The perceived fit of the brand extension stems from the concept of family resemblance.
Family resemblance refers to the degree to which a category member has attributes in common with other category members (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Because a brand linked with diverse products can carry more attributes shared by original and extended products, the perception of such resemblances should be able to enhance the perceived fit of the new extension. Klink and Smith (2001) and Oakley, Duhachek, Balachander, and Sriram (2008) showed that multiple product exposures increased the perceived fit of the coming new
extension.
It is logical to assume that when a consumer processes a brand extension at a high construal level, the perceived common attributes between the extension and the brand should increase. Park, Milberg, and Lawson (1991), for example, found that a low perceived fit of extension occurred when consumers’ categorization processes were based on similarities in a product’s features, whereas a high perceived fit took place when people process the extension based on concept consistency. More directly, Volckner and Sattler (2006) found that
linking an extension to the abstract brand’s image could overcome the initial perception of a low category fit.
As found in Study 1 & 2, a high or low level of product categories are associated with a brand with an unframed or framed logo, respectively. A new extension is expected to fit more with a brand at a high product category than at a low product category. Therefore,
consumers are expected to perceive a new extension under a parent brand with an unframed logo better than the one with a framed logo because an unframed logo can carry more
products, imply a greater diversity of products and contain higher levels of product categories than a framed logo.
H7: Consumers perceive the new extension as having a greater fit with the parent brand with an unframed logo than with a framed logo.
Because promotion-focused people are expected to associate more products and higher product categories with the brand having an unframed than a framed logo, they accordingly perceived a new extension as having a greater fit when the brand logo is unframed than the when it is framed. Following the same logic, because prevention-focused people are
self-constrained by their chronic orientation, freeing the logo frame may exert a limited effect on their fit perception of the new extension.
H8: Promotion-focused consumers perceive the extension as having a greater fit with the brand with an unframed logo than the one with a framed logo; however, such an effect is limited among prevention-focused consumers.
Method
Study 3 employed a 2 (logo: framed vs. unframed) (shown in Appendix A) × 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) between-subject design with three repeat measurements to test the above hypotheses.
Materials. Three sets of logos employed in Study 2 were selected as the stimuli in the current study. The product most associated with each chosen logo was selected to be the original product category of the parent brand. As a result, the three logos represented sanitary pads, cookies, and shampoos under three fictitious names. Far extensions of these original products were chosen to avoid a ceiling effect. Drawing the insight from the calculation of ontological distance noted in Markman and Gentner (1993), the far extension was defined as the product with the seventh ontological distance to the parent brand. The ontological distance of a pair was represented as the number of nodes in the ontology tree that had to be traversed to get from one to the other. Consequently, pajamas, energy drinks, and hair dryers were chosen to be the new extension for the brands of sanitary pads, cookies, and shampoos, respectively.
Participants and procedure. One hundred and seventeen undergraduate students (71 females and 46 males), with an average age of 20.60 (SD = 2.30), participated in the
experiment in exchange for a US$2 reward. They were randomly assigned into two framed logo conditions.
Participants reviewed each parent brand and its extension and then rated the perceived fit of the extension on eight 7-point items. The items were (1) it is a good idea for the brand to launch this new extension, (2) launching this new extension is a proper move for this brand, (3) the new extension will be popular in the market, (4) I like the new extension, (5) the new product looks good quality, (6) I trust the brand, (7) I am willing to recommend this new extension to my friends who need it, and (8) I will purchase this new extension if I need one.
Then, participants rated the manufacturing difficulty of the extended products. Finally, participants filled the Haws, Dholakia, and Bearden (2010) regulatory focus scales. The demographic background was then collected.
Dividing participants into promotion and prevention-focused group. The participants’ regulatory focus was identified by using the median split in the difference between scores for the promotion and prevention subscales. Thirteen participant’s scores were equal to the median, so these participants were excluded from the further analysis.
Consequently, 51 promotion-focused and 57 prevention-focused people were identified.
The promotion-focused participants had higher promotion scores than prevention scores (M = 3.33 vs. 3.05, paired t (50) = 3.67, p < .001); whereas, the prevention-focused participants had higher prevention scores than promotion scores (M = 3.66 vs. 3.23, paired t (56) = 6.13, p
< .001).
Results
A principle component analysis was initially conducted on the eight items regarding the perceived fit of the new extension. One component was extracted for each brand extension condition (eigenvalues: 5.50, 5.10, and 5.86). The Cronbach’s alpha for these eight items were .94. Thus, the eight items were averaged to represent the overall perceived fit of the new extension.
Participants had an equal preference for the three sets of unframed and framed logos (t (55) = 0.90, 0.61, 0.27, and 0.58; ns.). The perceived similarities of the original product category and its extension had no difference between the unframed and framed logos (t (55) = 0.21, 1.33, and 0.84; ns.). No confounding effect from the preference of the logo design or the product’s similarities was found. However, the manufacturing difficulties of the extensions for the framed and unframed logo groups were different (pajama: t (55) = 2.08, p
< .05; energy drink: t (55) = 1.58, ns.; hair dryer: t (55) = 1.73; ns.). It seems that a framed
logo might prompt a view that making the product would be difficult. Although only the pajamas reached significant differences in manufacturing difficulty under framed versus unframed logos, the manufacturing difficulty of the extensions was included in the tested hypothesis as a covariate to eliminate the unnecessary confounding effect.
The 2 × 2 ANCOVA was conducted to examine the effects of the logo’s frame and participant’s regulatory focus on the perceived fit, with the manufacturing difficulty as a covariate. The covariate, i.e., manufacturing difficulty, did not significantly influence the perceived fit of the new extension (pajama: F (1, 99) = 0.69, ns.; energy drink: F (1, 99) = 0.06, ns.; hair dryer: F (1, 99) = 1.28, ns.).
Consistent results were found in the three brand extension conditions. As expected, the logo’s frame disadvantaged the perceived fit of an extension (pajama: F (1, 99) = 2.91, p
= .09; energy drink: F (1, 99) = 9.76, p < .01; hair dryer: F (1, 99) = 12.57, p < .001). H7 was supported. The main effects of the regulatory focus were found only when participants evaluated the pajamas launched by the sanitary pad brand (pajama: F (1, 99) = 5.67, p < .05;
energy drink: F (1, 99) = 1.77, ns.; hair dryer: F (1, 99) = 1.81, ns.).
Fig. 4. The perceived fit of the extension with the framed and unframed logos
The interaction of the logo’s frame and the regulatory focus on the perceived fit were significant or close to significant (pajama: F (1, 99) = 2.91, p = .09; energy drink: F (1, 99) = 9.76, p < .01, and hair dryer: F (1, 99) = 12.57, p < .001). The planned contrasts
demonstrated that freeing the logo from the frame could encourage promotion-focused participants to perceive the extension as having a greater fit with its parent brand (pajama: F (1, 50) = 8.39, p < .01; energy drink: F (1, 50) = 25.99, p < .001; hair dryer: F (1, 50) = 11.03, p < .01). However, such benefits were not found for prevention-focused participants
(pajama: F (1, 48) = 0.40, ns.; energy drink: F (1, 48) = 0.14, ns.; hair dryer: F (1, 48) = 2.29, ns.). The findings supported H8 that breaking the visual boundary of the logo could
encourage promotion-focused consumers to have a high perceived fit for the new extensions, whereas such benefits were limited among those with a prevention focus.
Fig. 5. The perceived fit of the extension with the framed and unframed logos by promotion- and prevention-focused participants
Discussion
Following the findings of Study 1 and 2, that unframed logos could encourage more product associations, Study 3 directly applied this proposition to the scenario of brand extensions. The results of Study 3 supported the view that freeing the logo from its frame evoked a perceived fit for the new extensions. However, such benefits were found for promotion but not prevention-focused consumers.
General Discussions
This research focused on a specific design feature, the logo’s frame, in order to investigate its effects on product associations and further on a perceived fit with brand extensions. The logo’s frame indicated a visual boundary which implicitly limited the consumer’s capacity for free association and his or her acceptance of new things.
In Study 1 and 2, participants could associate more products with the parent brand when the logo frame was removed. Participants also associated more diverse products at an abstract product level when the brand had an unframed rather than a framed logo. The more multiple and diverse products the parent brand has, the more attributes a new extension shares with the brand members. Such perceptions of resemblance enhance the perceived fit of the new extension. Furthermore, the high or low level of product categories was
associated with the brand having an unframed or framed logo, respectively. This result corresponded to Park, et al. (1991) and Volckner and Sattler (2006): consumers perceived a new extension as having a greater fit at a higher rather than a lower construal level (e.g., brand image vs. product features). With Study 3, the propositions regarding the perceived fit of a brand extension were supported.
Consumers’ regulatory focus acted as a moderator in the above relationships. The impact of a logo’s frame on the brand perception and perceived fit of a new extension was more salient for promotion than prevention-focused participants. It seems that the
self-limitation of prevent-focused consumers dominates their reactions, no matter if the logo was with or without a frame. Generally speaking, removing the logo’s frame can benefit brand extension from increasing the acceptance of promotion-focused consumers.
However, an unframed logo cannot benefit such extensions when consumers maintain a prevention focus.
Although marketers may have difficulty in identifying the regulatory focus of the customers, this interaction result may be applied to hope-related products, for example, cosmetics, healthy food, and baby products, because customers tend to focus more on growth, advancement, and accomplishment while considering these types of products. If this
derivation is true, hope-related products ought to employ an unframed logo. Brand managers should take this insight into consideration. Further research on this issue is expected.
At first glance, it seems that unframed logos are better than the framed ones due to the extension potential. However, it has to be remembered that the preferences of framed and unframed logos were found to be similar in these studies. Indeed, another interesting finding was that consumers perceived products with framed logos as being slightly more difficult to make than products with unframed logos. It is possible that framed logos send out the message of being firmly principled, disciplined, and precise, which accounts for the feeling of production difficulty. If a brand can handle this difficulty well, the image of trustworthy and expertise may be created under a framed logo. This additional finding suggests that more research into the image associations of framed versus unframed logos deserves to be conducted.
Reference
Arslan, F. M., & Altuna, O. K. (2012). Which category to extend to product or service?
Journal of Brand Management, 19, 359-376.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 1-10.
Barsalou, L. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts.
Memory & Cognition, 10, 82-93.
Burris, C. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Distorted distance estimation induced by a self-relevant national boundary. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 305-312.
Chattopadhyay, A., Gorn, G. J., & Darke, P. (2010). Differences and similarities in hue preferences between Chinese and Caucasians. Sensory Marketing: Research on the sensuality of products, 219-239.
Cian, L., Krishna, A., & Elder, R. S. (2014). This logo moves me: Dynamic imagery from static images. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 184-197.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117-132.
Cutright, K. M. (2012). The beauty of boundaries: When and why we seek structure in consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 775-790.
Doyle, J. R., & Bottomley, P. A. (2006). Dressed for the occasion: Font-product congruity in the perception of logotype. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 112-123.
Dwivedi, A., Merrilees, B., & Sweeney, A. (2010). Brand extension feedback effects: A holistic framework. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 328-342.
Fishbach, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Together or apart: When goals and temptations complement versus compete. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 547-559.
Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 13, 1-6.
Gorn, G. J., Jiang, Y., & Johar, G. V. (2008). Babyfaces, trait inferences, and company evaluations in a public relations crisis. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 36-49.
Hagtvedt, H. (2011). Applying art theory to logo design: The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Advances in Consumer Research, Asia-Pacific
Conference Proceedings, 9, 28-29.
Hem, L. E., & Iversen, N. M. (2004). How to develop a destination brand logo: A qualitative and quantitative approach. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4, 83-106.
Henderson, M. D., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Implementation intentions and disengagement from a failing course of action. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 81-102.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2008). Culture and personality: variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 608-634.
Janiszewski, C. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 18-32.
Jiang, Y., Gorn, G. J., Galli, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2015). Does your company have the right logo? How and why circular- and angular-logo shapes influence brand attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research. In press.
Johnson, M. (2008). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding:
University of Chicago Press.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: the interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self-regulatory mechanisms on test performance.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 393-405.
Klink, R. R. (2003). Creating meaningful brands: The relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters, 14, 143-157.
Klink, R. R., & Smith, D. C. (2001). Threats to the external validity of brand extension research. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 38, 326-335.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought: Basic books.
Ledgerwood, A., & Trope, Y. (2011). Local and global evaluations: Attitudes as
self-regulatory guides for near and distant responding. Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications, 226-243.
Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 735-747.
Levav, J., & Zhu, R. (2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 600-610.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135-1145.
Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57, 71-84.
Louro, M. J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). Negative returns on positive emotions:
The influence of pride and self-regulatory goals on repurchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 833-840.
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Zhu, R. (2007). The influence of ceiling height: The effect of priming on the type of processing that people use. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 174-186.
Myrseth, K. O. R., & Fishbach, A. (2009). Self-control: A function of knowing when and how to exercise restraint. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 247-252.
Nijssen, E. J., & Agustin, C. (2005). Brand extensions: A manager's perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 13, 33-49.
Oakley, J. L., Duhachek, A., Balachander, S., & Sriram, S. (2008). Order of entry and the moderating role of comparison brands in brand extension evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 706-712.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer
Research, 18, 185-193.
Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, H. (2011). Aesthetic incongruity resolution. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 393-402.
Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., & Moore, M. (2001). Goal-derived categories: The role of personal and situational goals in category representations.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 147-157.
Rompay, T. V., Hekkert, P., Saakes, D., & Russo, B. (2005). Grounding abstract object characteristics in embodied interactions. Acta Psychologica, 119, 315-351.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Promotion and prevention systems: Regulatory focus dynamics within self-regulatory hierarchies. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 143-161.
Starbucks (2010). Starbucks’ famous Siren gets coffee break, while Seattle’s best coffee takes over. In Starbuck.com.
Starbucks (2015). Ten facts about Starbucks evenings stores. In Starbucks.com.
Vaughn, L. A., Baumann, J., & Klemann, C. (2008). Openness to experience and regulatory focus: Evidence of motivation from fit. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 886-894.
Volckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70, 18-34.
Zhang, S., & Sood, S. (2002). "Deep" and "surface" cues: brand extension evaluations by children and adults. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 129-141.
Zhu, R., & Meyers‐Levy, J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 89-96.
日期:2017/01/26