Journal of Product & Brand ManagementEmerald Article: Consumer evaluations on brand extensions: B2B brands extended into B2C marketsSebnem Burnaz, Pinar Bilgin

Article information:

To cite this document: Sebnem Burnaz, Pinar Bilgin, (2011),"Consumer evaluations on brand extensions: B2B brands extended into B2C markets", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 4 pp. 256 - 267

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111148289

Downloaded on: 28-05-2012

References: This document contains references to 30 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 1900 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDAD AUSTRAL DE CHILE

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions:B2B brands extended into B2C markets

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Faculty of Management, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

AbstractPurpose – This paper aims to examine whether companies in business-to-business (B2B) markets can leverage their brands extended into business-to-consumer (B2C) markets and how consumers evaluate these extensions.Design/methodology/approach – A model is developed by combining Aaker and Keller’s brand extension model with theories from B2B branding aswell as other consumer branding literature, and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to have an insight about how consumers evaluate brandextensions.Findings – In the context of B2B brand extensions into B2C markets, consumers use brand concept consistency, product-level relatedness andtransferability of skills and resources as major cues to evaluate extensions. Perceived quality, innovativeness and environmental concerns are alsorelevant cues.Practical implications – As a consequence of these findings, branding strategies that stretch B2B brands into the domain of consumer markets can besuccessful in cases where consumers perceive a fit with respect to skills and resources, brand concept, and existing products, and when the parentbrand is perceived as being high quality, innovative and environmentally responsible.Originality/value – The main contribution of the study is to replicate the analysis of brand extension evaluation in a different context, namely B2Bbrand extension into the B2C market.

Keywords Brand extension, B2B, B2C, Regression analysis, Business-to-business marketing, Consumer marketing, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

1. Introduction

The changing market dynamics and severe competition of the

global economy have amplified the role of brands to an

incomparable level. Brand marketers seek ways to achieve

growth while reducing both the cost of new product

introductions as well as the risk of new product failures. A

popular way of launching new products has been brand

extensions to leverage the equity of an existing brand into a

new product category. The leverage of a strong brand name

can substantially reduce the risk of introducing a product in a

new market by providing consumers the familiarity of and

knowledge about an established brand. Also, brand extensions

can decrease the costs of gaining distribution and increase the

efficiency of promotional expenditures (Aaker and Keller,

1990). Brand extensions implying launching new products, a

key issue is to what extent these extensions are successful.Keller (2003a) stated that:

[this] is not a question of whether a brand should be extended, but rather

where, when, and how it should be extended. Simply put: extend the brand

–if it is possible.

Actually, over 80 percent of all new products are categorized

as brand extensions (Mortimer, 2003). This is not to say that

brand extensions are risk-free –it is crucial to know where the

“boundaries” of the brand are. For instance, whilst the

stretching attempt of deodorant brand Lynx into hair care

market was unsuccessful; Gillette, the razor brand of Procter

& Gamble, was a successful attempt to stretch into after shave

and deodorant markets. Thus, even if the product category of

the extension is intuitively related to the product category of

the parent brand, there can still be a lack of fit. Additionally,

brand extensions do not necessarily have to stick to their

parent category. The famous department store chain Marks &

Spencer launched financial services, although it was a totally

different area than retailing. It worked well, because its

customers associated both the parent brand and the financial

services with trust (Keller, 2003a, b).Unfortunately, all discussions of branding are structured in

consumer marketing context. However, some of the world’s

most powerful brands are in business-to-business (B2B)

markets; such as ABB, Caterpillar, Cisco, DuPont, FedEx,

GE, Hewlett Packard, Intel and Boeing (Webster and Keller,

2004). The question then could be raised as follows: what if a

company wants to extend its B2B brand into consumer (B2C)

market? There are various examples about powerful B2C

brands, which have once been B2B brands and now serving as

consumer brands. For instance, global mobile phone brand

Nokia started out in forestry industry (B2B) in 1865, and

then began selling rubber boots in 1960s, and it was not

famous until it started making mobile phones in 1980s. Other

examples including Philips, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Caterpillar

and IBM underlines the fact that a stretch from B2B to the

B2C market is not that uncommon (Tang et al., 2008).In order to determine whether a brand extension is able to

gain profit from its parent brand, it is essential to understand

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

20/4 (2011) 256–267

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610421111148289]

256

how customers evaluate the extensions, since the success is

largely dependent on this evaluation (Klink and Smith, 2001).

A landmark study in this area was conducted by Aaker and

Keller in 1990, followed by various academic researches (Park

et al., 1991; Bottomley and Holden, 2001; Patro and Jaiswal,

2003; Volckner and Sattler, 2007). However, there is a

paucity of research investigating brand extensions into the

B2B markets. Recent researches are more focused on

corporate brand identity and communication of intangible

brand attributes. The study of Tang et al. (2008) on B2B

extension in information and communication technology

(ICT) industry in Taiwan is the major academic research that

the authors were benefited from.The present study aims to investigate B2B brand extension

evaluation into the B2C market. The objectives of this

research can be stated as follows:. to determine whether a replication of Aaker and Keller’s

(1990) brand extension model is feasible in B2B context;. to examine whether factors evaluating brand extensions

can be successfully combined to form an effective model

for predicting extension acceptance in the research

context; and. to determine the relative importance of these factors

affecting the evaluation of brand extensions.

The study consisted of two consecutive research steps. First,

an exploratory research was undertaken and five mini focus

groups were conducted, each comprising a sample of five

people, to get insights of the consumers’ brand extension

evaluations and a take a general picture. The qualitative phase

was followed by a descriptive research using the survey

method and investigating the extent of the relationship

between selected variables. Hence, the quantitative phase

tried to formally assess the consumers’ evaluations of brand

extensions through measuring attitude for different variables.

Hypotheses were operationalized based on a developed model

adapted mainly from Aaker and Keller (1990).

2. Conceptual background

Keller and Aaker (1992) define brand extension as “the use of

an established brand name to enter new product categories or

classes”. Then an important body of empirical evidence was

developed on consumer attitude in respect of brand

extensions.Studies that were conducted by Boush et al. (1987) and

Aaker and Keller (1990) respectively initiated systematic

research on consumer behavior towards brand extension.

While the research of Aaker and Keller (1990) has always

been showed as the landmark study of the field, many

replication studies followed them (e.g. Park et al., 1991;

Boush and Loken, 1991; Loken and John, 1993; Broniarczyk

and Alba, 1994; Dacin and Smith, 1994; Bottomley and

Holden, 2001; Klink and Smith, 2001; Balachander and

Ghose, 2003; Tang et al., 2008). These research findings have

also been treated from an applied managerial perspective.Leveraging existing brand equity into new product

categories attempts to avoid the risk associated with

establishing a new brand, through convincing consumers

that the positive attributes associated with the original brand

are relevant to the new product and/or simply benefiting from

the awareness of the original brand. Aaker and Keller (1990)

proposed an attitude-based brand extension model where

factors influencing the success of the extension were: theattitude toward the original brand (QUALITY), fit betweenthe original and extension product classes and perceiveddifficulty of making the extension (DIFFICULTY). They alsodefined three dimensions of “fit” as: the extent to whichconsumers view two product classes as complements(COMPLEMENT), the extent to which consumers viewtwo product classes as substitutes (SUBSTITUTE) and howconsumers view relationships (design or making) in productmanufacture (TRANSFER). Finally, the dependent variablewas “the attitude toward the extension, operationalized by theaverage of the perceived quality of the extension and thelikelihood of trying the extension measures”.Aaker and Keller (1990) hypothesized that “the consumer’s

attitude towards the brand extension is a positive function ofthe quality of parent brand, the fit between the parent’ s brandcategory and the extension category (measured in terms of thetransferability of skills and expertise from one category to theother and the complementarity and substitutability of onecategory and the other), the interactions of quality with threefit variables, and the degree of difficulty in designing andmaking a product in the extension category”. Formally, thefollowing model was tested:

Y ¼ aþ b1Qþ b2Tþ b3Cþ b4Sþ b5QTþ b6QCþ b7QS

þ b8Dþ 1

where the independent variables are Q ¼ Quality, T ¼ Transfer,C ¼ Complement, S ¼ Substitute, D ¼Difficult, a ¼ Interceptand 1 ¼ Error term.The dependent variable Y, as the consumers’ evaluation of

brand extension was measured with two variables: theperceived overall quality of extension and the likelihood ofpurchasing the extension. Average of these two variables wasused to represent the consumer’s evaluation of extension.Aaker and Keller’s (1990) research provided valuable

insight into which extension constructs influence the attitudeof consumers towards the extended brand. Since, research onthe field has followed the seminal work around the world (e.g.Sunde and Brodie (1993) in New Zealand; Nijssen andHartman (1994) in The Netherlands; Bottomley and Doyle(1996) in UK; Van Riel et al. (2001) in The Netherlands,Patro and Jaiswal (2003) in India). Despite the wideacceptance and diffusion of Aaker and Keller’s (1990)findings, almost all the replications gave varying results andthus questioning the empirical generalizability of the originalfindings.

2.1 Research motivation and hypotheses

As this study aims to offer a replication, the original model ofAaker and Keller (1990) is modified in order to be consistentwith the scope of the study. The dependent variable is theoverall attitude towards the B2B brand extension into B2Cmarkets. It is predicted that “perceived quality”, “perceivedfit” and “perceived difficulty” variables influence brandextension evaluation. First, the underlying assumptions ofthe proposed research are discussed, and then hypotheses aredeveloped to test the direct and interaction effects of thevariables on consumer extension evaluations.

Perceived quality of parent brandZeithaml (1988) defines perceived quality as a globalassessment of a consumer’s judgment about the superiority

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

257

or excellence of a product. She concludes that perceived

quality is at a higher level of abstraction than a specific

attribute of a product. The impact of perceived quality on the

attitude towards the extension should be unambiguously

positive. If the brand is associated with high quality, the

extension should benefit; if it is associated with inferior

quality, the extension should be harmed (Aaker and Keller,

1990; Boush and Loken, 1991).Besides, previous research on consumer evaluations of

brand extension – except for Aaker and Keller’s study –

shows that consumers’ brand extension evaluation largely

depends on the perceived quality judgment of the original

brand. Once the product is activated as a category, the

consumer will immediately infer cognitive judgments

associated with the product. If the product is associated

with high-perceived quality, the consumer’s memory rehearsal

about the new brand will center on pleasant thoughts in

relation with his expected value. As one’s perceptions of

quality towards the original brand increase, trust of the new

brand and satisfaction will also increase. Therefore, the

following hypothesis is proposed:

H1. Higher quality perceptions toward the B2B parent

brand are associated with more favorable attitudes

toward the brand extension into B2C market.

Perceived fitA brand extension in a new product category is viewed as a

new instance that can be more or less similar to the brand.

The number of shared associations between the extension and

the brand characterizes perceived fit. TRANSFER is the first

dimension of “fit” and it pertains how consumers view

relationships not only in product usage, but also in product

manufacturing. Specifically, TRANSFER reflects the

perceived ability of any firm operating in a given product

class to make a product in another product class. It is

important whether the consumers feel that the people,

facilities, and skills a firm uses to make the original product

would “transfer” and be employed effectively in designing and

making the product extension or not. If not, the perceived

quality of the brand or beliefs about the brand in the original

product class may not transfer to the extension. In fact, if a

firm appears to be stretching excessively beyond its area of

competence, negative reactions might be stimulated and lead

to negative associations (Aaker and Keller, 1990).Likewise, according to Boush and Loken (1991) that

influence associated with the parent brand is transferred to

the extension when the similarity between two products is

high. In conclusion, if consumers see a “fit” between the

brand and extended product, their quality perception will be

transferred to the extension. Thus, the second hypothesis is as

follows:

H2. The transfer of B2B parent brand’s perceived quality is

enhanced when the product classes fit together. (When

the fit is weak, then the transfer is inhibited.)

Two other dimensions of “fit” are COMPLEMENT and

SUBSTITUTE. If the parent brand product and the

extended product can be consumed or used jointly, then

they “complement” each other. Conversely, if the extended

product can be used instead of the parent brand product, they

“substitute” each other. However, Bottomley and Holden

(2001) state that only a few brand extensions represent true

substitutes. On the other hand, as B2B extension through

B2C market can be accepted as extra-sectoral movement, it is

not possible for the brand extension to substitute or

complement the original brand, since the customers of

parent B2B brand and extended consumer brand could be

possibly different. Hence, SUBSTITUTE dimension will be

omitted and COMPLEMENT dimension will be modified.Broniarczyk and Alba (1994) propose an alternative

measure for complementarity stating that, consumer do not

only evaluate the brand extension based on the perceived

product category fit, but also that their assessment are driven

primarily by the associations of the brand. Thus, if consumer

perceives a brand extension to be relevant with the original

brand concept, the attitude towards the extension will be

positive. Park et al. (1991) also reveal that when consumers

evaluate a brand extension, they do not take into account only

information about the product features similarity, but also the

concept consistency between the brand concept and the

extension. The brand concept consistency is more about the

brand image than the physical features. The more the

consumers think the extension is consistent with the parent

brand concept or image, the more favorable their attitudes are

toward the extension. Thus, those extensions that are very

different physically from the parent product category can be

perceived as fitting with the parent brand, as long as they have

consistent images and concepts with the parent brand. Park

et al. (1991) found that rings could be a good extension for

Rolex but a bad extension for Timex, although these two

brands have the same parent product -watches-, but rings

were more consistent with the “luxury and high status” image.

The third hypothesis is put as:

H3. If the brand associations of the consumer brand

extension are consistent with brand concept of B2B

parent brand, the attitude toward the brand extension

is positive.

“Relatedness” is another word used to describe the “fit”

between the extension product and the original brand. Herr

et al. (1996) define it as “the strength of the association

between the brand’s parent category and the target extension

category”. They also indicate that relatedness is a similar

concept to “similarity”; it depends on the similarity of

common features, complementarities in a common-usage

situation, and substitutability in providing a common function

(Farquhar et al., 1990; Herr et al., 1996). On the other hand,

“relatedness” is a more inclusive construct than “similarity”

(Herr et al. (1996), the last one only referring to the common

physical features between the original product category and

the extension category. It does not accommodate the notion

of “conceptual coherence”; that is, sometimes two product

categories are perceived to be related to each other

conceptually but not physically. For example, CD players

and digital cameras can be seen as related to each other, even

though they have very different physical attributes. Thus,

Herr et al. (1996) conclude that “relatedness” offers a broader

view of “similarity”. The forth hypothesis is as follows:

H4. If the brand associations of the consumer brand

extension are related to the existing products of B2B

parent brand, the attitude toward the brand extension

is positive.

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

258

Perceived difficulty of making the extensionAaker and Keller (1990) define another factor as the

perceived difficulty in designing or making the extension

product, termed as DIFFICULT. When consumers perceive

the extended product class to be “trivial” or very easy to make

(i.e., DIFFICULT is low), a potential incongruity occurs.

The consumers may view the combination of a quality brand

and a trivial product class as inconsistent or even exploitative.

The incongruity itself may trigger a rejection or might lead to

a judgment that the quality name will add a price higher than

is justified and necessary for such a product. It implies that

firms should avoid extending quality brands to trivial product

classes for fear that the extension is perceived as incongruous

(Aaker and Keller, 1990). Then, the fifth hypothesis

accordingly is:

H5. The relationship between the difficulty of making the

consumer product class of the brand extension and the

attitude toward brand extension is positive.

Keller and Aaker (1997) observed how various types of

corporate marketing activities would affect corporate

credibility and hence how they can have positive influence

on evaluation of brand extension. They presented four

fictitious corporate brand extensions and corporate

descriptions that focused on one of the following three

attributes:1 reputation of a firm for being innovative and launching

technologically advanced products;2 firm’s strategy of offering environmentally friendly

products and manufacturing environmentally safe; and3 firm’s corporate social responsibility.

The findings show that corporate marketing attempts can be

useful as they improve perceptions and evaluations. Building a

good corporate image and managing an outstanding corporate

brand strategy help new product acceptance (Keller and

Aaker, 1997). Therefore, innovativeness, corporate social

responsibility and environmental concern are also considered

in the context of this study.

Perceived innovativeness of parent brandAn innovative brand image involves being perceived as being

modern and up-to-date, investing in research and

development, utilizing state-of-the-art manufacturing

technologies, and introducing the latest product features

(Keller, 2003a, b). Studies about marketing innovativeness

have focused mostly on the area of consumer innovativeness

and the innovation diffusion (Roerich, 2004). Marketing

activities underlining innovation have a major impact on the

evaluation of corporate brand extension as it leads to positive

corporate expertise perception and beliefs that the corporate

brand extension will also be innovative (Keller and Aaker,

1997). Underlining the innovativeness is an important

marketing activity that improves the perceived similarity of

customer through the brand extension. Thus, emphasizing

innovation in marketing attempts considerably enhances both

perceived quality and likelihood of purchasing for the brand

extension. The sixth hypothesis is proposed as follows:

H6. Higher perceptions of innovativeness toward the B2B

parent brand are associated with more favorable

attitudes toward the brand extension into B2C market.

Corporate social responsibility of parent brandCompanies unquestionably have responsibilities for their

community and these responsibilities must be elucidated and

adjusted with the core businesses (Kitchin, 2003). As these

responsibilities are affairs and promises, corporate social

responsibility (CSR) is eventually a function of the brand.

Similarly, Keller and Aaker (1997) define CSR as “a firm’s

philosophy to improve the quality of life in local communities

through various activities and programs”. They state that

marketing efforts towards environmental awareness and

community involvement increase the perceived likeability

and trustworthiness, however could not find significant effect

on the extension evaluation. Then the seventh hypothesis is:

H7. Perceptions of CSR of the parent B2B brand has no

effect on the attitudes toward the brand extension into

B2C market.

Parent brand environmental concernEnvironmental concern is defined by Keller and Aaker (1997)

as:

[. . .] a firm’s policy to sell “environmentally friendly” products and to

manufacture products in an environmentally safe fashion.

Corporate marketing attempts can improve the perceptions of

corporate credibility, showing that the corporate brand

extension has environmental responsibility. Marketing efforts

emphasizing environmental concern have proved to have only

a modest impact on extension evaluation, leading to the

eighth hypothesis:

H8. Perceptions of environmental concern of the parent

B2B brand has no effect on the attitudes toward the

brand extension into B2C market.

Interaction factorsAaker and Keller (1990) state that the perceptions toward the

parent brand and the fit between the parent and extension

product classes have an interactive effect on the final

evaluations of a brand extension as well. The fit between

the parent B2B brand and the new B2C extension classes

might also have a positive effect on the attitude toward brand

extensions. Tang et al. (2008) considered the interaction effect

with the factor of brand concept consistency, since a

complementary or substitute relationship between the

parent product and the extension categories is not

applicable in the case of B2B-to-B2C extension. They also

examined the interaction between transferring skills and assets

from B2B-to-B2C products and the perceived quality during

the transfer. The following hypotheses will be examined then

in order to have the opportunity to make comparisons:

H9. The interaction effects of perceived brand quality and

brand concept consistency between the parent B2B

brand and the B2C extension will influence evaluations

on the perceived quality of the parent brand and the

B2C extension product.H10. The interaction effects of perceived brand quality and

the perceived transferability of the parent B2B brand to

effectively employ its skills and assets in designing and

producing the B2C extension will influence evaluations

on the perceived quality of the parent brand and the

B2C extension product.

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

259

The above interaction effects state that consumers’

evaluations of the perceived quality will be affected by the

brand concept consistency between the parent B2B brand and

the B2C extension (H9) or perceived transferability of the

parent B2B brand to effectively employ its skills and assets in

designing and producing the B2C extension (H10). These two

hypotheses describe the interaction effects.

3. Methodology

The study uses both exploratory and descriptive approaches

integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. The

objective of the qualitative phase of the research is to see

what types of associations will emerge from a thought-listing

about the original brands and the extensions, and thus gain

insights about why evaluations are more favorable towards

some of the extensions than towards others. First, four B2B

brands and related brand extensions are set, and then focus

groups are conducted to investigate mainly the determining

factors on consumer evaluation toward B2B-to-B2C brand

extension. Focus group interviews are made by taking into

consideration different education levels and age ranges in

order to ensure the heterogeneity among the groups and to

determine whether there is a relation between education level

and age ranges and awareness of and attitude toward B2B

brands.The quantitative part aims to assess the consumer’s

evaluation of brand extensions through measuring attitude

for different variables. H1-H10 were operationalized through

a model adapted mainly from Aaker and Keller (1990) and

other replication studies discussed beforehand. A

questionnaire consisted of various questions on two well-

known global B2B brands and six hypothetical consumer

brand extensions are developed, data collected are analyzed

using the statistical software application SPSS (Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences) and multiple regression

analyses are conducted.

3.1 Selection of the stimuli

Since this study aims to analyze B2B brand extensions into

the B2C markets, it was necessary to make a selection among

a variety of valuable B2B brands. In order to include both

service and product brand categories, four brands are selected

as two distinct product brands carrying minimum service

features and two distinct service brands carrying minimum

physical product features. Those B2B brands were chosen

based on the criteria that Aaker and Keller (1990) proposed:

as relevant to the respondents, perceived as high quality,

eliciting relatively specific associations, and not broadly

extended before. Aaker and Keller (1990) also stated that

the use of low quality brands would have tended to generate

extensions that would be less realistic; therefore, industry

leaders perceived as high quality brands were chosen.After the selection of four B2B brands, next step was to

attempt to select product categories for parent brand and the

extension. However, the hypothesized brand extensions had

to be reasonable, but also providing heterogeneity on the “fit”

measures of the model. To achieve this, some extensions were

consciously chosen “barely related” and “barely consistent”,

thus allowing variance with respect to the perceived quality of

extension. Table I shows the four selected B2B brands and

hypothetical brand extension products.

3.2 Sample and data collection

In the original Aaker and Keller (1990) study and in most ofthe replication studies, the samples were drawn from student

populations. However, this includes an obvious limitation in

terms of the representation of the population andgeneralization of the findings. As it was observed during

focus group research, brand awareness levels differentiatedbased on the education level; highly educated people were

more eager in understanding the questions and showinginterest to the topic.Thus, the survey questionnaire of the study was distributed

to high educated people both online and via face to face

method, and it was aimed to cover variety in age, gender andincome levels. Finally, data from 314 respondents on six

product extensions are collected. Respondents varied in age

between 20 and 53 year-old, 50.5 percent were male and 49.5percent were female, with the average age of 30.

3.3 Variables and measurement

The questionnaire was prepared in two parts (for each parentbrand) and the same questions were asked to the respondents

in the same order. However, an open-ended question wasplaced in each part as preliminary question, in order to get

more knowledge about brand awareness levels. Besides, amultiple-choice question measuring the brand characteristics

and image was created based on the focus groups findings.Quality perception (Q) indicates consumer’s perception

toward the overall quality of each parent brand (1 ¼ inferior,

5 ¼ superior), which is the overall brand attitude (Aaker andKeller, 1990; Park et al., 1991; Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994;

Tang et al., 2008). Transfer (T) indicates the perceived ability(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree) of the firm

operating in the first product class to another product class(Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991; Broniarczyk and

Alba, 1994; Tang et al., 2008). Brand concept consistency (B)measures the extent to which the consumer perceives the

extension to be consistent with the parent brand (1 ¼ veryinconsistent, 5 ¼ very consistent) (Broniarczyk and Alba,

1994; Park et al., 1991). Relatedness (R) shows the strengthof the association between the brand’s parent category and the

target extension category (1 ¼ very unrelated, 5 ¼ very

related) (Farquhar et al., 1990; Herr et al., 1996). Difficulty(D) presents the perceived difficulty of making the extension

(1 ¼ not at all difficult, 5 ¼ very difficult) (Aaker and Keller,1990; Park et al., 1991; Tang et al., 2008).Product innovation (I) denotes the consumer’s perception

of the parent brand as innovator in research, design, new

technology and services (1 ¼ low innovation, 5 ¼ highinnovation) (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Broniarczyk and Alba,

1994; Tang et al., 2008). Corporate social responsibility (C)presents the marketing activities directed towards

environmental awareness and community involvement

(1 ¼ low responsibility, 5 ¼ high responsibility) (Tang et al.,2008). Environmental concern (E) refers to the consumer’s

perceptions of the B2B firm’s environmental concern duringthe production process and use of material inputs (1 ¼ total

neglect of environmental protection, 5 ¼ emphasis onenvironmental protection) (Aaker and Keller, 1990).Finally, consumers’ evaluation of the brand extension (Y) is

measured by the perceived overall quality of the extension

(1 ¼ inferior, 5 ¼ superior) and the likelihood of purchasingthe extension (1 ¼ not at all likely, 5 ¼ very likely). The

average of these two variables is used to represent the

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

260

consumers’ evaluation of the extension (Aaker and Keller,

1990; Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994; Tang et al., 2008).

4. Findings of the study

4.1 Qualitative phase findings

The data gathered by focus group research were evaluated in

terms of original brand associations and brand extension

evaluations.

Original brand associationsTwo of the brands received high quality ratings (Boeing and

Intel), whereas the other two received below the average

(Deloitte and Ernst & Young). The brand awareness and

brand knowledge of B2B service brands were significantly low.

This situation leaded to low quality ratings, because only a

few people knew those brands while they had no experience

with the offering, and no idea about the actual quality.

Participants with higher education levels were familiar with

these brands. Although the original aim was to select one

product brand and one service brand, the level of brand

awareness of Boeing and Intel brands were significantly high

when compared to service brands Deloitte and Ernst &

Young. Well-known brands were selected in case of

inappropriate responses related to the lack of knowledge

about brand. Therefore, questionnaire was designed to

include two product brands (Intel and Boeing) and

concerned extensions.

Brand extension associationsAnother aim of the qualitative phase was to test the

recommended brand extensions in terms of differentiation.

Hypothetical brand extensions had to differ from each other

in terms of difficulty, perceived quality, consistency, etc.One problem with low rated extensions was lack of

perceived similarity or consistency between the original and

extension product classes. For instance, some subjects reacted

to the idea of Boeing manufacturing a digital wristwatch by

stating Boeing should stick to aero-technology and would

have no credibility as a watch. For the same extension, there

was a second problem which was the “huge” association of

Boeing (n ¼ 7). Respondents commented that Boeing made

them think of something big and durable, and watch as an

accessory was supposed to be well-designed and aesthetic.

Thus, Boeing wristwatch made them think of a very ugly

watch that no one would ever want to wear. Challenging

results were also revealed for Intel and extensions. Among the

chosen B2B brands, Intel was not only the one with highest

level of brand awareness, but also with the highest level of

perceived quality. That brand image of Intel made subjects to

assume that Intel could handle any electronic-technology

related product. Table II summarizes the associations of ten

brand extensions.

4.2 Quantitative phase findings

The regression model developed for consumer evaluations of

B2B-to-B2C brand extensions is as follows:

Y ¼ aþ b1Qþ b2Tþ b3Bþ b4R þ b5Dþ b6Iþ b7Cþ b8E

þ b9QBþ b10QTþ 1

where Y (Evaluation) is the average of the perceived quality of

the extension and the likelihood of purchasing the extension,

Q (in relation with H1) is the overall perceived quality toward

the parent brand, T (H2), B (H3) and R (H4) are the fit

measures for transferability of skills and assets, consistency of

brand concept and relatedness respectively. D (H5) is the

perceived difficulty of making the extension, I (H6), C(H7)and E (H8) are the perceived innovativeness, corporate social

responsibility and environmental concern of the parent brand

company, and QB (H9) and QT (H10) are moderator terms

between the perceived quality and brand concept consistency

or transferability, respectively.The dependent variable was attitude towards the extension,

operationalized by the average of perceived quality of

extension and the likelihood of purchasing the extension

measures. The use of two indicators provided a more reliable

measure of attitude construct, as the correlation between the

two was 0.52 suggesting a reliability of 0.68.As some terms interact with one another, the

multicollinearity of regression model was examined at first.

High variance influence factors (VIF . 10) for interaction

terms indicated a high degree of multicollinearity among these

variations. Therefore the “residual centering” approach, as

suggested by Lance (1988), was adopted to diminish the

degree of multicollinearity and then analyses conducted.Regression model was formally tested by means of linear

regression. The analysis included the data from 314

respondents, giving a total sample size of 1686. The

significance of the regression model as a whole was tested

by SPSS, and F statistic was computed as 211,344 which is

significant at p ¼ 0.000, theoretically indicating that one or

Table I Overview of B2B brands and hypothetical B2C extensions

Original brand Original product/service Hypothetical extension

Boeing Commercial jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense,

human space flight, and launch systems and services

Digital wristwatch, flight simulation computer game and travel luggage

Intel Advanced integrated digital technology products, primarily

integrated circuits, microprocessors, chipsets, wired and wireless

connectivity, motherboards

Mp3 player, notebook and LCD TV

Deloitte Audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, and tax

services

Finance Academy and finance books

Ernst & Young Assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services Accounting Academy and account books

Sources: www.boeing.com, www.intel.com, www.ey.com, www.deloitte.com

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

261

more regression coefficients have a value different from zero.

The adjusted R2 for the present model is 0.56 which

compares favorably with the original Aaker and Keller (1990)

model and replications studies. Results of regression analyses

are given in Tables III and IV at both aggregate level and

brand level.A comparison of the present study with the original and

replication study is displayed in Table V. The coefficients of

determination for brand extension models in previous studies

have been increasing ever since the researchers paid attention

to multicollinearity and started to use residual centering

method developed by Lance (1988): Aaker and Keller (0.26),

Sundie and Brodie (0.43) (not adjusted for multicollinearity);

Nijsen and Hartman (0.49), Bottomley and Doyle (0.43 for

NZ study and 0.48 for UK study), van Riel et al. (0.54) and

Tang et al. (0.63) (adjusted for multicollinearity).Consumers are familiar with new product introductions

through brand extension. In general, the variables that have

the largest effects in explaining extension attitude are the two

fit variables “Transfer” and “Brand Concept Consistency”.

This is in line with previous studies where the effect of fit

variables surpassed those of other variables. However, the

findings of the present study are, however, mixed when

compared to traditional consumer-based brand extensions.At the aggregate level, the fit variables, especially brand

concept consistency, have the most substantial impact on the

extendibility for B2B brand to B2C products. This is similar

to the findings of Volckner and Sattler (2007) which assert

that consistency of brand concept (B) is more effective on

consumer evaluations toward the B2B-to-B2C brand

extensions than is the transferability (T) of skills or assets.

This contrasts to that of the consumer based brand extension.

It appears that brand concept consistency is more important

as a dimension of fit than the transferability of skills or assets

in consumer evaluations of B2B-to-B2C brand extensions.

Besides, the findings indicate that the product-level

relatedness (R), unlike the previous studies, which was only

considered in the present study as the third fit variable, has an

important effect on B2B-to-B2C brand extensions. Thus, if

the extended B2C product is perceived as related to the

existing products of parent B2B brand, consumers tend to

accept the extension and product-level relatedness also needs

to be taken into consideration as a “fit” measure.Unlike other studies, the perceived image of quality for the

parent B2B brand extended to B2C products was found not

to be affected when there was a high brand concept

consistency. Besides, the extent of transferring skills or

assets in producing the extension had little effect on the image

of perceived quality for the parent B2B brand.In addition, parent brand quality (Q), perceived

innovativeness (I) and environmental concerns (E) have

effect on the attitude towards the extension. What is

surprising is the commitment to environment having higher

effect than parent brand quality and this result differentiates

from the ones of the previous studies.The difficulty of making the extension (D) has a negative

beta but is insignificant, which is consistent with other studies

except for Van Riel et al. (2001) and Tang et al. (2008). While

Tang et al. (2008) note that the consumers tend to accept the

cross product-class extension only if the extended consumer

product is easy to produce and to market, this present study

found no such indicator.

Table II Summary of brand associations for brand extensions: numberof respondents mentioning item

Brand extension n

Boeing digital wristwatch 2.38Complicated 3

Expensive 3

Male watch 1

Bad or low quality 4

Would not buy 5

Boeing flight simulation computer game 3.57Professional 11

Expensive 11

High quality 9

Genius 5

Boeing travel luggage 3.15Durable 8

Heavy 2

Ugly/not esthetical 6

Expensive 7

Huge 8

Blue 2

Intel mp3 player 3.13Would not use 3

Not user-friendly 5

Ugly/not esthetical 8

Cheap 5

Bad or low quality 5

Intel notebook 3.85Professional 7

Expensive 5

Light 4

Small 7

Fast 9

Intel LCD TV 3.38Senseless 4

Low quality 4

No technical knowledge 9

Would not use 7

Cheap 1

Deloitte Finance Academy 3.20Good idea 13

Expensive 5

Beneficial 6

Deloitte finance books 2.12Would not buy 13

Poor content 8

Bestseller 3

Ernst & Young acc. books 1.97Poor content 2

Would not buy 9

Not beneficial 1

Bestseller 2

Ernst & Young Accounting Academy 2.90Good idea 9

Expensive 4

Notes: Numbers in italics are the average quality ratings; associations andratings are based on four mini focus groups (composed of five persons ineach group)

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

262

At the brand’s individual extension level, the brand conceptconsistency appears as the dominant factor that affects

consumer evaluations towards the extension. The findings

show that there is an opportunity for industrial companies toleverage brand equity into consumer markets if the concept of

the extension product is consistent with the parent brand. In

addition, brand concept consistency, the transferability of

assets, and environmental concerns are the only three factors

that influenced respondents’ attitude toward the B2B brand

to B2C extension across two industrial brands.The present study shows that it is indeed possible to extend

B2B brands into the B2C market. The brand extension model

Table III Aggregate regression model of the consumers’ evaluation of B2B-to-B2C brand extension

Independent variables

Standardized

regression

coefficient

Regression

coefficient t-value

QUALITY (perceived quality of original brand) 0.065 0.082 3.34 * *

INNOVATIVE (perceived ability in product innovation) 0.062 0.060 3.12 * *

CSR (corporate social responsibility) 0.021 0.020 0.97

ENVIRONMENT (commitment to environmental protection) 0.094 0.096 4.52 *

DIFFICULT (perceived difficulty of making extension) -0.021 -0.020 -1.23

RELATEDNESS (relatedness between the existing products of parent brand and extended product) 0.105 0.088 4.69 *

CONSISTENCY (Brand concept consistency between the parent brand and extension) 0.533 0.417 21.94 *

TRANFER (transfer of skills/assets from parent to extension product class) 0.148 0.134 7.01 *

QB[residual] (interaction term between quality perception with consistency) 0.015 0.014 0.72

QT[residual] interaction term between quality perception with transfer 0.044 0.041 2.06 * * *

Notes: Sample size ¼ 1,686; Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.56; *p , 0:001; * *p , 0:002; * * *p , 0:05; italicized values represent highest influential factors

Table IV Standardized regression coefficients full model at brand level

Parent brand

quality Innovative CSR

Environmental

concern Difficult Relatedness

Brand concept

consistency Transfer

Brand (Q) (I) (C) (E) (D) (R) (B) (T) Q*B Q*T

BOEINGa 0.023 0.019 0.043 0.118 * 20.001 0.141 * 0.501 * 0.172 * 20.010 0.016

INTELb 0.105 * 0.112 * 20.002 0.075 * * 20.043 0.027 0.608 * 0.109 * 0.040 0.067 * *

Notes: After residual center approach; aSample size ¼ 842, Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.53; bSample size ¼ 825, Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.59; *p , 0:001; * *p , 0:05

Table V Comparison with the original and replication studies

Independent variables

Aaker and

Keller

(1990)

Sunde and

Brodie

(1993)

Nijssen and

Hartman

(1994)

Bottomley and

Doyle

(1996) NZ

Bottomley and

Doyle

(1996) UK

Van Riel et al.(2001)

Tang et al.(2008) Present study

QUALITY 20.01 0.25 * * * 0.24 * * * 0.25 * * * 0.22 * * * 0.16 * 0.116 * 0.065 * *

INNOVATIVE – – – – – – 0.127 * 0.062 * *

CSR – – – – – – – 0.021ENVIRONMENT – – – – – – 0.002 0.094 *

DIFFICULT 0.12 0.03 Omitted 0.03 0.01 20.16 * 20.157 * 2 0.021COMPLEMENT 0.17 * * * 0.30 * * * 20.00 0.30 * * 0.31 * * 0.20 * – –

SUBSTITUTE 0.08 * * * 0.18 * * * 0.06 * * * 0.18 * * 0.18 * * 0.19 * – –

RELATEDNESS – – – – – – – 0.105 *

CONSISTENCY – – – – – – 0.541 * 0.533 *

TRANSFER 0.24 * * * 0.26 * * * 0.60 * * * 0.26 * 0.31 * 0.40 0.149 * 0.148 *

Q*B – – – – – – 0.062 * 0.015Q*T 0.12 0.08 * * * 0.08 * * * 0.08 * * 0.08 * * 0.08 * * * 0.006 0.044 * * *

Q*C 0.25 * * 0.05 * * * 20.02 0.05 * * 0.05 * * * 20.01 – –

Q*S 0.18 * * * 20.01 20.07 20.01 0.03 20.01 – –

Sample size 2,140 1,558 693 1,559 1,358 808 1,512 1,686Adjusted R2 0.26 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.63 0.56

Notes: *p , 0:001; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:05; beta coefficients are taken from the full model. Since the variables of the present model are different from thevariables of the original and replication studies, a formal comparison is not suitable. The comparison is nevertheless interesting on an intuitive level

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

263

of Aaker and Keller (1990) was modified to fit the context of

this study by drawing theories from Farquhar et al. (1990),

Boush and Loken (1991), Park et al. (1991), Broniarczyk andAlba (1994), Herr et al. (1996), Keller and Aaker (1997) and

Tang et al. (2008). This study provides evidence that in the

context of B2B brand extensions, consumers use the brandconcept consistency with the parent brand category and

transferability of skills and resources as major cues to evaluate

extensions and product level relatedness has a considerableaffect on the attitude towards extension. Besides, corporate

branding attributes such as innovativeness and environmentalconcerns also play a major role. The goodness of fit of the

present model seems to be higher than the previous studies

except for Tang et al. (2008).

5. Limitations and directions for future research

The study is not free of limitations. The first concern relates tothe way the variables are measured. As single-item measures

have been the object of serious criticism with respect to their

unreliability and low validity (Churchill, 1979), it might beuseful to develop more reliable, multi-item measurement scales

as Bottomley and Doyle (1996) already suggest, although it has

to be taken into account that a high Cronbach’s alpha is notnecessarily a guarantee for generalizability. The second concern

relates to the one-sidedness of the present study; it measuredonly consumer acceptance of the brand extensions. A relevant

question could also address the attitudes of existing B2B

customers when launching consumer brand extensions. Thereciprocal impacts of consumer brand extensions on brand

equity can be measured with respect to buyers in both B2C

and B2B markets.The third limitation relates to the number of brands used in

the study. Only two product brands were used among thenumerous well-known global industrial brands. Differences in

adjusted R2 on a brand level suggest that there are attributes

unique to each brand. A more detailed study on brandextensions could take into account several factors such as

previous extensions (Keller and Aaker, 1992), effects of

extensions on a company’ s brand portfolio (Dacin and Smith,1994) or brand architecture.The fourth concern relates to the fit variables. Because of the

non-applicability of the fit variables Substitute and Complement

used in previous replication studies, three fit variables were used

(Transfer, Relatedness and Brand concept consistency) instead.As the present study have considered different factors, it was

difficult to make a proper comparison with the previous studies

(in terms of variable by variable). Brand concept consistencyproved to be a useful factor, probably because of its abstractness.

Future studies on brand extensions could include “brandconcept consistency” and “relatedness” as well as the original fit

variables Substitute and Complement to examine whether the

abstractness of the former or the concreteness of the latter threeare superior in attitude formation.Another limitation is the way the brand extensions were

presented. Since each brand extension is presented only as anon-branded generic product and without any accompanying

text or visual cues, the extent to which a true assessment ofthe quality and likelihood of purchasing by the consumer

might have been limited. Another problem in relation with the

brand extension presentation is the absence of pricing. VanRiel et al. (2001) suggest that consumers may use “price

clues” to assess (especially service) quality (Zeithaml, 1988).

6. Implications

The implications of the study may be evaluated both from

theoretical and managerial perspectives.Bottomley and Doyle (1996) called for further research on

the role of “brand concept consistency” as an important

factor in determining how consumers form attitudes towards

brand extensions. The present study has proven, at least in

this context, that brand-specific associations are more

important than category similarity in consumer attitude

formation toward B2B brand extensions. Hence, Broniarczyk

and Alba’s (1994) claim that the “brand” in brand extension

as superior to category-based similarity is supported by the

present study.The present study has also proven that variables of Keller

and Aaker’s (1997) corporate brand extension model can be

used in the original model, showing further evidence that the

original model can be contextually adapted. By replacing

irrelevant variables of the model with contextually relevant

concepts and theories as discussed above, the present study

shows that a broad empirical replication of Aaker and Keller’s

(1990) model is both possible and valuable for additional

explanatory power and insight in more specific cases. Finally,

unlike many of previous research, the present study used a

qualitative study and inserted some additional questions in

quantitative research survey to get more data about the brand

images and brand awareness. These data were used to discuss

and interpret the findings more properly.The decision of extending a B2B brand into the B2C

market remains as a predominantly managerial topic. What

the present study has shown is that it is possible to do so.

Brand extension strategies will be most successful when there

is a “fit” between the parent brand and the extension. This fit

is determined by the extent to which consumers perceive that

the skills and resources of a company are useful in making the

extension, and whether the extension is consistent with the

brand concept of the parent brand. Any extension must

therefore begin with examining the parent brand itself. The

quality of the parent brand plays a less important role in

brand extension acceptance, although quality should not be

sacrificed since consumers can assess brand equity in different

ways than measured by the present study.Corporate brand attributes such as environmental concerns

are highly important and can be achieved by supporting local

communities through various activities and programs. It is,

however, unclear whether commitment to environment is

treated as a trend or whether it will remain as sustainable

attribute. Nevertheless, a B2B company should be aware of

the difference in perception of ethical values of consumers

and industrial buyers. Another corporate brand attribute that

facilitates brand extension acceptance is innovativeness.

Therefore, a company should strive to build an innovative

reputation and establish a philosophy of constantly launching

advanced products or services.An important practical constraint with respect to the

present model is that it is only tested on B2B brands. The

validity or importance of the model is hence not confirmed for

cases after a brand makes the transition from B2B to both

B2B and B2C. It may be possible that after a transition is

made, i.e. when the former B2B brand is both a B2B and B2C

brand, consumers would evaluate the brand extensions

anyhow according to the original model by Aaker and

Keller (1990). This pinpoints the context-specificity of the

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

264

present model. However, the present model is still beneficial

for managers by pointing out the major important factors to

take into consideration in their brand extension efforts.

References

Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations

of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 54No. 1, pp. 27-41.

Balachander, S. and Ghose, S. (2003), “Reciprocal spillover

effects: a strategic benefit of brand extensions”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 4-13.

Bottomley, P.A. and Doyle, J.R. (1996), “The formation of

attitudes towards brand extensions: testing and generalizing

Aaker and Keller’s model”, International Journal of Researchin Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 365-77.

Bottomley, P.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (2001), “Do we really

know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical

generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight

studies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 4,pp. 494-500.

Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A process-tracing study

of brand extension evaluation”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 16-28.

Boush, D.M., Shipp, S., Loken, B., Genturck, E., Crockett, S.,

Kennedy, E., Minshall, B., Misurell, D., Rochford, L. and

Strobel, J. (1987), “Affect generalization to similar and

dissimilar brand extensions”, Psychology and Marketing,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 225-37.

Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The importance of

the brand in brand extension”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 214-39.

Churchill, G. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

Dacin, A.P. and Smith, D.C. (1994), “The effect of brandportfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand

extension”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,

pp. 229-42.Farquhar, R.H., Herr, P.M. and Fazio, R.H. (1990),

“A relational model for category extensions of brands”,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 856.

Herr, R.M., Farquhar, P.H. and Fazio, R.H. (1996), “Impact

of dominance and relatedness on brand extensions”,

Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 135.Keller, K.L. (2003a), “Brand equity dilution”, MIT Sloan

Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 12-14.Keller, K.L. (2003b), Strategic Brand Management: Building,

Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 575-609.Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The effects of

sequential introduction of brand extensions”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-50.

Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1997), Managing the CorporateBrand: The Effect of Corporate Marketing Activity onConsumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions, MarketingScience Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Kitchin, T. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility: a brand

explanation”, Brand Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4-5,

pp. 312-26.Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001), “Threats to the external

validity of brand extension research”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 38, pp. 326-35.

Lance, C.E. (1988), “Residual centering, exploratory and

confirmatory moderator analysis and decomposition of

effects in path models containing interactions”, Applied

Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-75.Loken, B. and John, R.D. (1993), “Diluting brand beliefs:

when do brand extensions have a negative impact?”, Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 71-84.Mortimer, R. (2003), “Fool’s gold for marketers?”, Brand

Strategy, No. 168, pp. 20-2.Nijssen, E.J. and Hartman, D. (1994), “Consumer evaluation

of brand extensions: an integration of previous research”,

in Bloemer, J., Lemmink, J. and Kasper, H. (Eds), European

Marketing Academy: Proceedings of the 23rd European

Marketing Academy Conference in Maastrich, The Netherlands,

1994, pp. 673-83.Park, C.W., Milberg, S.J. and Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluation

of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity

and brand concept consistency”, Journal of Consumer

Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 185-93.Patro, S.K. and Jaiswal, A.K. (2003), “Consumer evaluations

of brand extension: evidence from India”, Journal of

Academy of Business and Economics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 170-9.Roerich, G. (2004), “Consumer innovativeness: concepts and

measurements”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 6,

pp. 671-7.Sunde, L. and Brodie, R.J. (1993), “Consumer evaluations of

brand extensions: further empirical results”, International

Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-53.Tang, Y.C., Liou, F.M. and Peng, S.Y. (2008), “B2B brand

extension to the B2C market – the case of the ICT industry

in Taiwan”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 6,

pp. 399-411.Van Riel, A.C.R., Lemmink, J. and Ouwersloot, H. (2001),

“Consumer evaluations of service brand extensions”,

Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-31.Volckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2007), “Empirical

generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand

extensions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,

Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 149-62.Webster, F.E. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “A road-map for

branding in industrial markets”, Brand Management, Vol. 11

No. 5, pp. 388-402.Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,

quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of

evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.

About the authors

Sebnem Burnaz is an Associate Professor of Marketing at

Istanbul Technical University. She holds a PhD degree in

Management with major in Marketing from Bogazici

University. Her research interests are in the field of

marketing, retailing, decision making, and business ethics.

She has published articles which have appeared in Advances in

International Marketing, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,

Journal of Business Ethics, and Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision

Analysis. Sebnem Burnaz is the corresponding author and can

be contacted at: burnaz@itu.edu.trPinar Bilgin is an MSc Graduate in the Faculty of

Management, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,

Turkey.

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

265

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in

toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of theresearch undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial present.

Continuing expansion of the global economy has served to

increase the significance of brands. Heightened competition

has increased the need for brand marketers to identify new

avenues for growth without experiencing the huge costs and

high failure rates typically associated with the launch of new

products.Growth through brand extension has been the strategy

adopted by many companies. Leveraging the name and

reputation of a proven brand into a different product category

helps signal to consumers the likely quality of the new

offering. The assumption here is that consumers will associate

positive attributes of the established brand with the extension.

Through this approach, marketers are able to substantially

reduce the risk of failure and its consequences. Lower

distribution costs and more efficient use of marketing

expenditures are other benefits of extending a parent brand.The strategy is inherently risky though and much of the

research conducted in this area has addressed “where, when

and how” brands should be extended. One commonly

acknowledged belief is that brands should only be extended

into categories that are logically related to where the parent

brand operates. Extensions should be compatible with the

parent brand, although sufficient fit is not guaranteed even

when extension and parent brand product categories are

“intuitively related”. Conversely, examples exist where brands

have succeeded when extending into categories totally

dissimilar to the parent one. In such cases, fit between

parent brand and extension may be at the conceptual rather

than at product attribute level.Seminal research has identified various factors that might

influence consumer attitude towards a brand extension:. Consumer perception of the parent brand – essentially, if

parent brand quality is regarded as high, an

“unambiguously positive” attitude towards the extension

should emerge;. Perceived fit – a key premise here is that “fit” incorporates

three dimensions. The first dimension is “transfer” and

relates to whether or not a company is perceived to have

the skills and capacity to operate within a product class

different to one where it is normally associated with. The

risk is to venture too far beyond recognized areas of

competence. Another dimension of fit is “complement”,

which refers to situations where parent brand and

extension can be jointly used or consumed. The third fit

term is “substitute”, reflecting when parent brand and

extension are used instead of each other;. Relatedness is closely associated with fit and reflects

similarities between brand and extension in terms of

common features, usage situations and common

functions;. Perceived difficulty in making an extension product – the

premise here is that firms risk negative perceptions if they

extend a quality brand into “trivial product classes”.

Consumers may reject the extension or believe that the

firm is exploiting the parent brand name in order to justify

a high price tag for an inferior product; and. Corporate marketing activities – some evidence exists that

consumers are influenced by the perceived innovativeness

of the parent brand. More specifically, knowledge that the

company invests heavily in research and development

(R&D) and boasts hi-tech manufacturing capabilities

might lead to favorable evaluation of an extension. A

firm’s corporate social responsibility and concerns for the

environment are other factors to consider, although

indications suggest that their impact may be minimal.

The earlier research examined various interactive effects

between certain consumer perceptions referred to above.To date, research attention to branding and extensions has

almost exclusively been confined to the consumer marketing

domain. This is in spite of the fact that business-to-business

(B2B) markets play host to many of the world’s most powerful

brands. Microsoft, Philips, IBM and Mitsubishi are among

such B2B brands that have extended into business-to-

consumer (B2C) markets. Nevertheless, B2B brands

extending into B2C markets have attracted only minimal

academic interest.Burnaz and Bilgin examine the above issues in a study that

extends the earlier research using a combination of qualitative

and quantitative methods. The overall aim is to examine what

factors most influence consumer attitude towards B2B-to-

B2C brand extensions. The aim was to choose brands

considered relevant to respondents, of high quality, evoking

fairly specific associations and previously not overly-extended.

Focus group discussions led to Intel and Boeing brands being

selected because of their high quality ratings and familiarity to

respondents. Discussions led to suitable brand extension

products for both brands being proposed, with the

hypothetical extensions varying with regard to difficulty,

perceived quality and consistency.Another outcome of the focus group discussions was that

education level influences the degree of brand awareness, with

correlation evident between education level and

understanding. That being the case, the authors chose

highly educated people for the quantitative study. For this

phase, a survey questionnaire was distributed both online and

face-to-face. The 314 subjects recruited were aged between

20 and 53 and almost equally divided by gender.Analysis of the questionnaire revealed that:

. Brand concept consistency has the greatest influence on

consumer acceptance of a B2B-to-B2C brand extension.

This shows that industrial firms have the scope to extend

into B2C categories providing the concept of the

extension remains consistent with the parent brand.. Transferability of skills and assets was also a significant fit

dimension, albeit less powerful than brand concept

consistency.. Product level relatedness was also shown to have an

important impact on these extensions. Essentially,

consumers were likelier to accept extensions when the

extended B2C product was perceived as being related to

existing products of the B2B brand.. Parent brand quality, perceived innovativeness and

environmental concerns influence attitude towards the

extension. It was surprising to find environmental concerns

more influential factor than parent brand quality.

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

266

Marketers should realize that brand-specific associationsappear more influential than category similarity in respect ofshaping consumer attitudes towards B2B-to-B2C brandextensions. In the authors’ opinion, some awareness of“contextually relevant concepts” will also help predict howconsumers might respond.Fit between parent brand and extension is necessary,

therefore efforts must be made so that consumers perceivethat a firm’s capabilities and resources are relevant to makingthe extension. It is equally vital not to “sacrifice” parent brandquality, despite its apparently lower impact on acceptance.A focus on corporate brand attributes is likewise

recommended. Burnaz & Belgin suggest that firms couldengage in programs and events to demonstrate commitmenttowards local communities. Whether supporting theenvironment is a trend or a “more sustainable attribute” is

not yet clear though. The significance of innovation leads to

suggestions that companies should regularly introduce

innovative products or services to enhance their reputation

in this area.Future research might consider a larger number of brands,

both product and service. Different fit variables could be

introduced, while investigating the attitudes of existing B2B

customers is another option. The authors additionally believe

that presenting extensions within a study setting using text

and/or visual cues and pricing information could impact on

consumer response.

(A precis of the article “Consumer evaluations on brand extensions:

B2B brands extended into B2C markets”. Supplied by Marketing

Consultants for Emerald.)

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions

Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256–267

267

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints