when its partner brand is visually dominant over the alliance product.
5.1.3 Product Category Dominance
Some alliances are evaluated based on category classifications retrieved from memory, where consumers group products they consider having similar characteristics together and assign a product to a category as a member at a particular level of specificity (Kumar 2005). This is an example of category-based product evaluations. The degree, to which an object is representative of a category, or its
degree of proto-typicality, facilitates consumer product identification (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005).
From a conceptual combination point of view, with two brands combined as part of an alliance, the cobranded product can be viewed as a combination of two partner brand categories (Walchli, 2007). However, when positioning the alliance product in the market, the combined concept is often made more consistent with one of the participating categories (Costello and Keane, 2001). In the Mc Flurry with Mars example, because the alliance product is essentially marketed as ice cream with chocolate flavor, it is presented more consistent with the category of the former partner. In other words, ice cream, as the primary category of the alliance, “contains” the secondary category of chocolate (Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri, 2002). In this respect, when a cobranded product is described and presented more consistent with the category of a partner brand, then a consumer is expected to identify the alliance product more closely as belonging to the category of that brand. With the alliance product identified as a member of a brand’s category, the product category of that brand is expected to dominate the alliance over the category of the its partner. A positive relation is then expected between the contribution a brand makes to the alliance and its product category dominance. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is defined as:
H3: In an alliance between two brands, the contribution a brand makes to the alliance is larger when the alliance product is described and presented as a member of that brand’s product category than when it is described and presented as a member of its partner brand’s product category.
In summary, as the conceptual model for the first dependent variable (Figure 5.1) illustrates, three main effects are hypothesized for partner brand contribution.
Figure 5.1
Next, the hypotheses developed in relation to the second dependent variable, attitude towards the alliance are presented.
5.2 Hypotheses for Attitude Towards the Alliance
An ideal product is one that consumers are most familiar with and one that they believe looks appropriate or natural in its category (Berkowitz, 1987). The concept of proto-typicality of an object refers to the degree to which the object is a good representation of its category (Creusen and Schoormans, 2005). Because consumers prefer familiarity to novelty, a prototypical product is aesthetically preferred over another product that looks different or unusual in relation to other products in the same category. (Hekkert, Snelders and van Wieringen, 2003).
In this regard, the way the partner brands in an alliance are presented becomes important, because the presentation needs to match with what is aesthetically
expected of a product in order for it to be evaluated favorably. If the way the partner brands are organized makes the alliance product appear in some aspect less prototypical (unusual or unnatural to what is typically expected), then, because of consumer preference for familiarity, that alliance product should not be preferred to another one appears more prototypical. Within the context of the present study, an alliance product, which looks visually Brand A dominant and is described as a member of category Brand B would be less prototypical than an alliance product, which looks visually Brand A dominant and is described as a member of category Brand A. Therefore, the theory would suggest that the latter alliance product should be aesthetically preferred to the former.
To put this in perspective, in contrast with the study of partner brand contribution, when studying how the presentation of partner brands affects attitude toward the alliance, it should not matter whether a partner is presented in a visually Brand A or visually Brand B way - especially when Brand A and Brand are equally liked. What should matter for attitude towards the alliance is the presence of a consistency in the visual story an alliance product tells. In studying attitude, it is therefore the alignment between, for example, the visual dominance of a partner brand and the product category of the alliance, that matters. Therefore, in developing the hypotheses for the second independent variable, the interest lies in the study of interactions between different product cues. In particular, the interactions between a)
BO and VD, b) VD and PCD and c) PCD and BO are of study interest. In the next
The alliance product is evaluated more favorably when there is an alignment between Brand Order (BO) and Visual Dominance (VD). Hence, Hypothesis 4 is defined as:
H4: The attitude towards the alliance is more favorable, when a partner brand is visually dominant and it is presented first in order than when it visually dominant and it is presented second in order.
The alliance product is evaluated more favorably when there is an alignment between Visual Dominance (VD) and Product Category Dominance (PCD). Hence, Hypothesis 5 is defined as:
H5: The attitude towards the alliance is more favorable, when a partner brand is visually dominant and it is described and presented as a member of that brand’s product category than when a partner brand is visually dominant and it is described and presented as a member of its partner brand’s product category.
The alliance product is evaluated more favorably when there is an alignment between Product Category Dominance (PCD) and Brand Order (BO). Hence, Hypothesis 6 is defined as:
H6: The attitude towards the alliance is more favorable, when a partner brand is described and presented as a member of that brand’s product category and it appears first in order than when a partner brand is described and presented as a member of that brand’s product category and it appears second in order.
The conceptual model for the second independent variable, attitude towards the alliance in relation to the 3 interactions is summarized in Figure 5.2.
6. Methodology
This chapter will outline the method used for testing the developed hypotheses. 6.1 Research Design
For the purposes of this research, an experiment is the best approach to testing the hypothesis, as an experimental design will allow participants to be allocated to the different treatment conditions of the experiment, thereby preventing them from guessing hypotheses. The main study involves a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, resulting in 16 different treatment conditions. Specifically, the first factor, Context
(C), has two levels, Context 1 for non-durable (fast-moving consumer goods) and
Context 2 for durable (consumer electronics). The second factor, Brand Order (BO) consists of two levels, which are Brand A & Brand B and Brand B & Brand A. The two levels of the third factor Visual Dominance (VD) are VD Brand A and VD Brand
B. The fourth factor Product Category Dominance (PCD) consists of two levels,
which are PCD Brand A and PCD Brand B. The 16 different conditions are summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
6.2 Pretest
To find reasonable product categories and appropriate brands from which to form brand alliances, a number of pretests have been conducted. Through informal interviews with a group of students (N=5), product categories and brand names from the world of durable and non-durable consumer goods were explored. Before brainstorming began, all subjects were familiarized with the brand alliance definition
as well as its requirements used in the present paper. Through a series of pretesting, appropriate stimulus and manipulations were developed.
In order to increase the external validity of the study, the paper uses real brands to form brand alliances (Desai and Keller, 2002). Furthermore, in order to remain consistent with the definition used in the present study, the alliance brands formed have to satisfy the following four requirements.
1) Single and unique product: The pairing of two brands should create a single and unique cobranded product.
2) Visibility of partner brands: The combination of the two participating brands should be visible to consumers on the product or packaging appearance through the use of visual elements.
3) Physical inseparability: The constituent brands should be physically inseparable, forcing the consumption of both brands at the same time.
6.2.1 Qualitative Pretest: Stimuli Selection and Development
The objective of the first pretest was to identify reasonable product categories and appropriate brands within them. All subjects were asked to first mention brand categories, followed by individual brand names from non-durable and durable consumer goods.
In exploring the world of non-durable consumer goods, the product categories of coffee, chocolate, biscuits (cookies), candy and bread spread were amongst the most frequently named. Within these categories, the subjects named the following brand names:
