Está en la página 1de 10

Brand Name Effects on Interproduct Similarity Judgments Author(s): David M. Boush Source: Marketing Letters, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Oct.

, 1997), pp. 419-427 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40216468 . Accessed: 12/04/2011 09:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Marketing Letters.

http://www.jstor.org

Letters (1997): 419-427 8:4 Marketing 1997 Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Manufactured The Netherlands in

on NameEffects Interproduct Brand Similarity Judgments


DAVID M. BOUSH* CharlesH. Lundquist of College ofBusiness,University Oregon, of Eugene,OR Department Marketing, 97403-1208,Tel: 541 346 3358, dmboush@oregon.uoregon.edu

Abstract
that between can Data are presented judgments pairsof product demonstrating similarity categories be asymnameassociations reverse direction asymmetry. can the and brand of Brandnameassociations metrical that can, increaseperceived between The results the butdo notnecessarily, similarity product categories. support view between relative context are and Because simithatsimilarity categories highly product dependent. judgments transfer between branded has products, similarity larity playsa keyrole in modelsof affect asymmetry direct extension the of for extension core to strategy. maybe able tominimize risk brand Companies implications brand the status theextensions. of by products accentuating variant brandextension, similarity Key words: Categorization,

role in models of human cognition,no less The concept of similarity plays a fundamental so in thatpartof the studyof cognitionthatrelatesto consumerbehavior.Explanations of the way people thinkabout advertising, packaging, products,and sales pitches generally in area of recentinterest which assume similarreactionsto similarthings.One marketing similarity explicitlyhas played a dominantrole concerns evaluation of new productsthat carry an existingbrand name (brand extensions). Previous research on brand extension has relied heavily on the importance of similarityrelationshipsbetween the existing of representation the brand and the proposed extensions (Aaker and Keller 1990; Boush and Loken 1991; Keller and Aaker 1992). One of the centralprinciplesthathas emerged influencesthe transfer positive affectfromthe brand's existingprodof is thatsimilarity ucts to brand extensions. Aaker and Keller (1990), following the terminologyused by as Tauber (1988) discussed brand extensionsimilarity "fit,"and focused on higherorder of about the usefulness of a brand's skills and resources,the substitutability judgments of existingand extensionproducts,and the complementarity original and extensionproducts (see also Sunde and Brodie 1993). Boush and Loken (1991), incorporatingmore discussed similarityas the extent to which the explicitlya categorization framework, brandextensionis typicalof the categoryrepresented the brandname. The terminology by in of similarity consumer research has been expanded to include "brand concept consisbetween a new product category and what a brand means to contency,"the similarity sumers (Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991) and "brand breadth,"the similarity among a brand's existingproducts(Boush and Loken 1991; Sheinin and Schmitt1994). Similarity

420

DAVIDM. BOUSH

to in hasbeenshown be important thereciprocal from extension back transfer affect of the to theoriginal brand extensions (Lokenand John 1993),and to playa role in sequential (KellerandAaker1992). Yetthere reasons suspect we do notfully are to that between understand interaction the thebrandnameand theproduct in of category thedetermination similarity judgments. Previous in studies brand extension havetaken different with several perspectives respect to therelationship nameand product between brand In the category. somestudies, brand nameis fictitious playslittle no roleinbrand and or evaluations theimplicit or similarity to them judgments posited drive (e.g.,BoushandLoken1991;KellerandAaker1992).In brandand product are Parket al. (1991), for others, categories considered separately. consider between brand the example, similarity (concept consistency) separately concept from product the A of viewsthebrand nameand studies category. third category research theproduct to as For Schmitt category interactingproduce similarity judgments. example, andDube (1992) demonstrated a brand that name(McDonald's) can actas a modifier for a new product combinations not category (themeparks)to createoriginal conceptual before associated witheither brand theproduct the or (ridesshapedlikegoldenarches). and on brand associations suchas decay Broniarczyk Alba (1994) focused howdistinctive for or for brandextenprevention Cresttoothpaste breath-fresheningClose-Upaffected sion evaluations. that associations are Theydemonstrated in some cases brand-specific moreimportant either similarity than the between or toward product categories theaffect thebrand.However, research date has examined way brandnamesinfluence no to the of between perception similarity product categories. The current will attempt extend to work lookingforregularities in study previous by that of interproduct similarity judgments, arguing one wayto look at extension a brand nameintomultiple is the of a namewith new product categories that association a brand can structures consumer of Further, product category createand reorganize knowledge. one wayto better understand reorganization consumer the of that knowledge takesplace whena brand extends a newcategory to look at theeffect thebrand to is that namehas on thestructure interproduct of Therefore will examine we assimilarity relationships. as of between pectsof similarity revealed comparing by judgments similarity products with without brand and a name.We willbe particularly interested thedirectional in nature of similarity In to need to review some perceptions. order addresstheseissueswe first basic notions surrounding similarity. 1. Bases forsimilarity The bases for are in and making similarity judgments rooted thewayconcepts categories are represented memory. in to can divided Approaches theserepresentations be usefully intothosethatemphasizefeature lists and thosethatemphasizeframes. Featural apfocus computation similarity their on of from whileframing features proaches approaches and causality emphasizethe roles of context (Barsalou and Hale 1993). For a more discussion therelationship of between and complete similarity, typicality, categorization see Rips (1989).

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS

42 1

1.1. Featural bases is thatobjects share witheach other.Shared One basis of typicality the numberof features featuresunderlie the notion of "family resemblance" and of some computationsof the extentto which an object is typical of a category(Rosch, Simpson and Miller 1976). In is that 's Tversky (1977) contrastmodel, similarity based on some combinationof features match (i.e. that objects share) and featuresthat are distinctive(i.e. that objects do not is betweenobjects a and ft, a function {A fl B), the of share). That is, S(a,b), the similarity featurestheyhave in common, minus both {A - B), the distinctivefeaturesof A, and (B featuresof B. Stated more formally, S(a,b) = Qf[A(IB)af(A A\ the distinctive > 0. The parameters 6, a, and p are weights A), where 0, a, and p B) $f{B the judgment and representing importanceof the individual featuresets in the similarity to the/ functionin the model representsthe salience of featuresand their contribution A implicationof Tversky's (1977) contrastmodel is thatit predicts similarity. significant example Tversky found that asymmetriesin similarity judgments. In a frequently-cited rated North Korea as more similar to Red China than Red China was to North subjects occurred because of "the relative salience of the stimuli; the Korea. This purportedly than vice versa" (p. 328). Again, more formally, variantis more similar to the prototype in if we let "0" be the subject and "ft"be the referent the sentence frame"tfis similarto ft"then,assuming thatthe subject is more salientthanthe referent (i.e., a > P) it follows

that S(a,b) > S(b,a) iff J(B) > j{A).

's There are several interesting implications of Tversky model for product similarity. First,similarity judgmentsbetween two productcategories may be asymmetricalif one is and the otherthe variant.Second, association witha brand consideredto be the prototype brand of reversetheasymmetry similarity judgments.This could occur if a particular may has a prototypical product that is not viewed as prototypicaloutside the contextof the betweentwo brand.Third,brandnames may,by themselves,increase perceived similarity This could occur eitherby increasing the salience of common featuresor by products. adding a common featureto both (most obviously,the brand name itself could be perceived as a common feature).The contrastmodel has been demonstratedfor consumer asymmetry products(Johnson 1986) but the effectsof brand names on productsimilarity are new to the literature.

1.2. Frames Barsalou (1983; 1985) emphasized the role of motivationand context in framingsimilarity judgments. Sets of similar objects, termed"ad hoc" or "goal-directed" categories, have some of the properties found in more common categories, such as prototypical examples. However,the most typicalmembersof these categories(e.g. "foods you cannot eat on a diet") are determinednot by shared features,but by extremevalues on a single dimension,(e.g. calories). Barsalou notedthatgoal-directedcategoriesgenerallyappear to of violate the correlationalstructure the environment, frequently includingsome members fromeach of several common taxonomic categories. (For example, ice cream and potato

422

DAVIDM. BOUSH

chips bothmay be typicalof "foods you cannoteat while on a diet.")His findings the of and the ease withwhichcertain emphasize flexibility categorization processes, can be generated particular for and Gentner categories purposes.Medin, Goldstone, to the (1993) used a framing perspective justify same kindof asymmetrical similarity of judgments reported Tversky. by Theyarguedthatelements the comparison process itself wereresponsible the asymmetries. the consumer for In behavior both literature, aboutproducts, use ofproducts referents, beenfound and as have to typicality judgments and et dependon context goal (Huffman, al. 1990;Wardand Loken 1988). 2. Hypotheses Brand nameshavebeenshown convey variety information theproducts to a of about with which are suchas thelevelofexpected attributions about they associated product quality, of and also buyers theproducts, product (Loken,Ross,andHinkle1986).Wemight origin brand nameto prime attributes valuesof a product or catexpecta common particular As and a brand namemaybring mind to that attributes egory. Schmitt Dube demonstrated, twocategories wouldnototherwise havein common. Muchof theprevious literature has dealtwith whatmakesa good brand reliedon phonetic name,andconsequently symbolism or other theoretical bases. Herewe are notconcerned withtheeffect a of linguistic brand the effect a common of brand nameon similarity name,butwith general particular or evaluative we of brand judgments. Specifically will arguethatone effect a common nameis to signalto consumers theproduct similar other that is to or products representations thebrandin somerespects. of Therefore, 1: brand namewillincrease of between two Hypothesis A common perceptions similarity products. Previous research and 1977; Medin,Goldstone, Gentner (Tversky 1993) has demonstrated between and Variants prototypes and are similarity asymmetries prototype variant. as likely existamongproducts they in other to as are of categories objects.Forexample, a magazine of dessert a variant a frozen as of maybe seen as a variant a book,a frozen shoesas a variant sportswear. of Therefore shouldexpect followwe the dinner, running ing: 2: between Hypothesis Pairwisesimilarity judgments product categories maybe asymmetrical. the will be perceived moresimilar theprototypical as to Specifically, variant than reverse. the product Natural structure brand and structure notnecessarily same. are the category category The relative of associated with brand a has to prominence products probably more do with where brand the established itself or bestthan first with natural structure. Time, category Inc. has extended from intobooks;Adidas,from shoesintoclothing. magazines running In suchcases thepattern extension of seemslikely reverse rolesof prototype to the and and to the direction similarity of In variant, consequently reverse expected asymmetry. natural structure be to product category magazines might plausibly considered be variants

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS

423

Time magazineis prototypical; Time books are the and books theprototype. However, we that: Therefore predict variant. in between 3: asymmetries similarity judgments Hypothesis Brandnamescan reverse categories. product 3. Method 5.1. Pretest was for and Thepurpose thepretest to select of categories use inthemainstudies product with brand names.Foreach brand name that was to verify thepopulation familiar certain of was selectedto represent prototype the brandand another the a product category were46 students an undergraduate in variant. to a Subjects product representless typical namesand asked: 1) class. Each subject was givena listof 23 brand behavior consumer and that of is "Theproduct youthink most that typical thebrand" 2) "Another product you of The namebutis notas typical thebrand." resulting the think carries samebrand product with listsverified clearly prototypical familiarity thebrandschosenand also provided and and The for respective prototypical less categories eachbrand. 20 brands their product are that typical products werechosenforinclusions shownin Tables 1 and 2. 3.2. Main study introducin stated test In order thethree above,85 students an undergraduate hypotheses of In in class part experiment. thefirst a) presence marketing participated a two-part tory as and weremanipulated between-subjects of nameandb) order prototype variant brand with withtwo levels each. That is, half the subjectsratedtheiragreement variables
Products for WithSimilarity Statements Brandedand Unbranded Table 1. Agreement of Statement agreement is A cracker likea cookie (Keebler)a Shampoois like soap (Ivory) cola (Coke) Diet cola is like regular A motorcycle like a car (Honda)" is A VCR is likea radio (Sony)a are Crackers like cereal(Nabisco) Clothesare likewatches(Swatch)* sauce is like soup (Campbell's) Spaghetti Home appliancesare likejet engines(G.E.) shoes are like clothing Athletic (Nike)a (Xerox) Copiersare like computers Mean rating Branded 4.32 4.84 2.97 4.21 4.05 3.82 4.84 3.61 2.66 6.74 4.71 Mean rating Unbranded 3.43 5.28 2.55 2.87 2.00 3.1 1 3.51 3.66 2.09 4.70 4.62

for *Meansimilarity group, < .05. p higher branded significantly

424

DAVID M. BOUSH

Table2. Choice of Sentences Withand Without BrandNames and WithPrototype Variant and Reversed Brand Jello* Sara Leea Time" Levi's Yamaha* Adidas* Black & Decker* Gillette Zenith Statement Similarity of gelatinis likepudding pops pudding pops are like gelatin are dinners like cakes cakes are like dinners magazines are like books books are like magazines are shirts likejeans jeans are like shirts are motorcycles like musicalinstruments musicalinstruments like motorcycles are runningshoes are likeclothing is clothing like runningshoes power tools are like homeappliances homeappliancesare like powertools are lighters like razors razors are like lighters are televisions like stereos stereos like televisions are % Branded, 18.9 81.1 75.7 24.3 21.1 78.9 92.1 7.9 36.8 63.2 15.8 84.2 26.3 73.7 76.3 23.7 21.1 78.9 % Unbranded, 63.0 37.0 36.2 63.8 85.1 14.9 74.5 25.5 74.5 25.5 87.2 12.8 70.2 29.8 57.4 42.6 3 1.9 68.1

"Brandnameproduced reversal sentence of significant preference < .0001) {p is Prototype product in boldface

of statements similarity between marshmallows like are (Kraft pairsof branded products Kraft ratedthesame pairsof products, without but brand cheese) and halfthesubjects names(marshmallows likecheese).The order prototype variant reversed are of and was forhalfthesubjects cheeseis likeKraft (Kraft marshmallows). In thesecondpartof thestudy of namewas manipulated a betweenas presence brand in variable thesamewayas described of and above,butorder prototype variant subjects was manipulated a within-subjects as variable askingsubjects choosebetween to by pairs of sentences which order prototype variant reversed booksare like in the of and was (e.g. vs. are method magazines magazines like books). Following 1977), Tversky's (Tversky wereaskedto choosewhich twosentences of sounded better. Pairsof sentences subjects werepresented halfthesubjects to withthebrand name(Choose (A) Timemagazine is likeTimebooksor (B) Timebooksare likeTimemagazine)and to theother halfof the the without brand name(Choose (A) A magazine likea bookor (B) A bookis is subjects likea magazine).In each of thebetween-subjects the conditions order was reversed for halfthesubjects. 4. Results The hypotheses werefirst tested scale partof thestudy. the usingtherating Specifically, effect brand of of and and between brand name,order prototype variant, theinteraction nameand order, weretestedin a repeated measures designusingmultiple analysesof variance. the of was significant 11,71) = 3.83,p < .000), supOverall, effect brand (F(

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS

425

the 1. neither effect theorder of between porting Hypothesis However, prototypical product and variant 11,71 = .49, p < .89) northeinteraction between brandand order, (F( the of nameon asymmetrical which tests effect brand weresignifisimilarity judgments, the of thequestionnaire not did cant(F( 11,71) = .42,p < .94). Therefore ratings part 2 for with are statements support hypotheses or 3. The meanratings agreement similarity in 9 shown Table 1(1 = strongly disagree, = strongly agree).Brandnamessignificantly of between product the increased perceptions similarity pairs forthe brandsKeebler, and Honda,Sony,Swatch, Nike. are in Data from choicetaskpartof thestudy shown Table2. Theyclearly the support of in theexistence asymmetries similarity and of judgments theeffect brandnameson For 79 those asymmetries. example,approximately percent subjectspreferred of the and the Time Time statement booksarelikeTimemagazine 2 1 percent preferred statement the amongsubjectswho chose between same magazineis likeTime books. However, the the was Thatis, about85 but names, preference reversed. statements, without brand are the booksare like magazines likebooksto thestatement preferred statement percent the data that is Time From pretest we know magazine theprototypical product, magazines. the Brandnamesreversed direction similarity of whilebooksare thevariant. (assessed of tests) theproduct for with Yatescorrected chi-square goodness fit using pairsassociated The choicetaskdatasupport Adidas,andBlack& Decker. Yamaha, Time,SaraLee, Jello, 2 3. that for bothHypothesis and Hypothesis Assuming sentence preferences unbranded revealstheproduct-level note sentences typicality, thatthereis a sortof ceilingeffect is and brand product-level and when Levi's,Gillette, Xerox). typicality thesame(e.g.,for

5. Discussion that namescan interact product with the the Overall, datasupported notion brand category was ininteresting predictable and that ways.Particularly interesting thefinding knowledge An of brandnamescould reverse similarity. important implication this asymmetrical to associated witha brand transfers products, and has asymmetry to do withhow affect be withit. Because of thecrucialroleof simithatmight associated between products, transfer. A affect in transfer, asymmetrical similarity impliesasymmetrical larity affect more to how are brand's products therefore likely influence consumexisting prototypical of The nameon interproduct extensions thereverse. effect brand than ersfeelaboutbrand and the of also potensimilarity judgments highlights flexibility thoserelationships their it that variant the status brand extensions For of tialmanipulation. example, seemslikely Thismight accomplished be to risk theparent to brand. couldbe accentuated decrease by core brand and or that products attributes by creemphasizes advertising systematically Firms new "Shoebox"greetings). sub-brands (suchas Hallmark developing brands ating in and in be guidedbythenatural reputations asymmetries similarity developstrong may the for For thatcontemplates entering market products. example,a firm prototypical a namein tents concentrate developing strong on (if maylogically equipment camping mainexpertise elsewhere. lies even are tents prototypical) if their

426

DAVID M. BOUSH

in it the the Although datagenerally hypotheses thestudy, is interesting supported three for and the were for that hypotheses notsupported all brands product pairs.Explanations that and of thisincludelimitations thisstudy, pairswere specifically, thebrands product were less sensitive not the same in bothpartsof the studyand the similarity ratings to sentence measures thanthe forced choicesbetween pairs.Still,it seems interesting for brandname increased consider pairs similarity whya common perceptions product is the associated with somebrands notothers. but by likely explanation that, Perhaps most catmoreto natural context direct or some brands add something association, product thando others. egories

Acknowledgements H. of in David M. Boushis Associate Professor Marketing theCharles Lundquist College and The author thanks Editor Robert of Businessat theUniversity Oregon. of Meyer two for on drafts thismanuscript. of reviewers comments earlier anonymous References
Journalof Aaker,David. A., and Kevin L. Keller. (1990). "ConsumerEvaluationsof Brand Extensions." 54(1), 27-41. Marketing and Cognition 1(3), 21 1-227. 1 Barsalou,LawrenceW. (1983). "Ad Hoc Categories." Memory of of as and Barsalou,LawrenceW. (1985). "Ideals, Central Tendency, Frequency Instantiation Determinants in Graded Structure Categories." and Cognition Journalof Experimental Memory Psychology: Learning, 11(4), 629-648. R. of From Barsalou,LawrenceW., and Christopher Hale. (1993). "Components ConceptualRepresentation: Feature Liststo Recursive In Frames." IvenVan Mechelen, James S. and Hampton, Ryszard Michalski, Peter and Concepts:Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis Theuns,(eds.), Categories (pp. 97-144). New York:AcademicPress. Boush, David M, and BarbaraLoken. (1991). "A Process TracingStudyof Brand ExtensionEvaluation" Journal Marketing Research28 (February), 16-28. of Susan M. andJoseph Alba. (1994). "The Importance theBrandin BrandExtension." W. of Journal Broniarczyk. Research31 (May), 214-228. ofMarketing Ward.(1990). "Knowledgeand Context Effects Typicality on Huffman, D., Cynthia BarbaraLoken,and James In G. Research,17, Judgments." M. E. Goldberg, Gorn,and R. W. Pollay,(eds.), Advancesin Consumer 257-265. Michael D. (1986). "Consumer A and Model."Psychology Johnson, Similarity Judgments: Testof theContrast 3(1), 47-^0. Marketing of of Keller,Kevin L., and Aaker,David A. (1992). "The Effects SequentialIntroduction BrandExtensions." Journal Marketing Research29(1), 35-50. of and BrandBeliefs:WhenDo BrandExtensions Have Loken,Barbara, DeborahRoedderJohn. (1993). "Diluting a Negative 57 71-84. Impact?"Journal Marketing (July), of Confusion Originand BrandSimilarity of Loken,Barbara,Ivan Ross, and Ronald Hinkle.(1986). "Consumer Journal Public Policyand Marketing 195-211. 5, Perceptions" of and Dedre Gentner. Medin,Douglas L., RobertL. Goldstone, (1993). "RespectsforSimilarity." Psychological Review100(2), 254-278. Sandra& Lawson,R. (1991). "Evaluation BrandExtensions: Role of Productof The Park,C. Whan,Milberg, Feature and Journal Consumer Research18(2), 185-193. Similarity ConceptConsistency." of

BRAND NAME EFFECTS ON INTERPRODUCT SIMILARITY JUDGMENTS

427

and In Typicality, Categorization." Stella Visniadouand AndrewOrtony, Rips, Lance J. (1989). "Similarity, Press. and (eds.), Similarity AnalogicalReasoning, (pp. 19-59). New York:Cambridge University Journal Experimental and R. S. Miller.(1976). "Structure Bases ofTypicality Effects" Rosch,E., C. Simpson of and HumanPerception Performance 2(4), 491-502. Psychology: Dube. (1992). "Contextualized of and Laurette Are Bernd, Schmitt, Representations BrandExtensions: Feature of Letters 115-126. Listsor FramestheBasic Components Consumer 3, Cognition." Marketing BrandswithNew Product DanielA. and BerndH. Schmitt. The Role of Sheinin, (1994). "Extending Concepts: and BrandAffect, BrandBreadth." Journalof BusinessResearch31, 1-10. Attribute Congmity, Category Evaluations BrandExtensions: of and J. Further Sunde,Lorraine, Roderick Brodie.(1993). "Consumer Empirical Results." International Journal Researchin Marketing 47-53. 10, of for in World." Journal AdverEdwardM. (1988). "BrandLeverage:Strategy Growth a Cost Control Tauber, of Research31(3), 26-30. tising Review84(4), 327-350. Amos (1977). "Features Similarity." of Psychological Tversky, of and Effects Preference Comparison: on and Ward, James, BarbaraLoken.(1988). "The Generality Typicality Research15, 55-61. An Exploratory Test."In M. J.Houston(ed.) Advancesin Consumer

También podría gustarte