What is the effect of CBBE on the consumers evaluation of a
line extension?
What is the effect of CBBE on the consumers evaluation of a
line extension?
Author: Daan Prop
Studentnumber: 1663933
E-mail: S1663933@student.rug.nl
Phone-number: 0648276489
University of Groningen Master Thesis BA Marketing March 2009
Management Summary
For Dutch manufactures of national brands the importance of having a strong brand is increasing rapidly. Through the intensifying price war and upcoming private labels the threats for manufactures is increasing. One way manufactures can insure the position in the retailing store is by investing in brand equity. This concept can be measured from three different perspectives. The first is measuring brand equity from the financial outcome, the second is company based, and finally from the perspective of the consumer, the so called customer based brand equity (CBBE). This paper has used CBBE as a base for brand equity. Besides the mentioned retail developments there is more happing in the FMCG environment; the constant stream of new or improved products. This can be a product which slightly changes and stays in the same product category (called line extensions, e.g. Heineken which introduce Heineken zero degrees) or be a whole new product in a completely new category (called brand extensions, e.g. Harley Davidson which introduces a new perfume). By combining these two relevant topics the objective of the paper is: What is the effect of CBBE on the consumers evaluation of a line
extension? To answer this question it is broken down into several hypotheses which were
investigated through a quantitative research approach which had its origin in academic papers. The final research was conducted by using two identical questions (by mail): one for measuring the acceptation of line extensions in different price segments of a brand with a low CBBE and the other for a brand with a high CBBE. A total of 441 observations were collected and analyzed with SPSS by mainly using correlation and regression analysis. We found that in our setting CBBE consisted of four dimensions: loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness and associations. The outcome of the literature review was whether brand awareness and associations had to be combined. The conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to combine the dimensions and that it is necessary to use four dimensions. Involvement had a negative effect on this relationship. The FIT between extensions and their parent brand has been one of the must important drivers of their success, as is the result of many researches. This was the same in this research. The FIT construct is best computed through the dimensions COMPLEMENT and TRANSFER, in which TRANSFER is the best predictor of the acceptation of the line extension of the two. Difficulty is one of the best predictors of the attitude towards the line extension. If the objective of a manufacture is to directly influence the attitude of a consumer towards a line extensions, the focus must be placed on the perceived quality of the parent brand. The highest interaction was found here.
Preface
The path to writing this final page in my educative career was long. To be quit honest I will start believing it that it is ended when I finally have the desired blue grade slip for the educational office. The road which lead me here was not the fastest or must prestigious. However, I did complete it and during my years in Groningen I had the best time of my life.
During the period of writing this thesis I learned a lot about myself and certainly would do things different if I had to do it over. But I believe this is all part of the process and it helps you to develop into the character of a academic graduate. Besides the accomplishment of this thesis, I simultaneously was succeeding in personal fields of interests which makes this even better. The fact that we are in one of the deepest recession ever at the moment can’t even spoil the feeling of achievement.
At this point I would like to express my thanks to my parents and girlfriend. They supported me emotional and financially the entire time for which I am very grateful. Moreover, a lot of appreciation goes out to my friends for their advice and time spend listening to my frustrations.
Finally, I would like to thank Laurens Sloot as my supervisor for his advice and always quick response. I found the feedback provided useful and his point on view on the matter was interesting and helpful in overcoming obstacles.
I also would like to express my thanks to Sonja Gensler as second supervisor. Her feedback was refreshing and helped me complete this paper.
Daan Prop
Table of content
Management Summary ---3
Preface ---4
Chapter 1 Introduction ---7
Hypotheses and structure ---9
Chapter 2 Literary review--- 11
2.1 Brand Equity--- 11
2.1.1 Different levels of brand equity--- 11
2.1.2 Customer Based Brand Equity --- 12
2.1.2 CBBE --- 12
2.2 Customer Based Brand Equity models --- 13
2.2.1 Aaker’s Customer Based Brand Equity model--- 13
2.2.2 Keller’s Customer Based Brand Equity model--- 15
2.2.3 Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid --- 16
2.3 Additional literature--- 18 2.4 Conclusion --- 20 2.5 Line extensions--- 21 2.6 FIT --- 22 2.6.1 QUALITY --- 24 2.6.2 DIFFICULT --- 25 2.7 Additional literature--- 26 2.8 Conclusion --- 26
2.9 CBBE and Extensions --- 27
2.10 Conclusion --- 28
Chapter 3 Conceptual model --- 29
Chapter 4 Research design --- 33
4.1 Exploratory vs. conclusive research--- 33
4.2 Causality --- 33
4.3 Experimental design--- 34
4.4 The constructs --- 35
4.5 The statistical tests --- 37
4.6 Sample --- 38
4.7 Pre-testing the questionnaire --- 38
5. Descriptive Results --- 39
5.1 Sampling design --- 39
5.2 Sample --- 39
5.3 Representativeness of the sample--- 40
5.4 Measuring items and internal reliability --- 41
5.5 Descriptive results --- 42
5.5.1 CBBE results--- 42
5.5.2 Purchasing features --- 43
5.5.3 Extension evaluations --- 44
6. Hypotheses testing--- 47
6.1 Customer based brand equity --- 47
6.2 Involvement--- 47
6.3 Attitude & Loyalty--- 48
6.4 Attitude & Perceived Quality --- 48
6.6 The FIT construct--- 49
6.7 Attitude & Perceived Difficulty --- 51
6.8 CBBE & Attitude --- 52
6.8.1 CBBE & Attitude H6B --- 53
6.9 Regression analysis --- 53
6.10 Conclusion --- 55
Chapter 7 Conclusion & Recommendation --- 56
7.1 Conclusions --- 56
7.2 Answering the problem statement--- 58
7.3 Reflection and further research--- 58
7.4 Limitations --- 59
References --- 60
Chapter 1 Introduction
“A product is something that is made in a factory; a brand is something that is bought by a customer. A product can be copied by a competitor; a brand is unique. A product can be quickly outdated; a successful brand is timeless.”
This quote by Stephen King (1989) from the WPP Group London gives a direct meaning to the usefulness of a successful brand. Kotler (1970) defines a brand as: a name, term, sign, symbol or design, which is intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers from those of competitors. What is the definition of a successful brand ? A metric which has had a large growth in interest in the last two decades is brand equity. This measure is widely accepted both by the academic as the business world. The definition generally used is defined as: the
marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name (Leuthesser, 1988).
(Ernst & Young and ACNielsen 1999; Marketing 2003; Völckner, 2006). Looking at the rate we can conclude that there is enough to learn about successfully introducing new extensions. Relative to new or less established brands, extensions of strong brands are assumed to (a) obtain greater introductory market share (b) at a premium price with (c) less investment in marketing communication (Delvecchio and Smith, 2005). One way to try and succeed in introducing an extension is to reach the highest level of CBBE of the brand by achieving resonance (Keller, 2001). In this situation a relationship is established between the brand and the customer. Furthermore, there is an interaction effect between the original brand and the extension (Aaker and Keller, 1990). The previous arguments show that there is a relationship between CBBE and extension of that brand. There are several ways to evaluate the success of a line extension. To follow the same road used for measuring CBBE (the success of a brand ), we will measure the success of a line extension by using the consumers attitude towards the extension which consists of; the perceived quality of the product and the likelihood of buying the product (Aaker and Keller, 1990). By addressing the evaluation this way it is also based on the consumers perception.
The impact of having a strong brand name is visible in retailing too. Two important issues concerning CBBE and (line) extension(s) in terms of delisting and introducing new products will be described. First of all, manufactures must insure that they are in the position that no retailer will de-list them, which is an actual topic in the ongoing supermarket price war in the Netherlands. Secondly, they must have such a high (positive) CBBE that consumers are triggered to try new line extensions of the brand and therefore generate a positive result for the retailer in order to be accepted to the category without losing existing space. The first issue can be generated by a high CBBE. When a certain brand has lots of very positive associations by a consumer and he is delighted with the product (there is resonance reached as described previously by Keller, 2007) he will be disappointed when that brand /product is no longer available by the retailer. If the loyalty, which is an important antecedent of CBBE, is high enough the delisting of his brand can cause the consumer to switch retailer, or how A.J O’Reilly former CEO of H.J. Heinz Company stated; “My acid test on the issue of brand loyalty is
whether a housewife intending to buy Heinz Tomato Ketchup in a store, finding it to be out-of-stock, will walk out of the door to buy it elsewhere or switch to an alternative brand or product.” Something no retailer would want is their consumer to switch store. So, having a high
transferred from the parent brand to the product (Keller, 1993; Kirmani et al. 1999). This lead can help to convince a retailer to introduce a new product in a category due to the fact that it will have a high(er) probability that consumers will buy it compared to a brand with weaker brand image. Besides the existing customers, the brand with a high level of CBBE will have a high level of brand awareness and brand association which can attract new customers. These dimensions can be stimulated through advertisement and word of mouth experience.
Besides the opportunities in retailing there is another danger which must receive an adequate level of attention by FMCG manufactures. This development is the increasing items of private labels by retailers. In Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany there has been an average increase in private labels of 8 percent between 2000 and 2006 (GfK annual guide, 2008). One of the main reasons is because of the better margin on these products. In this research we will investigate what the effect from the different dimensions of CBBE is on line extensions in a Fast Move Consumer Good category in different price levels. This information will help us to in making investment decisions for a brand to launch consumer products in higher price levels. The relevancy is that this kind of research in the past primarily focussed on brand extensions. We will investigate if the effect is the same for line extensions and this means that we simultaneously our testing the usefulness of a model of brand extension success drivers for line extension.
1.1 Hypotheses and structure
With the describing trends in retailing we have demonstrated the importance and relevancy of CBBE for manufactures. As is mentioned earlier an extension can have a positive effect on the parent CBBE and can be positively influenced by the existing parent brand. In this investigation we would like to investigate how that relationship is determined and what the effect is. Therefore the problem statement at hand is: What is the effect of CBBE on the consumers
evaluation of a line extension?
In order to clear this problem statement the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1A: CBBE must be computed through four dimensions: loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness and brand association.
H1B: The relationship between brand awareness and brand associations is positively moderated by the involvement of the customer towards the product category.
H2: The loyalty to a brand is positively related to the attitude towards the line extension.
H3: There is a positive relationship between the perceived quality of the parent brand and the attitude towards the line extension.
H5: Their is a positive relationship between the perceived difficulty of a line extension and the overall attitude towards that extension.
H6a: CBBE is positively related towards the attitudes of the line- extensions.
H6b: Perceived fit positively moderates the relationship between CBBE and the attitude towards a line extension.
Chapter 2 Literature review
In order to determine the relationship between an extension and brand equity (BE), we will cover these topics from an academic point of view, by using the models, findings and definitions of journal articles. The Consumer Based Brand Equity (CBBE) –models from Aaker and Keller will have the main attention in the brand equity section, because of their frequent use in academic research. Additional findings in the literature concerning this topic and the models will be presented afterwards. After the BE section we will provide the relevant information concerning extensions. In this section we will clarify what is known about extensions and their success drivers/factors using customer evaluations. This shall be done by describing the variables which were developed by Aaker and Keller (1990). Finally, we provide an overview of knowledge between the relationship of BE and extensions.
2.1 Brand Equity
Brand Equity has different points of views and can be used in many ways. In this section we provide an overview concerning the construct BE. Among researchers there has been a lot of discussion on the topic of BE concerning it’s dimension, influencing factors and metric, which we will discuss further on in this paper. Despite the presence of many definitions, there is mutual agreement towards it’s general definition (Ailawadi et al., 2003): Brand equity is defined
as the marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name (Leuthesser,
1988). Due to this acceptation in the academic world we will also use this definition.
2.1.1 Different levels of brand equity
The purpose of this research will be to investigate the customer based view. The financial perspective measures the impact on the financial performance of an organization and can be defined as the outcome of the customer-based BE (Lassar et al., 1995).
2.1.2 Customer Based Brand Equity
CBBE is from the perspective of the individual consumer (Keller, 1993). This implies that the brand ’s associations, familiarity and awareness from the customer are used for assessing customer-based brand equity. We have derived this from Keller (2008) who states that CBBE is founded when: “Customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer has a high level of
awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favorable and unique brand associations in memory.”
According to Ailawadi et al., (2003) it’s the attitude, image and knowledge which a customer holds. CBBE can be found by conducting customer surveys (Winters, 1991; Park and Srinivasan, 1994). Two constructs which include the elements in most CBBE conceptualizations (Netemeyer et al., 2004) are those of Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). CBBE is the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand (Keller, 1993). The definition of Aaker (1991):A set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand , its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to the firm’s customers.
The third definition we would like to mention is that of Farquhar (1989). Farquhar defines BE as the “added value” with which a given brand endows a product. When looking at the different definitions we notice that they are concerned with the extra value of a brand which can be reaped through marketing efforts. The “playing field” of CBBE is in the consumers mind. According to Keller (1993) and his definition a brand is said to have positive (negative) customer-based brand equity if consumers react more (less) favorably to the product, price, promotion or distribution of the brand than they do to the same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service. Why must people be interested in CBBE, one might say? Aaker provides six value adding advantages which originates from BE.
1. It can enhance programs or attract new customers or recapture old ones.
2. The different dimensions of which BE consist of can complete each other and provide synergy. The main focus here is the creation of brand Loyalty through the other dimensions.
4. BE can create a platform for growth via brand extensions.
5. BE can provide leverage in the distribution channel. When dealing with an established brand there are less uncertainty because of the achieved recognition and associations. 6. BE assets provide a competitive advantage that often presents a real barrier to
competitors.
Especially numbers four and five are of interest to our study. Keller (1993) finds that conceptualizing CBBE is the most useful because it suggests both specific guidelines for marketing strategies, tactics and areas where research can be helpful in assisting managerial decision making. By investing CBBE from different points of view we have learned that it is a concept associated with the mind-set of the consumer and how this relationship between the knowledge (association) of the brand and the consumption can be maximized.
2.2 Customer Based Brand Equity models
As mentioned in the preview of this chapter the models of Aaker and Keller will now be discussed. After these models we will try to complete the knowledge by challenging and supporting parts of the models through additional articles/ researches.
2.2.1 Aaker’s Customer Based Brand Equity model
According to Aaker CBBE is affected/ created by five categories of brand assets: brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other proprietary brand assets brand
loyalty is “a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a brand. It reflects how likely a
customer will be to switch to another brand ”. In loyalty different stages can be reached in which every stage represents a different type of marketing challenge and type of asset to manage and exploit. The levels of loyalty from the lowest to highest level which Aaker distinguished are:
- Switchers/ Price Sensitive. Indifferent- No Brand Loyalty - Satisfied/ Habitual Buyer. No reason to change.
- Satisfied Buyer with switching costs. - Likes the brand and considers it a friend. - Committed buyer.
Brand awareness is the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a
member of a certain product category. There are four levels of awareness: - No knowledge/awareness of the entire brand.
- Brand recognition (lowest level of awareness) is based upon an aided recall test. A set of brands is given and the respondents must tell if they have heard of the brand before. - Brand recall is based on the unaided recall of a person. In contrast with aided recall the
respondent isn’t given a list of brand names, but has to recall them from memory. - The first name given in the unaided recall is highest level of recall: Top of mind
The benefits which can be reaped of brand awareness are: Anchor to which other associations can be attached, familiarity-liking, signal of substance /commitment, brand to be considered.
Perceived quality is the customer’s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a
product or service with respect to its intended purpose, relative to alternatives. In this context it is the perception which a consumer has of a brand. Closely related, but certainly not the same concepts, are: actual or objective quality, product-based quality, manufacturing quality. The benefits which can be reaped are: Reason-to-buy, differentiate/position, price, channel member interest, extensions.
Brand associations is defined as “anything linked in memory to a brand ” The benefits which
can be reaped are: Help process/retrieve information, differentiate/position, reason-to-buy, create positive attitude/feelings, extensions.
For obvious reasons there isn’t a clear definition of others proprietary brand assets, but the benefit according to Aaker is a competitive advantage.
In addition to this model Aaker (1996) developed a set of measurement instruments for the original five BE dimensions. These ten tracking instruments are applicable to measuring BE across products and markets. The ten tracking instruments are:
Brand equity dimensions Tracking instrument
Loyalty Price Premium, satisfaction and loyality
Perceived Quality Perceived Quality/Leadership Brand associations Perceived value, brand personality,
organizational associations
Brand awareness Brand Awareness
Market behaviour Market share, Price and Distribution Indices.
Table 1: Aaker’s brand equity measurement instruments
2.2.2 Keller’s Customer Based Brand Equity model
In 1993 Keller came with another model which was based on brand knowledge, a brand node in memory to which a variety of associations are linked (Keller, 1993) consisting of the two main dimensions brand awareness and brand image. The model has a lot of similarity with Aaker’s model. Keller finds that brand awareness consists of brand recognition and recall performance and brand image is the perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory. When these two are put next to the definitions of Aaker strong resemblances are found. We have the opinion that brand image and brand associations are the same. This gives support to the statement mentioned above about the similarity of the models, which could be a reason why they are both so influential. We would now like to give a further explanation of the several dimensions of Keller’s brand knowledge and his influential work.
Brand awareness is related to the strength of the brand node or trace in memory, as reflected by consumers’ ability to identify the brand under different conditions (Rossiter and Percy 1987, Keller, 1993). As mentioned above this can be either in the form of brand recognition (the consumers’ ability to confirm prior exposure to the brand when given the brand as a cue or brand recall) and brand recall (relates to consumers’ ability to retrieve the brand when given the product category, the needs fulfilled by the category, or some other type of probe as a cue). The importance of the two dimensions depends on in store buying decisions of the consumer because then these dimensions can influence that decision. Brand awareness is highly influential in consumer decision making for several reasons:
- The relationship between thinking of a brand when a consumer is thinking of a product category.
- It can create a preference through the way consumers’ reason.
- By influencing the formation and strength of brand associations in the brand image. The present of a brand node in memory is crucial for the establishment of brand image.
Building a successful and powerful brand through CBBE requires that a brand to have favorable, strong and unique brand association. These associations are at the core of building CBBE and therefore a strong brand. This can be accomplished through the brand elements and the integrations of these elements in the supporting marketing program.
CBBE can be measured through two approaches: indirect and direct. The indirect approach measures brand knowledge and the direct approach measures the impact of brand knowledge on customer response to different features of the organizations marketing program. To measure CBBE it is important to measure the two together, because they are complementary. For measuring brand knowledge (indirect approach) it is necessary to measure brand awareness and the elements and among relationships with brand associations. It is desirable to use several way of measuring. Brand awareness can be addressed with aided and unaided memory measures which can be used to test brand recall and recognition. Qualitative measurement approaches can be used to determine possible associations. There are two general approaches of measuring among relations between brand associations: a) comparing the elements of brand associations, b) directly getting information from consumers about the brand associations concerning the congruence, competitive overlap or leverage. For the direct approach two groups of consumers must be selected in which one group responds to features of the real marketing program of the brand , and the other group to the same features of the marketing program but with a fictive brand name.
2.2.3 Customer-Based Brand Equity Pyramid
In 2001 Keller published a four step pathway on how companies could build CBBE in the form of a pyramid (see figure 1). The four steps represent questions asked by the consumer towards the brand , either implicitly or explicitly:
1. Who are you? (brand identity) 2. What are you? (brand meaning)
3. What about you? What do I think or feel about you? (brand responses)
Figure 1: CBBE Pyramid from Keller (2001)
This branding ladder must be taken in this order because the earlier stage is necessary for the following one. In this subsequent order each step represents a building block. Also here, it is important to start at the bottom of the pyramid (block 1) and fulfill the first step before going to the next. If not, the top of the pyramid, which represents the highest CBBE can never be reached. The building blocks which correspondent with the four steps will now be given with a brief explanation.
1. Salience measures awareness of the brand , for example, how often and how easily the brand is evoked under various situations. Top of mind, brand recall and recognitions are indicators in this block
2. Performance describes how well the product or services meets customers’ more functional needs. At the centre of brand equity lies the product it self. Imagery depends on the extrinsic properties of the product or service, including the ways in which the brands attempts to meet customers’ psychological or social needs.
3. Brand judgments are customers’ personal opinions about and evaluations of the, brand which consumers form by putting together all the different brand performance and imagery associations. Four major judgments can be identified: judgment about quality, credibility, consideration and superiority. Brand feelings are customers’ emotional responses and reactions to the brand.
4. At the top of the pyramid, the highest level of CBBE is resonance. This feature represents and defines the nature and the quality of the relationship and to what extend they feel “in sync”. This block can be looked at in two dimensions: intensity and depth of psychological bond. These dimensions can be divided into four categories: behavioral loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community, active engagements.
Salience
Performance Imagery Judgements Feelings
Resonance
1. Identity Who are you?
2. Meaning What are you?
The pyramid can be seen as a guideline how to reach the highest level of CBBE, in other words, how to build a strong brand. This is complementary to the previous work of Keller (1993). The surplus of the pyramid is that instead of just explaining the phenomena, practical suggestions are given how to act on reaching a higher CBBE. Furthermore, it helps company’s monitor their CBBE and helps them plan marketing activities. This is relevant information because as we have explained that there is a possible relationship between the level of CBBE and numerous marketing characteristics (obtaining greater introductory market share, receiving a premium price, less investment in marketing communication (Delvecchio and Smith, 2005).
2.3 Additional literature
The models above can be seen as the foundation of our nowadays CBBE. Because of this status lots of research has been done concerning these models. In these researches scientists tried to test the validity of the models and strengthen them though specifying dimensions and relationships between the dimensions for instances. Relevant findings will now be discussed, as well as some additional information which does not relate directly to the models but is valuable to this paper.
Netemeyer et al. (2004) developed measures of core aspect of CBBE. They based there aspects on the models of Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). The four aspects chosen were:
- Perceived quality (PQ): the customer’s opinion of the overall excellence, esteem and superiority of a brand in comparison with other brand (s).
- Perceived value for the cost (PVQ), the customer’s overall assessment of the utility of the brand.
- Uniqueness, the relative distinction towards other brands.
- The willingness to pay price premiums, the amount a consumer is willing to pay for his/her preferred brand over comparable/lesser brands of the same package size/quality, They found that PQ, PVQ and uniqueness directly influence the willingness to pay a price premium. Relating this to the tracking instruments of Aaker (1996) this implies that they are related to the dimension loyalty in his model. They demonstrated the validity and intern consistency between the four aspects through an investigation of 16 brands in different product categories.
research is the fact that they developed a scale which was applicable for use through multiple cultures. This was accomplished by collecting data from South Korea and the United States because these countries have an adequate range of cultural variation. They designed ten items which represented the three dimensions of brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand awareness. At first they found four dimensions in their research, but due to a very high correlation (0.89) between brand awareness and brand association they decided to only use brand awareness. In the research they have shown the significant influence of Aaker’s antecedents on brand equity. The final scale resulted in:
- How CBBE results from its potential antecedents.
- It can enhance the study of brand name values and their extensions.
- A valid, reliable and parsimonious measure which can help in tracking brand equity of brands on a regular basis.
They also developed a uni-dimensional scaling measure for an overall BE measurement consisting of four items.
Washburn and Plank (2002) tested the findings of Yoo and Donthu (1999). They specifically tested the assumption that BE is best captured through three dimensions; where brand awareness and brand association are highly correlated and where only brand awareness is used. They found that the scale represented an adequate first step, but further scale development is needed. Brand awareness and brand association do highly correlate but cannot be used instead of each other. Despite this finding they also suggested that the three dimensional scale developed by Yoo and Donthu (1999) is the most appropriate in many cases. Yoo and Donthu also suggest that it is interesting to give sub-dimensions to their dimensions. In doing so personal characteristics can be linked to brand personality from Aaker (1997) through the dimensions brand awareness and brand association. Aaker (1997) developed a theoretical frame which embraced the brand personality construct by determining the number and nature of dimensions of brand personality. In which brand personality is defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand ”. The research was conducted based on extensive data collection of ratings of 114 personality traits of 37 brands in various product categories by more then 600 respondents representing the United States. In which they rated how descriptive each personality trait was for each brand according to a 7-point scale. Through various factor analysis she came to the so called The Big Five:
1. Sincerity (down to earth, honest, wholesome, and cheerful) 2. Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, and up-to-date) 3. Competence (reliable, intelligent, and successful)
The relevancy of this knowledge towards this paper is that by knowing how to measure brand personality it helps determine its brand image or what the influence is on the dimensions brand awareness and associations. The surplus of this Aaker method (1997) is that it can be done across all what is being offered by an organization from a certain brand. Because it is possible to capture brand personality without making use of product or service attributes.
From a psychology point of view Punj and Hillyer (2004) tried to capture the underlying cognitive components of brand equity and their interrelationships in a FMCG setting. The components which are being used are: global brand attitude, defined as the highest order (i.e., most inclusive and most accessible) abstract evaluation of a brand that subsumes specific brand associations and represents the combined effect of all such associations. Brand heuristic, defined as decision rules or heuristics used by the consumer that favor brands with high global
brand attitude. Brand knowledge may be defined as the accumulated experience with the brand ,
both direct and indirect. Strength of preference component is defined as the intensity of preference for the brand in comparison to other substitute brands that belong to the same product category. The interesting aspect of this study is that the brand knowledge component of this research and Kellers (1993) are quite similar. When an individual has experience with a brand this will result in associations of the brand before, during and after usage. Furthermore, if there are, for example, indirect experiences in the form of advertisement or word of mouth this will result in associations in that persons mind. With this knowledge we have an additional antecedent to the brand knowledge from Keller (1993). The role of brand associations is dependent on both their favorableness and their role in decision making (Punj and Hillyer, 2004), because brand knowledge is influenced by brand heuristic according to this research. They tested four different models and found that the following model (see figure 2) gave the best evidence of relations and there important determinants in CBBE.
Figure 2: Punj and Hillyer model (2004) 2.4 Conclusion
dimensions except other proprietary brand assets. The grounds for this choice are that there are many research findings, as is explained earlier, indicating that the four dimensions are of influence on CBBE and it forming. Moreover, with the guidelines provided by Yoo and Donthu (2001) is straightforward to research these dimensions and measure them. This in comparison to the model of Keller (1993). We will make use of brand awareness as well as brand association, because the literature isn’t consistent on this part. Furthermore, it will give us the chance to test previous findings on this matter.
2.5 Line extensions
A brand which produces products always has the ability to extend that brand through numerous ways. There are three different ways in which a parent brand can try to reap the benefits from its existing reputation, image and current users. Keller (2008) sees the three brand ing ways as:
1. Developing a completely new brand , this is individually chosen for the new product. 2. Applying one of the existing brands to the new product.
3. It can combine the two methods mentioned above.
A brand extension occurs when a firm uses an established brand name to introduce a new product (Keller, 2008). A brand extension generally falls in to a line extension or a category extension. A line extension occurs when the parent brand introduces a new product which targets a new market segment within the product category in which the parent brand currently is active (Keller, 2008). These kinds of extensions are also referred to as vertical extensions. When the parent brand is entering a product category in which they aren’t active yet, we speak of a category extension, or horizontal extensions. In today’s business environment about 80 to 90 percent of the new products are line extensions (Keller, 2008). In this paper the focus shall be on line extensions, because of the high percentage of line extensions mentioned just now, and the case study which shall be used.
There are several advantages for a firm when working with extensions. Keller (2008) has provides the following overview:
Facilitate New Product Acceptance:
- Improve brand quality
- Reduce risk perceived by customers
- Increase the probability of gaining distribution and trail
- Reduce costs of introductory and follow-up marketing programs - Avoid cost of developing a new brand
Provide Feedback Benefits to the Parent Brand and Company.
- Clarify brand meaning
- Enhance the parent brand image
- Bring new customers into brand franchise and increase market coverage - Revitalize the brand
- Permit subsequent extensions
As every thing in life, brand extensions don’t only exist with advantages, but also disadvantages. Again, an overview of Keller (2008):
- Can confuse or frustrate consumers - Can encounter retailer resistance - Can fail and hurt parent brand image
- Can succeed but cannibalize sales of parent brand
- Can succeed but diminish identification with any one category - Can succeed but hurt the image of parent brand
- Can dilute brand meaning
- Can cause the company to forgo the chance to develop a new brand
Looking at the overview we can conclude that extensions can have a large impact (positively or negatively) on the parent brand / firm. Therefore, it is important to determine the drivers behind the success of brand extensions. We will now determine this success factors/drivers of line extensions based on the current knowledge in the academic literature. The variables which we will discuss are from the brand extension model by Aaker and Keller (1990). These factors are from the point of view of the consumer. For this reason they are very suitable for our research due to the fact how we conceptualize brand equity. By using this model and it corresponding variables it is in the same line as CBBE. So when an extension is being judged, we are speaking about the consumers’ evaluation towards an extension. If the evaluation is positive this can be interpreted as being a success and visa versa. The variables will be discussed in the following order: fit, quality and difficulty. After the model variables additional literature finding concerning line extensions and there success factors will be presented.
2.6 FIT
perceives the new item to be consistent with the parent brand (Tauber, 1988). In a study concerning 276 brand extensions Tauber (1988) showed that FIT is one of the most important drivers behind the success of an extensions success. The importance of FIT lays in the fact that the transfer of the perceived quality of a brand will be enhanced when the two product classes in some way FIT together (Aaker and Keller 1990). Although the research of Aaker and Keller (1990) focused mainly on category extensions (brand extensions), we would like to mention some of their findings concerning FIT. The reason for this is we believe that their findings and conclusions are relevant to our research. This is supported with the fact that Nijssen (1997) used them in a line extensions research. Aaker and Keller have three dimensions of FIT. We will now describe them and explain their relevance to this research.
COMPLEMENT dimension is the extent to which consumers view two product classes as complements. This can also be relevant to a line extension for example shampoo and hair conditioner. The SUBSTITUTE dimension of FIT is whether consumers tend to view two products as substitutes. Applying this to our study is relevant for the reason that when a new product is lanced in the same category the consumer can substitute one product for the other. In the case of a new 2 in 1 body and hair product this can substitute either shampoo or body gel. TRANSFER reflects the perceived ability of any firm operating in the first product class to make a product in the second product class. Translating this to line extension we would like to propose the situation that a value for money brand would expand its activity for example to a more premium segment in the same product category. Transferability has a direct influence on the evaluations of consumers. The dimensions SUBSTITUTE and COMPLEMENT interact with the perceived quality of the original brand to predict brand extensions evaluations. The most important dimensions of prediction were TRANSFER and COMPLEMENT in which there was evidence of a negative interaction of the two. This implies that one of the two FIT dimensions must be adequate, but both aren’t necessary. Sunde and Brodie (1993) made a replication study of Aaker and Keller’s extension study. They confirmed that TRANSFER and COMPLEMENT are the most important variables in the FIT dimension. They confirmed that the chance of acceptance of a possible extension increases when there is perceived FIT between the two product categories. Bottomley and Holden (2001) as well found in a replication study concerning eight different investigation based on the model of Aaker and Keller that TRANSFER and COMPLEMENT are relatively the most important predictors of the success of brand extensions. However, they discussed the need of FIT on multi dimensions or FIT in order to be positively accepted by consumers.
industry in Germany. They pointed out that the perceived FIT can increase by the use of appropriate extension advertisements in which the brand associations, features and benefits are communicated. Also there was statistical evidence of an interaction between FIT with the quality of the parent brand and with parent-brand conviction. This was also one of the few investigations which concerned the structural relationship among the success factors: marketing support- fit- retailer acceptance- extensions success. In a study only focusing on line extensions within the FMCG Nijssen (1997) it was found that an improvement of FIT between a line extension and its parent brand had a positive influence on the line extensions success. In this research as well a correlation between FIT and advertising existed, as a correlation between fit and entry. A plausible explanation for these findings could be that early entering extensions were of an offensive type. These offensive types would have a high level of FIT and would be supported by a large advertising campaign. The following extensions of other firms would not have these characteristics. The correlation between FIT and advertisement could be interpreted with the fact that communication for a line extension is difficult, especially when there is a high similarity between the new product and parent brand. This possibility is proposed in a previous research by Yentis and Bond (1995).
2.6.1 QUALITY
The perceived quality (QUALITY) construct has received considerable attention in the marketing literature (Aaker 1987, Aaker and Keller 1990) It can be defined as a global assessment of a consumer’s judgment about the superiority or excellence of a product (Zeithaml, 1988). In a research which Zeithaml conducted by analyzing journal articles she concluded that perceived quality is at a higher level of abstraction then any product-related attributes. Keller (2008) defines it as customers’ perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service compared to alternatives and with respect to intended purpose. In this research when we are discussing QUALITY, we are referring to the perceived overall quality of the parent brand (Keller and Aaker, 1990). When we are looking at the perceived overall quality of the brand extension we will refer to QUALEXT (Bottomley and Doyle, 1996). This is one of the two variables which is used to assess the attitude towards an extension. The second is TRY; this can be defined as the likelihood of trying the extension (Aaker and Keller, 1990). The attitude is operationalized by taking the average scores of these two measures (which are computed through a 7 point Likert scale)
of the extension, as long as a fit existed between the two involved product classes. Also they showed an interaction between perceived quality of the original brand to predict the brand extensions evaluations. Sunde and Brodie (1993) concluded that the acceptance of an extension will be higher if the perceived quality of the brand is higher. In contrast to the study of Aaker and Keller (1990) they found that perceived quality of the original brand has a direct relationship to the attitude towards the extension, without the need for some dimension of “fit” between the parent-brand and the brand extension. A plausible explanation why Aaker and Keller didn’t find this relationship could be their research design (Bottomley and Doyle, 1996). In a study of Bottomley and Doyle (1996) both studies were replicated. The objective of this study was to find out which finding could be supported and find probable courses for the conflicting finding. They found that: consumers’ attitudes toward brand extensions would appear to be driven primarily by the perceived quality of the parent brand and the perceived fit between the two product categories and moderated by interaction terms of quality and fit. A finding what confirms the outcome of the research of Sunde and Brodie (1993). A probable course of differences appeared to be the high multicollinearity in both researches. In a later study in 2001 Bottomley and Doyle investigated the empirical generalizability of Aaker and Keller (1990) model on how consumers evaluate brand extensions, because of conflicting results from different replication studies. In this study they found that the evaluation of a brand extension is primarily based on the perceived quality of the parent-brand and the fit. In contrast to the original model of Aaker and Keller, quality of the parent-brand is a very influential and an important predictor of how consumers evaluate extensions. Brand evaluation is dependant on the interactions of the perceived quality of the parent-brand with the complementarily and transferability of assets and skills between the current and the potential category. This however, had less influence than the previously mentioned evaluation.
2.6.2 DIFFICULT
vertical extension is when a brand develops extensions for another segment than the one in which it is active, e.g. a value for money product entering a premium segment (Keller, 2008). By doing so, they can attract new consumers who have a different look at the brand. If Coca Cola for instance brings a new dilatable form of the soda for a relatively low price on to the market, people can evaluate this as being a quite difficult extension. The reason for perceiving the extension as difficult has to do with the design and making of the extension (Aaker and Keller, 1990). Looking at the example of Coca Cola this also can be applied, because an individual can find it difficult to think of this kind of extension and producing it can as well be evaluated as being hard.
2.7 Additional literature
As explained in the paragraph of FIT Völckner and Sattler (2006) conducted a large research in the area of brand-extensions. From current findings they selected ten success drivers of brand extensions which could have a influence on the success of brand extensions and tested them in different models. We shall discuss the outcome of the variables which were influential. The variables which are included in this research which were tested were: fit, Quality of the parent brand (perceived quality) and parent brand experience (loyalty). As is explained they concluded that fit between the brand extension and parent brand is the most important driver. This because its impact on: the parent brand and the brand-extension, marketing support, parent-brand conviction, retailer acceptance, and loyalty were highly influential in determining brand extension success. Quality of the parent brand has a overall positive influence on the success of a brand extension. Loyalty as well has a overall positive effect on the products success, due to its effect on the parent brand conviction. The suggest that by increasing the CBBE and/or building a strong brand is a favorable way to succeed with brand extensions. Retailer acceptance can be accomplished by promotional activities which tell the consumer were the product can be bought which reduces the costs of the retailer. Marketing support is an interesting tool for organization because it is under direct control and can be operated in the short term.
2.8 Conclusion
between line extensions and category extensions. In some cases it can not be seen in this black and white fashion. Sometimes the extension which is made can fall into a grey area because it has features of both. Moreover, we found little results concerning the variables brand awareness and associations and their effect on line extensions. In both Aaker and Keller (1990) model as Völckner and Sattler (2006) they are not present.
2.9 CBBE and Extensions
“For a brand extension to create equity, it must have a sufficiently high level of awareness and achieve necessary and desired points of parity and points of difference.”(Keller, 2008) Looking at this quote of Keller we find three elements regarding the variables of CBBE and customers evaluation of extensions:
1. The first is the high level of brand awareness (CBBE). 2. The second is how the FIT is perceived.
3. How DIFFICULT the extension was perceived to be.
Keller (2008) continues his theory on this topic by stressing out that a high level of awareness and a positive image of a brand will increase the likelihood that a successful extension will create equity for itself. In the creation of a positive image three customer-related drivers will determine its success. The drivers which determine the positive image are: favorable, strong and unique brand associations. These are the same drivers behind building a strong brand as mentioned earlier in this paper. These drivers must be placed in the extension context to create a positive image which is the base for creating extension equity. When an extension has succeeded in creating its own equity the second step is to look and see if that equity contributes to the parent-brand equity. Again favorable, strong and unique brand associations are at the base of this process. The extension must be capable of strengthening these associations of the parent brand. Strengthening these associations through consumer brand knowledge with extensions depends on four elements Keller (2008):
1. The persuasiveness of the corresponding attributes or benefits associating to the extension context.
2. How relevant or diagnostic the extension evidence is for the attribute or benefit for the parent brand. This is related to the product performance and imagery.
3. How consistent the extensions evidence is with the corresponding parent brand associations.
4. How strongly existing attribute or benefit associations are held in consumer memory for the parent brand. This is concerned with how easily an association can adjust.
is related to the interaction of the physical product attributes in consumers’ utility for the brand in the parent category. Their results were that brands which were strongly related to the attributes of a particular category were less extendible then brands with less associations to the category. Meaning that two different brands with the same strength (CBBE) could strongly differ in extendibility. This can be avoided by companies by pointing out the general features of the brand as quality, image of the brand, lifestyle associated with the brands instead of focussing on product attributes. In doing so the brand does not limit itself to the product attributes consumer associated it with. They also demonstrated that a high valued brand name (one could say , with a high CBBE) are better extendable then weaker brands. Kirmani et al. (1999) investigate the role of ownership on vertical line extensions (entering a lower or higher price level), the status of the brand (prestige or non prestige brands) and branding strategies. They propose that owning a certain product will have a positive effect towards the acceptation of a line extension of that same brand, they call this the owner ship effect. Furthermore, this effect will be negative if a line extension decreases the benefits of a brand which are valued more by owners then non owners. They found that this effect is present when entering a lower and higher price level for non prestige brands. For prestige brands this effect was only present for upwards vertical extensions. If a prestige brand used downward extension under the same name a negative effect on the parent brand perception was present. This can be avoided by used a sub branding strategy. The overall outcome indicates that the acceptation of consumers towards vertical line extensions is related to brand imagery, the direction of the vertical extension, and whether the individual already own the product/brand.
The effect of brand equity towards product retailer acceptation and reducing introduction costs was examined by Collins-Dodd and Louviere (1999). The results indicated that the brand name is a significant driver towards retailer new product listing. It is the most influential variable compared to the other elements of the marketing mix. However, the brand name has no influence on consumer advertising, promotional propositions and wholesale prices of the retailer.
2.10 Conclusion
Chapter 3 Conceptual model
As mentioned in the literature review we will base our CBBE conceptualization on the model provided by Aaker. In the review clear arguments are given which clarify and justify this choice. The choice for brand association however deserves some more attention. The validity and importance of this dimension has received much attention in previous researches as can be read in this paper. By examining these researches it becomes clear that there is lack of consistency on this matter. The absent of consistency helps us in the choice concerning whether to include this dimension in our CBBE construct or not. We want to investigate previous researches which have done recommendations on this matter (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Washburn and Plank, 2002). Furthermore we share the opinion that brand awareness and brand associations are not the same and therefore are not exchangeable. An individual can hold for instance high brand awareness without having a lot of associations with that brand in mind. For IBM for instance, we presume that they have a high level of brand awareness, but we question if this brand awareness is a good indicator of having many of brand associations when asking numerous people. We suspect that the relationship between brand awareness and brand association is moderated by involvement. If the involvement is high the correlation between Brand awareness and Brand association will increase. The relationship of these dimensions is feasible in our conceptual model which can be found below.
Our choice of using four dimensions is justified in our literature review. The most important finding in this matter was that of Washburn and Plank (2002). They suggest that a three dimensional scale is adequate, but further scale development is needed. We intend to do this while including the involvement of the customer in relation to the dimensions Brand awareness and Brand associations. The CBBE construct is computed by the total account of the dimensions divided by the number of dimensions.
H1A:
CBBE must be computed through four dimensions: loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness and brand association.
As suggested in this section we presume that the involvement of the customer plays an important roll in the relationship between brand awareness and brand associations. If the involvement is high the correlation between these dimensions could be high which could be an antecedent for using one (brand Awareness) (Yoo and Donthu, 2001) of these dimensions instead of both as suggested by other researchers. On the other hand brand associations are a very important dimension in the model of Keller (1993), bearing in mind that it resembles brand image in Kellers model. Also we have concluded that the models of both authors have had a huge impact on the measuring and building of CBBE knowledge today and show strong resemblance. Looking at the model of Keller we concluded that the dimension of brand association (brand image) plays a very important role in establishing CBBE and therefore can not be excluded. In combination with the results of the previous referred researches the relationship between the dimensions which gives reason to exclude brand associations will be investigated through the involvement of the customer.
H1B:
The relationship between brand awareness and brand associations is positively moderated by the involvement of the customer towards the product category.
The definition of loyalty by Aaker (1991) is: “a measure of the attachment that a customer has
to a brand. It reflects how likely a customer will be to switch to another brand ”. If the
by Sunde and Brodie (1993). When the overall evaluation of a brands quality is high, which we presume to be the case when the loyalty is high, the likelihood of trying a new product will increase because the perceived risk of the consumer decreases and positive associations can be transferred from the product which is being used to the new line extension.
H2:
The loyalty to a brand is positively related to the attitude towards the line extension.
As stated above there is numerous evidence of the existence of a positive relationship between quality perceptions and the way consumers evaluate an brand extension (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Sunde and Brodie, 1993; Völckner and Sattler (2006) ). We want to investigate this relationship if it is the same for line extensions.
H3:
There is a positive relationship between the perceived quality of the parent brand and the attitude towards the line extension.
The role of perceived FIT has been determined as one of the most important dimensions in the likelihood of success of extension. Again there are questions concerning the need of several dimensions of the variable. These contradicting theories will be the objective of testing in which a line extension will be used.
H4A:
There is a positive relationship between FIT and the attitude towards the line extension H4B
TRANSFER and COMPLEMENT are the most important indicators of the relationship fit and attitude towards the extension.
taste, the evaluation difficuly would, this however doesn’t give a guarantee that the factor TRY or QUALEXT will be evaluated less favourable.
H5:
There is a positive relationship between the perceived difficulty of a line extension and the overall attitude towards that extension.
What the effect is of CBBE on a vertical extension is the challenging and renewing part of this research. That the perceived FIT plays an important role is made clear at this point. When a brand holds a positive image this will consist of favorable, strong and unique brand associations (Keller, 2008). These associations can be transferred to the extension by which the attitude towards the extension will be positively influenced by the high CBBE (consisting of favorable, strong and unique Brand associations). In this context a brand with a high CBBE could have high potential to introduce a new line extension, because it could reap the benefits of its image under the condition that the perceived FIT is positive. If the vertical extension would be downwards in segment (e.g. from a premium price to a value for money price) these benefits would still hold because the image is overall positive and will be partly transferred to the new product. Here the notation must be made that we are investigating the effect from CBBE on a vertical extension, but can’t investigate the effect of the extension on CBBE because the extensions are fictive. When a brand does not have these valuable associations as in a brand with high CBBE (in this case we state that the brand has a low level of CBBE) the imagery of that brand is less favorable and therefore has fewer positive associations to transfer. In this situation the extension could reap less benefits of the parent brand image. If this brand stays active in its original segment and introduces products in this segment or lower the same theory can be applied as for a theory explained above for a brand with a high CBBE. However, when this brand tries to upgrade its brand by introducing a vertical extension in a higher segment the low CBBE, or weak image, could have a negative effect. The negative effect is based on the uncertainty towards the new product and that the consumer holds a different image of the brand. The FIT between the parent-brand and the extension is not adequate and there aren’t enough positive associations to be transferred from the consumer to be trigged to (frequently) buy the product.
H7a:
CBBE is positively related towards the attitudes of the line- extensions H7b:
Chapter 4 Research design
With a research design a researcher has a guideline or blueprint for conducting its research project (Malhotra, 2007). This description provides the insight what we wish to do in this chapter. In detail we will justify the blueprint of our research. The choices which we make will be based first of all on the situation in which this research is taking place. Secondly, we will justify these choices through theory. Finally, we try to apply as much as possible existing models and frameworks, in the form of existing items, to again justify our choices and to ease the possibility to reproduce the study. The main advantage of using proven items is that they have proven their importance and have passed the high standards of academic review boards.
4.1 Exploratory vs. conclusive research
When conducting research there are two main ways to conduct them (Malhotra, 2007). The first is exploratory and has as goal to provide insight and understanding. The information which is regarded for the research is slightly known and the process to gather it is flexible and unstructured. The analysis of the primary data is qualitative. The outcome of this type is often the input for further exploratory research or for conclusive research. The second type, conclusive research, has as nature testing hypothesis and relationships. The information which is being used is clearly defined and the process is formal and structured. Data analysis is quantitative. The outcome of this kind of research is used to make decisions. Conclusive research can be done in two different ways: descriptive and causal. The descriptive research has the obvious goal of describing features which are necessary in decision making, e.g. market characteristics or functions. The objective of a causal investigation is to determine underlying relationships and their causes and effects. This latter research form will be the one which we will use, because we want to investigate the relationship among CBBE and the extensions evaluations and possible relations of the dimensions of which these constructs consist of. Besides investigating the underlying relationships there is another important characteristic of our investigation which stresses that we are conducting a causal research. This characteristic is that we will make use of an experiment in which we will control and manipulate variables to determine their mediating effect.
4.2 Causality
(experiment) but that that the true relationship has not been identified. In an academic fashion causality is excluding as much as possible extraneous factors and tries to increase the probability of the factors which indicate the cause and effect of the relationship. This knowledge of causality results in three conditions to increase the probability of the relation. These conditions are (Malhotra, 2007):
- The concomitant variation: is the extent in which the cause, which is indicated with X, together with the effect Y, occur together or vary as is stated in the hypothesis.
- The X variable must occur either before or simultaneously with the Y effect.
- The absence of other possible causal factors means that the factor or variable being investigated should be the only possible causal explanation.
4.3 Experimental design
infer that they were eligible. By doing so we can also see were the effect of CBBE is the strongest for vertical extensions. Hence, we have presented findings in our literature review in which vertical extension are examined up ward and downward. By using these extensions we can test for which brand (low or high CBBE) the acceptation is the highest. This shall be stress out by providing price information to the sample. To test if the fictive line extensions are indeed eligible to the intended segment, they will be judge by the marketing manager and product managers of the brands. These line extensions will be the base which shall be used to evaluated the attitude of the consumer towards the extension of a certain brand. A questionnaire will be developed which will measure these attitudes as well as the CBBE of the parent brand through statements on which can be agreed on through a 7-point Likert scale (-3 to +3). As mentioned, mainly existing items and framework will be used to improve the validity of this research. Due to the fact that the majority of the items have there origin in other scientific researches, our research will be overall quantitative, excepted of the part of selecting the fictive extensions.
4.4 The constructs
Construct Questions Source
Brand Awareness
- I can recognize X among other competing brands.
- I am aware of X. Yoo and Donthu, 2001
Loyalty
- I consider myself to be loyal to X. - X would be my first choice.
- I will not buy other brands if X is available at the store.
Yoo and Donthu, 2001
Perceived Quality
- The likely quality of brand X is extremely high. - The likelihood that brand X would be functional is very high.
Yoo and Donthu, 2001
Brand associations
- Some characteristics of X come to my mind quickly.
- I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X. - I have difficulty in imagining X in my mind.
Yoo and Donthu, 2001
CBBE All previous questions Yoo and Donthu, 2001 Involvement - I like talking about body care products.
- Trying a new body care product is very important to me.
No scource
Attitude towards the line extension
- The likelihood of trying product X is extremely high.(TRY)
- The likely quality of product X is extremely high. (QUALEXT)
Aaker and Keller(1990)
Difficulty -It is extremely difficult for brand X to develop, produce and market product Y
Aaker and Keller(1990)
FIT - The change of successfully manufacturing product X by brand Y are extremely high. (TRANSFER)
- Product X is a complement to brand Y. (COMPLEMENT)
- By using product X the changes of substituting another product from brand Y are extremely high. (SUBSTITUTE)
Aaker and Keller(1990)
Table 2: Construct development
Besides the questions which are directly related towards the hypothesises there will also be questions asked to get more insight of the general information of the sample. These can be divided in:
