Downloaded 204 times
![Information Integration TheoryAttitudes and beliefs are formed and modified as people receive, interpret, evaluate and then integrate stimulus information with existing beliefs or attitudes[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)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 brandBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet14](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/isacompanyknownbythecompanyit3-091223180410-phpapp01/85/A-look-at-brand-alliances-14-320.jpg)
![Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. VoetTips for ManagersWhen choosing a partner“combines” to produce favorable perceptions of product & brand fit [not just a highly regarded brand]Do extensive research to identify potential risks that could decrease their brand value / hurt their image (finances, publicity, scandals, operations)A retailer’s branded merchandise assortment might influence your brand [context effects]If you are the more familiar brand, you will add more to the co-branded productWhat is the value of your partner?Is the partner adding enough value to the end product?43](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/isacompanyknownbythecompanyit3-091223180410-phpapp01/85/A-look-at-brand-alliances-43-320.jpg)
![Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet44Tips for ManagersIf you are a new brand, you can use a stronger brand to gain familiarity [free rider]In this case, careful about the level of brand fit !!If you are a big brand, you can ally with new / unfamiliar brands ifProduct fit & attitudes toward the alliance are positiveIt is not always beneficial to engage in affiliate branding [ceiling effects]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/isacompanyknownbythecompanyit3-091223180410-phpapp01/85/A-look-at-brand-alliances-44-320.jpg)
Uploaded byCarmen Neghina
A look at brand alliances
The document discusses the impact of brand alliances on consumer attitudes toward the individual brands involved. It highlights that positive evaluations of a brand alliance can lead to favorable spillover effects on partner brands, influenced by factors such as brand familiarity and perceived fit. Additionally, it offers managerial insights for selecting partners to maximize the benefits of co-branding efforts.
More Related Content
Similar to A look at brand alliances
A look at brand alliances
- 1. Is a CompanyKnown by the Company It Keeps?Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand AttitudesBernard L. Simonin & Julie A. Ruth (1998)
- 2. Basic ConstructsBrand Management– Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 3. Effects of BrandAlliancesConsumer attitudes toward the brand alliance influence subsequent impressions of each partner’s brandBrand familiarity moderates the strength of relations between constructs in a manner consistent with information integration and attitude accessibility theoriesEach partner brand is not necessarily affected equally by its participation in a particular allianceBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet3
- 4. Background Information1990s: co-marketing(jointbranding): two or more brands are presented simultaneously to consumers40% growth (Spethmann & Benezra, 1994)Complex, potential negative consequencesHow does it affect evaluations of the affiliate brands? Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet4
- 5. Background InformationWhat isa brand alliance?A brand alliance is a short- or long-term association or combination of two or more individual brands, products, and/or other distinctive proprietary assetsPhysical vs. symbolical representationsBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet5
- 6. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 7. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 8. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, I.A. Nicoara, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 9. Research QuestionsBrand Management– Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 10. Research Questions10Do brandalliance evaluations “spill over” on subsequent evaluations of the individual partner brands? How do these brands influence one another?Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 11. Research Questions2. Whateffect does brand familiarity have on the system of relationships, including the possible spillover effects of the alliance on each partner’s brand?How many of you know (a) PUMA (b) Sergio Rossi? (c) PUMA by Sergio Rossi?Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 12. Background LiteratureBrand Management– Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 13. Background LiteratureConsumers generallyindicate more favorable evaluations of brand extensions offered by relatively well-liked high-equality brands. (Aaker & Keller, 1990) Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet13
- 14. Information Integration TheoryAttitudesand beliefs are formed and modified as people receive, interpret, evaluate and then integrate stimulus information with existing beliefs or attitudes[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)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 brandBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet14
- 15. Evaluations of MarketingAlliances & Their Impact on Brand AttitudesFactors that influence the favorableness of attitudes towards brand alliances:Preexisting attitudes towards the brandsPerceived fit of productsPerceived fit of the brandsBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet15
- 16. HypothesesBrand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 17. Effects of BrandAlliance on Post-exposure Brand EvaluationH1: Attitudes towards the brand alliance are related positively to postexposure attitudes towards the partner brands.Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet17brand enhancement
- 18. Effects of BrandAlliance on Post-exposure Brand EvaluationH2: Prior attitudes toward a partner brand are related positively to postexposure attitudes towards the same brand.Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet18process information attitudes are stable
- 19. Antecedents of AttitudesTowards the Brand AllianceBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet19Prior AttitudesH3Brand Alliance AttitudesH4Product FitH5Brand Fit
- 20. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet20Moderating Impact of Brand FamiliarityTypes of comparisonsBetween PartnersGiven Partner
- 21. Moderating Impact ofBrand Familiarity for a Given PartnerBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet21Brand FamiliarityBrand Alliance AttitudePost-Brand AttitudeslowhighPre-Brand AttitudesPost-Brand AttitudeslowhighPre-Brand AttitudesBrand Alliance AttitudelowhighBrand FitBrand Alliance Attitudelowhigh
- 22. Moderating Impact ofBrand Familiarity Between PartnersBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet22
- 23. MethodologyBrand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 24. 24Conceptual ModelPrior AttitudeAPost Attitude AH2a (+)H3a (+)Product FitH1a (+)H4 (+)Brand Alliance AttitudesH5 (+)Brand FitH1b (+)H3b (+)Prior Attitude BPost Attitude BH2b (+)Moderating Effect:Brand FamiliarityBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 25. Pre-testAutomobile and microprocessorpartnersExpectationsHigher familiarity for the automobile brandsSample: 183 – university recruitmentSeven alliance pairs Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet25
- 26. Ford and Motorolaare the Right Partners for You !Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 27. Main Study16 versionsof the brand alliance350 respondentsBrand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet27
- 28. Main StudyBrand Management– Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet28Brand Fit Product Fit Prior Brand AttitudesBrand Alliance Stimulus15 minutesT0T130 minutes60 minutes
- 29. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet29Study Measures7-point bipolar semantic differential scalesCronbach’s alpha: .80, .94 for familiarity with the car and the microprocessor brandsTwo-group comparison: media split based on chip familiarity
- 30. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet30Study AnalysisLISREL8 (covariance matrixes)Longitudinal questionnaire: T0, T1Controlling for prior attitudes’ effects on postexposure attitudes increases the reliability and discriminant validity of the study (Peter, Churchill & Brown, 1993)
- 31. FindingsBrand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 32. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet32Results for the Full SampleReliability: satisfactory (.87,.98)Discriminant validity among all constructs (chi-squares)Attitudes towards the brand alliance, perceptions of brand fit & perceptions of product fit: not perfectly correlated Substantial amount of variance is accounted for in the model
- 33. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet33Effects on PostexposureBrand AttitudesBrand alliances measurably affect perceptions of partner brandsWhen consumers hold more favorable assessments of the brand alliance, the spillover effects on the partner brands will be more favorable.brand enhancement
- 34. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet34Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Brand AllianceBrand image fit as well as attitudes toward each brand are related strongly to brand alliance evaluationsNo other moderating effects were foundCars: .270Chips: .192Prior AttitudesH3Brand Alliance AttitudesH4Product Fit.217H5.394Brand Fit
- 35. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet35Familiarity Effects for Given PartnersBrand FamiliarityH6a=n.s.lowBrand Alliance AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitudehigh>Pre-Chip Brand AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitude>Pre-Chip Brand AttitudeBrand Alliance Attitude>Brand Alliance AttitudeBrand Fit
- 36. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet36Familiarity Effects for Given PartnersBrand Familiarity=lowBrand Alliance AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitudehigh>H6bß=.145Pre-Chip Brand AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitudeß=.732>Pre-Chip Brand AttitudeBrand Alliance Attitude>Brand Alliance AttitudeBrand Fit
- 37. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet37Familiarity Effects for Given PartnersBrand Familiarity=lowBrand Alliance AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitudehigh>Pre-Chip Brand AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitude>H6cß=.024Pre-Chip Brand AttitudeBrand Alliance Attitudeß=.235>Brand Alliance AttitudeBrand Fit
- 38. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet38Familiarity Effects for Given PartnersBrand Familiarity=lowBrand Alliance AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitudehigh>Pre-Chip Brand AttitudePost-Chip Brand Attitude>Pre-Chip Brand AttitudeBrand Alliance Attitude>H6dß=.265Brand Alliance AttitudeBrand Fitß=.481
- 39. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet39Contributions of Brand Attitudes Between Partners
- 40. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet40Generalizability of the ModelReplicated in two distinct brand alliance contexts:The results cross-validate the original results and provide further support for the hypothesized modelS = 150Familiarity:MNW = 6.46MVISA= 6.85S = 210Familiarity:MDisney = 6.55MKmart= 6.28MSears= 6.24MNS= 6.67
- 41. ImplicationsBrand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet41
- 42. FindingsBrand alliances havean effect on the partnering brandsBrand alliances can add to / alter a brand’s specific associationsProduct & brand fit do not moderate spillover effects or the contribution of the brands in the allianceAlliances might exist in the mind of the consumer even if managers did not plan for them.Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet42
- 43. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. VoetTips for ManagersWhen choosing a partner“combines” to produce favorable perceptions of product & brand fit [not just a highly regarded brand]Do extensive research to identify potential risks that could decrease their brand value / hurt their image (finances, publicity, scandals, operations)A retailer’s branded merchandise assortment might influence your brand [context effects]If you are the more familiar brand, you will add more to the co-branded productWhat is the value of your partner?Is the partner adding enough value to the end product?43
- 44. Brand Management –Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet44Tips for ManagersIf you are a new brand, you can use a stronger brand to gain familiarity [free rider]In this case, careful about the level of brand fit !!If you are a big brand, you can ally with new / unfamiliar brands ifProduct fit & attitudes toward the alliance are positiveIt is not always beneficial to engage in affiliate branding [ceiling effects]
- 45. Any Questions?Brand Management– Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
- 46. ThankYou For YourAttention!Brand Management – Group 4 - E.L. Mulder, C. Neghina, D. Oosterveer, L. Partouns, S. Voet
Editor's Notes
- #7 True product combinations & bundled products (variety packs)
- #11 How do these brands influence one another?
- #12 True product combinations (puma)
- #18 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)
- #19 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).
- #20 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.
- #22 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.
- #23 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.
- #28 Assigned randomlyBooklet with materials
- #29 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
- #30 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)
- #33 = they are different constructs
- #35 Brand alliances do matterBrand alliances are important in attitudinal shifts resulting from partner brands
- #36 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.
- #37 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.
- #38 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.
- #39 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.
- #40 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.
- #41 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.