IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Brand typicality and distant novel extension acceptance: How risk-reduction counters low category fit

Listed author(s):
  • Goedertier, Frank
  • Dawar, Niraj
  • Geuens, Maggie
  • Weijters, Bert
Registered author(s):

    To increase consumer acceptance of novel products, firms often employ extension strategies, that is, launching new products under familiar brand names. Prototypical brands are among the most familiar in any product category, and, therefore, seem attractive candidates for extension efforts. But, by definition, prototypical brands and their product category show a strong association. Starting from a categorization theory perspective, prior research suggests that this association may hinder the extendibility of prototypical brands to products that belong to distant categories. Yet counter-intuitively, results from two studies focusing on novel extensions demonstrate that brand prototypicality increases rather than decreases consumer acceptance of novel extensions, in “close” as well as “distant” product categories. A mediation analysis provides evidence for the underlying mechanism by indicating that the risk-reducing advantage of prototypical brands outweighs their category-anchored rigidity.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296314001374
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Business Research.

    Volume (Year): 68 (2015)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 157-165

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:68:y:2015:i:1:p:157-165
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.005
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Peracchio, Laura A & Tybout, Alice M, 1996. " The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 177-192, December.
    2. Loken, Barbara & Ward, James C, 1990. " Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 111-126, September.
    3. Olavarrieta, Sergio & Torres, Eduardo & Vásquez-Parraga, Arturo & Barra, Cristóbal, 2009. "Derived versus full name brand extensions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 899-905, September.
    4. Veryzer, Robert W, Jr & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 1998. " The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 374-394, March.
    5. Bhat, Sobodh & Reddy, Srinivas K., 2001. "The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 111-122, September.
    6. Sujan, Mita, 1985. " Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 31-46, June.
    7. Peter N. Golder & Gerard J. Tellis, 1997. "Will It Every Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 256-270.
    8. Broniarczyk, Susan M & Alba, Joseph W, 1994. " The Role of Consumers' Intuitions in Inference Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 393-407, December.
    9. James L. Oakley & Adam Duhachek & Subramanian Balachander & S. Sriram, 2008. "Order of Entry and the Moderating Role of Comparison Brands in Brand Extension Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(5), pages 706-712, August.
    10. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    11. Stayman, Douglas M & Alden, Dana L & Smith, Karen H, 1992. " Some Effects of Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconfirmation Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 240-255, September.
    12. Campbell, Margaret C & Keller, Kevin Lane, 2003. " Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 292-304, September.
    13. Montgomery, Cynthia A & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1992. "Risk Reduction and Umbrella Branding," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(1), pages 31-50, January.
    14. Campbell, Margaret C & Goodstein, Ronald C, 2001. " The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Consumers' Evaluations of Product Incongruity: Preference for the Norm," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 439-449, December.
    15. Urbany, Joel E & Dickson, Peter R & Wilkie, William L, 1989. " Buyer Uncertainty and Information Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 208-215, September.
    16. Kim, Chung K. & Lavack, Anne M. & Smith, Margo, 2001. "Consumer evaluation of vertical brand extensions and core brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 211-222, June.
    17. Park, C Whan & Milberg, Sandra & Lawson, Robert, 1991. " Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 185-193, September.
    18. Tauber, Edward M., 1981. "Brand franchise extension: New product benefits from existing Brand Names," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 36-41.
    19. Zhang, Shi & Sood, Sanjay, 2002. " "Deep" and "Surface" Cues: Brand Extension Evaluations by Children and Adults," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 129-141, June.
    20. van Osselaer, Stijn M J & Alba, Joseph W, 2003. " Locus of Equity and Brand Extension," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(4), pages 539-550, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:68:y:2015:i:1:p:157-165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.