Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

A look at brand alliances

4,206

Published on

Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes …

Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes

Presentation of the article by Bernard L. Simonin & Julie A. Ruth (1998).

This presentation looks at the effects of brand alliances on the individual brands.

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,206
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
162
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • True product combinations & bundled products (variety packs)
  • How do these brands influence one another?
  • True product combinations (puma)
  • H1: more favorably evaluated alliances will yield to more favorable subsequent evaluations of partner brands (than less favorable ones)When brand extensions are perceived positively, the process of “brand enhancement” takes place (Loken and Roedder John, 1993)
  • Attitudes toward each participating brand may change when consumers process information about collaborative relationships or experience the product of an alliance.Preexisting attitudes toward the brand will be related highly to postexposure attitudes toward the same brand (attitudes are stable).
  • H3: Prior attitudes towards the brand are related positively to attitudes toward the brand allianceH4: Product fit is related positively to attitudes towards the brand alliance.H5: Brand fit is related positively to attitudes toward the brand.
  • H6a: For lower (higher) levels of brand familiarity, the effect of the brand alliance on post-attitudes will be larger (smaller).H6b: For lower (higher) levels of brand familiarity, the effect of pre- on post-attitudes will be smaller (larger).H6c: When lower (higher) brand familiarity is present, the effect of brand fit on the brand alliance will be smaller (larger).H6d: When lower (higher) brand familiarity is present, the effect of brand fit on the brand alliance will be smaller(larger).H6a: the spillover effect of the alliance on a low-familiarity brand will be relatively strong.
  • H7a: Brands less (more) familiar than their partners will contribute less (more) than their partners to the brand allianceH7b: Brands less (more) familiar than their partners will experience stronger (weaker) spillover effects than their partners.H8a: Highly familiar brands will contribute equally to the brand alliance.H8b: Highly familiar brands will experience equal spillover effects.
  • Assigned randomlyBooklet with materials
  • Assigned randomlyBooklet with materialsBrand familiarityFiller materials (15 min)Evaluation of alliance (attitudes toward the brand alliance, perceptions of brand & product fit)BreakEvaluation of brands in the alliance (post-evaluation)Thanks & pay
  • Car brand familiarity was uniformly high (MCars = 6.56, standard deviation=.77), and chip brand familiarity was variable (MChip=3.85, standard deviation=2.21)
  • = they are different constructs
  • Brand alliances do matterBrand alliances are important in attitudinal shifts resulting from partner brands
  • H6a: not supportedThe contribution of the brand alliance on the chip brand is not the same whether the chip brand was relatively familiar or notH6b & H6c are supportedThe direct effect of the brand alliance on the partner brands is not affected by a given partner’s familiarity.
  • H6a: not supportedThe contribution of the brand alliance on the chip brand is not the same whether the chip brand was relatively familiar or notH6b & H6c are supportedThe direct effect of the brand alliance on the partner brands is not affected by a given partner’s familiarity.
  • H6a: not supportedThe contribution of the brand alliance on the chip brand is not the same whether the chip brand was relatively familiar or notH6b & H6c are supportedThe direct effect of the brand alliance on the partner brands is not affected by a given partner’s familiarity.
  • H6a: not supportedThe contribution of the brand alliance on the chip brand is not the same whether the chip brand was relatively familiar or notH6b & H6c are supportedThe direct effect of the brand alliance on the partner brands is not affected by a given partner’s familiarity.
  • 7a is supported:Familiar brands have a stronger contribution than the unfamiliar brands on the attitudes toward the allianceH8a was significant: both partners exert relatively equal influences on the alliance.7b supported: asymmetry between familiar and unfamiliar brands in terms of brand alliance attitude.8b: chi square – not statistically significant; SUPPORTEDUnfamiliar compared with familiar brands receive greater spillover effects from the brand alliance.The effect of a relatively unfamiliar brand on the brand alliance evaluation is smaller than the effect of its familiar partner.
  • The study was replicated for two distinct but also prevalent brand alliance contexts: Northwest Airlines partnering with Visa Card and Disney teaming up with a major retailer.For the first study, the stimulus was a print advertisement showcasing the merit of a VISA Card linked to the Northwest Airlines frequent flyer program. Both brands were highly familiar.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps?<br />Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes<br />Bernard L. Simonin & Julie A. Ruth (1998)<br />
    • 2. Basic Constructs<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 3. Effects of Brand Alliances<br />Consumer attitudes toward the brand alliance influence subsequent impressions of each partner’s brand<br />Brand familiarity moderates the strength of relations between constructs in a manner consistent with information integration and attitude accessibility theories<br />Each partner brand is not necessarily affected equally by its participation in a particular alliance<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />3<br />
    • 4. Background Information<br />1990s: co-marketing(joint branding): two or more brands are presented simultaneously to consumers<br />40% growth (Spethmann & Benezra, 1994)<br />Complex, potential negative consequences<br />How does it affect evaluations of the affiliate brands? <br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />4<br />
    • 5. Background Information<br />What is a brand alliance?<br />A brand alliance is a short- or long-term association or combination of two or more individual brands, products, and/or other distinctive proprietary assets<br />Physical vs. symbolical representations<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />5<br />
    • 6. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 7. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 8. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, I.A. Nicoara, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 9. Research Questions<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 10. Research Questions<br />10<br />Do brand alliance evaluations “spill over” on subsequent evaluations of the individual partner brands?<br /> How do these brands influence one another?<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 11. Research Questions<br />2. What effect does brand familiarity have on the system of relationships, including the possible spillover effects of the alliance on each partner’s brand?<br />How many of you know<br /> (a) PUMA<br /> (b) Sergio Rossi?<br /> (c) PUMA by Sergio Rossi?<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 12. Background Literature<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 13. Background Literature<br />Consumers generally indicate more favorable evaluations of brand extensions offered by relatively well-liked high-equality brands. (Aaker & Keller, 1990) <br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />13<br />
    • 14. Information Integration Theory<br />Attitudes and beliefs are formed and modified as people receive, interpret, evaluate and then integrate stimulus information with existing beliefs or attitudes<br />[Context Effects] Judgments of a product or service are influenced by the perceptual or evaluative characteristics of material in close proximity (Lynch, Chakravarti, Mitra, 1991)<br />Judgments about the brand alliance are likely to be affected by prior attitudes toward each brand, and subsequent judgments about each brand are likely to be affected by the context of the other brand<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />14<br />
    • 15. Evaluations of Marketing Alliances & Their Impact on Brand Attitudes<br />Factors that influence the favorableness of attitudes towards brand alliances:<br />Preexisting attitudes towards the brands<br />Perceived fit of products<br />Perceived fit of the brands<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />15<br />
    • 16. Hypotheses<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 17. Effects of Brand Alliance on Post-exposure Brand Evaluation<br />H1: Attitudes towards the brand alliance are related positively to postexposure attitudes towards the partner brands.<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />17<br />brand enhancement<br />
    • 18. Effects of Brand Alliance on Post-exposure Brand Evaluation<br />H2: Prior attitudes toward a partner brand are related positively to postexposure attitudes towards the same brand.<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />18<br />process information <br />attitudes are stable<br />
    • 19. Antecedents of Attitudes Towards the Brand Alliance<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />19<br />Prior Attitudes<br />H3<br />Brand Alliance Attitudes<br />H4<br />Product Fit<br />H5<br />Brand Fit<br />
    • 20. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />20<br />Moderating Impact of Brand Familiarity<br />Types of comparisons<br />Between Partners<br />Given Partner<br />
    • 21. Moderating Impact of Brand Familiarity for a Given Partner<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />21<br />Brand Familiarity<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Post-Brand Attitudes<br />low<br />high<br />Pre-Brand Attitudes<br />Post-Brand Attitudes<br />low<br />high<br />Pre-Brand Attitudes<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />low<br />high<br />Brand Fit<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />low<br />high<br />
    • 22. Moderating Impact of Brand Familiarity Between Partners<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />22<br />
    • 23. Methodology<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 24. 24<br />Conceptual Model<br />Prior Attitude A<br />Post Attitude A<br />H2a (+)<br />H3a (+)<br />Product Fit<br />H1a (+)<br />H4 (+)<br />Brand Alliance Attitudes<br />H5 (+)<br />Brand Fit<br />H1b (+)<br />H3b (+)<br />Prior Attitude B<br />Post Attitude B<br />H2b (+)<br />Moderating Effect:<br />Brand Familiarity<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 25. Pre-test<br />Automobile and microprocessor partners<br />Expectations<br />Higher familiarity for the automobile brands<br />Sample: 183 – university recruitment<br />Seven alliance pairs <br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />25<br />
    • 26. Ford and Motorola are the Right Partners for You !<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 27. Main Study<br />16 versions of the brand alliance<br />350 respondents<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />27<br />
    • 28. Main Study<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />28<br />Brand Fit <br />Product Fit <br />Prior Brand Attitudes<br />Brand Alliance Stimulus<br />15 minutes<br />T0<br />T1<br />30 minutes<br />60 minutes<br />
    • 29. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />29<br />Study Measures<br />7-point bipolar semantic differential scales<br />Cronbach’s alpha: .80, .94 for familiarity with the car and the microprocessor brands<br />Two-group comparison: media split based on chip familiarity<br />
    • 30. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />30<br />Study Analysis<br />LISREL8 (covariance matrixes)<br />Longitudinal questionnaire: T0, T1<br />Controlling for prior attitudes’ effects on postexposure attitudes increases the reliability and discriminant validity of the study (Peter, Churchill & Brown, 1993)<br />
    • 31. Findings<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 32. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />32<br />Results for the Full Sample<br />Reliability: satisfactory (.87,.98)<br />Discriminant validity among all constructs (chi-squares)<br />Attitudes towards the brand alliance, perceptions of brand fit & perceptions of product fit: not perfectly correlated <br />Substantial amount of variance is accounted for in the model<br />
    • 33. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />33<br />Effects on PostexposureBrand Attitudes<br />Brand alliances measurably affect perceptions of partner brands<br />When consumers hold more favorable assessments of the brand alliance, the spillover effects on the partner brands will be more favorable.<br />brand enhancement<br />
    • 34. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />34<br />Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Brand Alliance<br />Brand image fit as well as attitudes toward each brand are related strongly to brand alliance evaluations<br />No other moderating effects were found<br />Cars: .270<br />Chips: .192<br />Prior Attitudes<br />H3<br />Brand Alliance Attitudes<br />H4<br />Product Fit<br />.217<br />H5<br />.394<br />Brand Fit<br />
    • 35. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />35<br />Familiarity Effects for Given Partners<br />Brand Familiarity<br />H6a<br />=<br />n.s.<br />low<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />high<br />&gt;<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />&gt;<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />&gt;<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Brand Fit<br />
    • 36. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />36<br />Familiarity Effects for Given Partners<br />Brand Familiarity<br />=<br />low<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />high<br />&gt;<br />H6b<br />ß=.145<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />ß=.732<br />&gt;<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />&gt;<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Brand Fit<br />
    • 37. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />37<br />Familiarity Effects for Given Partners<br />Brand Familiarity<br />=<br />low<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />high<br />&gt;<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />&gt;<br />H6c<br />ß=.024<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />ß=.235<br />&gt;<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Brand Fit<br />
    • 38. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />38<br />Familiarity Effects for Given Partners<br />Brand Familiarity<br />=<br />low<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />high<br />&gt;<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Post-Chip Brand Attitude<br />&gt;<br />Pre-Chip Brand Attitude<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />&gt;<br />H6d<br />ß=.265<br />Brand Alliance Attitude<br />Brand Fit<br />ß=.481<br />
    • 39. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />39<br />Contributions of Brand Attitudes Between Partners<br />
    • 40. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />40<br />Generalizability of the Model<br />Replicated in two distinct brand alliance contexts:<br />The results cross-validate the original results and provide further support for the hypothesized model<br />S = 150<br />Familiarity:<br />MNW = 6.46<br />MVISA= 6.85<br />S = 210<br />Familiarity:<br />MDisney = 6.55<br />MKmart= 6.28<br />MSears= 6.24<br />MNS= 6.67<br />
    • 41. Implications<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />41<br />
    • 42. Findings<br />Brand alliances have an effect on the partnering brands<br />Brand alliances can add to / alter a brand’s specific associations<br />Product & brand fit do not moderate spillover effects or the contribution of the brands in the alliance<br />Alliances might exist in the mind of the consumer even if managers did not plan for them.<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />42<br />
    • 43. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />Tips for Managers<br />When choosing a partner<br />“combines” to produce favorable perceptions of product & brand fit [not just a highly regarded brand]<br />Do extensive research to identify potential risks that could decrease their brand value / hurt their image (finances, publicity, scandals, operations)<br />A retailer’s branded merchandise assortment might influence your brand [context effects]<br />If you are the more familiar brand, you will add more to the co-branded product<br />What is the value of your partner?<br />Is the partner adding enough value to the end product?<br />43<br />
    • 44. Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />44<br />Tips for Managers<br />If you are a new brand, you can use a stronger brand to gain familiarity [free rider]<br />In this case, careful about the level of brand fit !!<br />If you are a big brand, you can ally with new / unfamiliar brands if<br />Product fit & attitudes toward the alliance are positive<br />It is not always beneficial to engage in affiliate branding [ceiling effects]<br />
    • 45. Any Questions?<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />
    • 46. ThankYou For Your Attention!<br />Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet<br />

    ×