The name brand effect in judgments of similarity between products

Department of Marketing, Charles H. Lundquist, University of Oregon School of Business, Eugene, OR 97403-1208, Tel: 541 346 3358, dmboush @oregon.uoregon.edu

Abstract

The data presented demonstrate that similarity judgments between pairs of brand categories can be asymmetric and that brand associations can be reversed. symmetrical direction. Brand associations can, but are not required to, increase perceived similarity between product categories. The results support the idea that similarity judgments between product categories are highly correlated and context-dependent. Because similarity plays a key role in models of emotion transfer between trademarked products, asymmetry in similarity has direct implications for brand extension strategies. Firms may minimize the risk of core product brand extensions by emphasizing the extension's variable status.

Keywords: generalization, brand extension, similarity

The concept of similarity plays a basic role in human cognitive models, and plays a fundamental role in the understanding of consumer behavior. The knowledge and research part is not inferior either. Explanations for the way people think about advertising, packaging, products, and sales pitches generally assume that (people) respond similarly to similar things. A recent area of ??interest in marketing, where similarity does have an advantageous role, involves the evaluation of new products bearing an existing brand (brand extension). Previous research on brand extensions has relied heavily on the importance of the similarity relationship between the brand's existing performance and the proposed extension. (Aaker and Keller 1990; Boush and Loken 1991; Keller and Aaker 1992). One of the central tenets that has been established is that similarity affects positive emotional transfer from a brand's existing product to a brand extension. Aaker and Keller (1990) follow the terminology used by Tauber (1988) in exploring brand extension similarity as "fit" and more explicitly incorporate a categorical framework focusing on higher-level judgments of effectiveness, ( The effectiveness) with respect to brand skills and resources, replacement of existing products and extensions and complementation of initial products and extensions. (See also Sunde and Brodie (1993). Boush and Loken (1991)), and also discuss similarity as the breadth of brand extension, which is typical of the categories represented by brands. In market research, the term similarity is expanded to include "brand meaning congruence", which is the similarity between a new product category and a brand's meaning to consumers, and "brand breadth", which is the existing meaning of a brand. Similarity between products. (Boush and Loken 1991; Sheinin and Schmitt 1994)

The proper nouns have been checked online. I will not translate the foreign names. Please take a look and see if there is anything you missed.