IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v68y2015i1p157-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Goedertier, Frank
  • Dawar, Niraj
  • Geuens, Maggie
  • Weijters, Bert

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Goedertier, Frank & Dawar, Niraj & Geuens, Maggie & Weijters, Bert, 2015. "Brand typicality and distant novel extension acceptance: How risk-reduction counters low category fit," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 157-165.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:68:y:2015:i:1:p:157-165
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. repec:eee:ijrema:v:30:y:2013:i:4:p:383-394 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Tauber, Edward M., 1981. "Brand franchise extension: New product benefits from existing Brand Names," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 36-41.
    20. 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.
    21. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kuo, Andrew & Rice, Dan Hamilton & Fennell, Patrick, 2016. "How fitting! The influence of fence-context fit on price discrimination fairness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2634-2640.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.