53467441

Feedback effects of brand extensions on the brandimage of global brands: a comparison between Spainand Norway

Jose M. Pina, University of Zaragoza, SpainNina M. Iversen, Norwegian School of Economics and Business

Administration, NorwayEva Martinez, University of Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract Global brands often attempt to increase their sales through the launchof brand extensions. Such a strategy may, however, dilute existing brand beliefsat an international level, as two sets of data from Norway and Spain indicate. Thispaper illuminates how the attitude towards a brand extension affects the image ofa parent brand. The extension attitude is mainly determined by the degree ofperceived fit between the extension and the parent brand image. In the Spanishsample, it is also determined by the degree of familiarity with the parent brandand the perceived fit at the product category level. After analysing theserelationships, the paper focuses on the moderating role of two dimensions ofconsumer innovativeness: hedonist innovativeness (tied to need for stimulation)and social innovativeness (tied to need for uniqueness). Finally, the culturalorientation of the origin country is analysed as a moderating factor.

Keywords brand extension; brand image; consumer innovativeness; Norway;Spain

Introduction

Today, an increasing number of brands have grown through launching brand extensionsnot only to other countries but also to new product categories. A company using abrand-extension strategy utilises the same brand name for different products in anattempt to leverage their existing brand equity (Levin, Davis, & Levin, 1996;Srivastava & Shocker, 1991; Volckner & Sattler, 2006). Positive attitudes towardsnew extensions may reinforce the parent brand’s value by boosting sales of otherproducts (Reddy, Holak, & Bhat, 1994; Volckner & Sattler, 2006). Consequently, theuse of brand extensions is widespread as an international growth strategy, partly becauseit requires lower outlays and partly because it reduces the risk of failure compared tointroducing a new brand name (Hultink, Hart, Robben, & Griffin, 2000).

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online

# 2010 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

DOI: 10.1080/02672570903458789

http://www.informaworld.com

Journal of Marketing ManagementVol. 26, Nos. 9–10, August 2010, 943–966

http://www.informaworld.com

A positive attitude towards a new extension is, however, just one type of proxy of itssuccess. Several authors argue that feedback effects on the parent brand are equallyimportant (Chen & Chen, 2000; Loken & John, 1993; Sheinin, 2000). In fact, someargue that extension feedback effects should sometimes be given more weight than theisolated effect of the extension itself (Thorbjørnsen, 2005). This is because negativefeedback effects can be detrimental to the parent-brand image. The most importantdownside of brand extensions is that they can dilute the associations that make up thebrand image (John, Loken, & Joiner, 1998; Ries & Trout, 1981). In internationalmarkets, with millions of consumers, it is particularly crucial to choose strategies thatprotect salient and beneficial brand associations.

Consumer innovativeness is an individual characteristic, which has been related tothe success of brand extensions (Klink & Smith, 2001; Volckner & Sattler, 2006). Theidea is that more innovative consumers more easily accept brand extensions becausethey are more adventurous and less dependent on perceptions of relatedness(perceived fit) between the extension and the parent brand (Czellar, 2003). Thismakes innovative consumers more willing to accept new innovations such as brandextensions. Moreover, individuals’ predispositions to be innovative might interactwith cross-cultural differences and thereby impact their evaluations of brandextensions as well as impact subsequent feedback effects.

Cross-cultural differences are environmental characteristics that affect individuals’purchase behaviour and brand evaluations (Hsieh, Pan, & Setiono, 2004). Severalpapers address the processes behind reciprocal transfer effects caused by brandextensions in cross-cultural markets (D.A. Aaker & Keller, 1993; Bottomley &Holden, 2001; Echambadi, Arroniz, Reinartz, & Lee, 2006; Han & Schmitt, 1997;Martınez, Polo, & de Chernatony, 2008). To date, however, scant attention has beengiven to discovering how consumer characteristics, such as consumer innovativeness,moderate the reciprocal effect of brand extensions in an international setting.

The objective of this study is twofold. First, we aim to propose and validate aconceptual model, which considers the interrelationships between parent-brand imageand three key consumer components – brand extension attitude, brand name familiarity,and two dimensions of perceived fit. Second, we look at how consumer innovativenessand cultural orientation of the origin country might moderate extension evaluations andsubsequent feedback effects depending on the type of perceived fit involved. In order totest the generalisability of results, the present paper focuses on two countries withdifferent degrees of innovativeness: Spain and Norway. The remainder of this paper isstructured as follows. First, we discuss major contributions to the literature on howreciprocal transfer effects initiated by brand extensions occur in international consumermarkets. Possible relations between each research variable are reviewed as a basis fordeveloping research hypotheses. Then, the hypotheses are tested as a comprehensivemodel using structural equation modelling. The final section of the paper discusses thesefindings and their implications for research and practice.

Forward and feedback effects of brand extensions

The main idea behind brand extensions is that brand imagery is transferred between aparent brand and a new extension through reciprocal transfer of associations andemotions (Czellar, 2003; Keller, 1993). The two directions of transfer effects discussedin the literature are the forward effect and the backward or feedback effect(Balachander & Ghose, 2003). The forward effect refers to the transfer of positive

944 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 26

beliefs and/or affect from the parent brand to the extension, and this effect has beensubstantially investigated (Czellar, 2003). However, less knowledge related to thebackward effect from the brand extension to the parent brand has been discovered.

According to associative network theory, brand image consists of a brand node towhich a variety of associations, such as brand claims, evaluations, and attributes, arelinked (Keller, 1993; Morrin, 1999). The association of a parent brand with a newbrand extension requires an updating (Lei, Dawar, & Lemmink, 2008) or adaptation(C.W. Park, McCarthy, & Milberg, 1993) of the established cognitive structure of theparent brand and of the new extension category. By integrating parent-brandassociations (beliefs and affect) into the evaluation of a new extension, the attitudetowards the extension and subsequent feedback effects are formed.

The one factor that helps most to explain the updating and adaptation processesinitialised by brand extensions is the degree of relatedness (Lei et al., 2008) or perceivedfit (Czellar, 2003) between the extension and the parent brand. The degree ofrelatedness is captured in the number of linkages between brand nodes in a cognitivenetwork. Generally, a higher level of perceived fit facilitates the transfer of associationsand emotions from a parent brand to its extensions, and thereby improves the extensionattitude (Boush & Loken, 1991; Klink & Smith, 2001; Seltene, 2004; Smith &Andrews, 1995). Consumers also tend to believe that extensions to incongruentproduct categories are unreliable and distant, and therefore such extensions areassessed more negatively (Dawar, 1996; Kirmani, Sood, & Bridges, 1999).

Several authors point out the risk of brand equity dilution due to unsuitable brandextensions (Chen & Chen, 2000; Loken & John, 1993; Sheinin, 2000). ‘Sub-typing’and ‘bookkeeping’ are two alternative models to account for reciprocal transfer ofassociations between a parent brand and its extension (Gurhan-Canli andMaheswaran, 1998; Romeo, 1991; Weber & Crocker, 1983). The sub-typing modelproposes that extensions that deviate significantly from current brand associations donot affect the brand image and are stored as a separate cognitive category (node). Thebookkeeping model, on the other hand, suggests that all new information is integratedinto the parent-brand schema despite the level of mismatch. The more incongruence, thegreater the changes in the parent brand. An assimilation process occurs when a highdegree of fit between two nodes exists, and the existing schema remains essentiallyunchanged when incorporating the new instance (C.W. Park et al., 1993, p. 28).Accommodation, on the other hand, occurs when the entire parent-brand schemamust be revised to accommodate a low-fit brand extension (C.W. Park et al., 1993).

From this discussion, it is clear that perceived fit is the major driver of extensionattitude formation and feedback effects. The stronger the perceived fit between thetwo entities, the better the extension attitude, since more favourable associations aretransferred from the parent brand to the extension (e.g. D.A. Aaker & Keller, 1990;Czellar, 2003; W.C. Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991). Furthermore, variations inextension attitudes (favourable or unfavourable) drive the subsequentaccommodation of new associations (positive or negative) within the parent-brandimage (e.g. Czellar, 2003; Gurhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 1998; Lei et al., 2008).

Proposed model and hypotheses

To manage global brands effectively, it is necessary to understand what the mainvariables are determining forward and backward (feedback) effects of potentialbrand extensions. In the conceptual model (see Figure 1), the potential feedback

Pina et al. Feedback effects of brand extensions on the brand image of global brands 945

effect on parent-brand image is explained in more detail by the mediating variable, (1)attitude towards the extension, and the independent variables: (2) brand familiarity,(3) perceived category fit, and (4) perceived image fit. The conceptual model alsosuggests moderating influences of (5) consumer innovativeness and (6) culturalorientation on the effect of perceived fit.

Antecedents of attitude towards the extension (forward effect)

It seems reasonable that extension judgments might be influenced by an individual’sprior knowledge about the parent brand. Brand-name familiarity reflects consumers’direct and indirect experience with the brand and with its entire product portfolio(Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Several studies suggest that leveraging more familiarbrands can create more favourable attitudes and subsequently more positivefeedback effects than extending less familiar brands (Lane & Jacobson, 1995). Oneexplanation for this is that increasing brand familiarity creates more complex brandschemas, which might stimulate consumers’ ability to identify links between the parentbrand and a new extension (Muthukrisnan & Weitz, 1991; Wanke, Bless, & Schwarz,1998).

Another explanation can be found in research on mere exposure effects. Highlyfamiliar brand names may be more accessible, and therefore better liked, simply as aresult of more exposure (Lane, 2000). Without specific knowledge about the productcategory of an extension, consumers may use the parent-brand familiarity as a heuristicto guide evaluations of the extension (Hoyer & Brown, 1990). Accordingly,extensions of highly familiar brands may receive better evaluations than less familiarones do. Yet, a brand that is simply familiar but not preferred may be evoked only toremind the consumer of other more preferred but less accessible brands (Nedungadi,

Figure 1 Global effects of the extensions on the parent-brand image.

H3 (+)

H4 (+) H1 (+)

H2 (+)

H5(+)

H8 (+/–) H6 (–)

H7 (–) H9 (+/–)

BRANDFAMILIARITY

EXTENSIONATTITUDE

BRANDIMAGE

CATEGORYFIT

IMAGE FIT

CONSUMERINNOVATIVENESS

COUNTRY OFORIGIN


1990). This indicates that positive brand attitudes must also include favourableassociations such as high quality or exclusivity. In any case, Erdem (1998) found thatfamiliarity and experience with the parent brand is a key indicator of quality of theextension.

Based on these arguments, we propose that more familiarity with the parent brandgenerates a more favourable attitude towards the extension (Swaminathan, Fox, &Reddy, 2001). This is partly caused by consumers’ ability to identify more fittingdimensions between the schema of the parent brand and the schema of theextension. Yet, it is also due to a higher level of ‘liking’ of the parent brand as aresult of mere exposure effects. Hence:

H1: Brand familiarity has a direct positive effect on attitude towards the extension

As discussed previously, consumers assess fit based on any connections between twonodes in their long-term memory that relate the extension to the parent brand(Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; W.C. Park et al., 1991). Although Echambadi et al.(2006) only found moderating effects of fit, Volckner and Sattler (2006) verifiedthat this variable has a direct influence on extension evaluations (see also Hem, deChernatony, & Iversen, 2003; W.C. Park et al., 1991). Thus, there is an agreement thatfit facilitates transfer of brand perceptions and increasing fit is expected to impactextension attitudes positively.

Several types of associations are particularly important in assessments of fit(e.g. Barone, Miniard, & Romeo, 2000). For instance, D. A. Aaker and Keller (1990)proposed that consumers might assess whether an extension shares the manufacturingprocesses with existing products (transfer fit), or whether it is used in a complementary(complement fit) or alternative way (substitute fit). In assessments of fit, consumersmay concurrently consider whether an extension belongs to a similar category(category fit) or whether it is coherent with the symbolic associations of the parentbrand (image fit) (Bhat & Reddy, 2001; Czellar, 2003; Grime, Diamantopoulos, &Smith, 2002; Mao & Krishnan, 2006; W.C. Park et al., 1991).

Rangaswamy, Burke, and Oliva (1993) have shown that those brands whose utilitystems from intangible or symbolic attributes generate associations to new categoriesmore easily compared to brands related to functional attributes. They argued thatsymbolic attributes are easier to stretch in terms of finding links between brand nodes(e.g. Czellar, 2003; W.C. Park et al., 1991). This is possibly due to their more holisticand abstract nature, which allows consumers to identify more points of relatedness onsymbolic imagery between a parent brand and an extension. Shared associations onsymbolic attributes have also been shown to be more resistant to negative feedbackeffects compared to associations related to functional attributes (Diamantopoulos,Smith, & Grime, 2005; Loken & John, 1993).

In the case of global brands, it is often assumed that a brand’s global reach providesperceptions of symbolic benefits such as status and prestige (Keller, 1998). Yet, globalbrands are also often associated with functional attributes or utilitarian benefits(Hsieh, 2002). When the parent brand is built on functional or utilitarian features,there is a lower chance of successful attitude formation as a result of fit. This is drivenby a lower likelihood of consumers identifying matching dimensions on functionalattributes (category fit) across a portfolio of product categories compared to theirlikelihood of identifying matching dimensions on symbolic features (image fit). Yetwhile some studies reveal a stronger influence of image fit on extension evaluations


(Bhat & Reddy, 2001), others show the opposite effect (Romeo, 1991). Becausecurrent findings differ regarding the effect of category fit and image fit on extensionevaluations, we generally propose that a closer proximity of an extension to the parentbrand impacts extension attitudes positively (de Magalhaes & Varela, 1997; Martınez& Pina, 2009; W.C. Park et al., 1991; Seltene, 2004). Hence:

H2: The higher the degree of perceived category fit, the more favourable the attitudetowards the extension

H3: The higher the degree of perceived image fit, the more favourable the attitudetowards the extension

Antecedents of feedback effects (backward effect)

As discussed previously, changes in the cognitive and affective components of thebrand extension attitude give rise to transfer of new associations and/or emotions backto the parent brand (Czellar, 2003; Lane & Jacobson, 1997). In this way, variations inattitude towards the extension might alter the established brand image (e.g. John et al.,1998; Martınez & de Chernatony, 2004). The adaptation of the parent-brand imagedepends on the extension attitude in the sense that, when it is favourable, new positiveperceptions are transferred back to the parent brand, which strengthens its position(e.g. Czellar, 2003). Conversely, when the extension is not evaluated favourably, theparent brand suffers from transfer of less favourable beliefs and emotions (Chen &Chen, 2000; Romeo, 1991; Sullivan, 1990). Hence:

H4: A favourable (unfavourable) attitude towards the extension has a direct positive(negative) effect on the adaptation of the parent-brand image

The adaptation of the parent-brand image not only depends on the evaluation of theextension, but is also dependent on brand-name familiarity. Increasing familiarity withthe parent brand, and specific knowledge about its attributes, are reflected in morerefined and inclusive knowledge structures (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Grime et al.,2002). Expert consumers possess elaborate and more complex knowledge structuresabout a given brand (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987), and therefore they have a highercapacity to recognise and comprehend the parent brand (Korchia, 2004). It is moredifficult to alter these structures with new pieces of information than the less elaborateknowledge structures of novices (Czellar, 2003). Due to the high level of exposure,familiarity, and experience with the parent brand that is accumulated over time byexperts, such consumers typically have developed strong and positive brandperceptions that are highly resistant to change (John et al., 1998). This indicates thatexperts are more resistant to new and negative information, which is more likely to besub-typed straight away (Loken & John, 1993), particularly when there is a lack of fit.

Novices, on the other hand, due to the less amount of blocking information theyhave in memory, have a larger propensity to store new and negative informationthrough bookkeeping (Loken & John, 1993). Accordingly, a more complexknowledge structure aids the adaptation of the initial brand scheme (Romeo, 1991),as it blocks out any negative information that threatens the parent brand. Experts aretherefore more likely to generate favourable changes to the parent-brand image (Bird& Ehrenberg, 1970; Hoek, Dunnett, Wright, & Gendall, 2000; Lane & Jacobson


1995; Martınez & de Chernatony, 2004). Consequently, high parent-brand familiarityreduces dilution effects of established brand perceptions (Chen & Liu, 2004). Hence:

H5: Increasing familiarity with the parent brand has a direct positive effect on theadaptation of the parent-brand image

Moderating effects

The final hypothesised relations in the proposed conceptual model (Figure 1) addresshow consumer innovativeness may moderate evaluations of extensions andsubsequent feedback effects. Thus, consumers may react differently to extensionsaccording to their innovative characteristics (Hem et al., 2003; Volckner & Sattler,2006). A long history of efforts has identified several dimensions of consumerinnovativeness, including optimal stimulation level, variety seeking, novelty seeking,exploratory tendencies, information seeking, need-for-change, and need-for-cognition (e.g. Goldsmith, 1983; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1992; Wood & Swait,2002). ‘High innovators’ are predicted to be comfortable with novelty andstimulation. They are also more open to new knowledge, all of which may impacttheir willingness to try and to evaluate brand extensions. Accordingly, some studiesshow that consumer innovativeness can have a positive influence on brand-extensionevaluations, for both FMCG (Volckner & Sattler, 2006) and services (Hem et al.,2003).

For many consumers, a brand extension is a risky choice (Hem et al., 2003),particularly for individuals low in innovativeness. Because highly innovativeindividuals are less sensitive to risk (Hem et al., 2003), factors such as perceived fitplay a lesser role in their evaluations of brand extensions than they do for lessinnovative individuals (Czellar, 2003). Therefore, innovative consumers are moreprone to try new brand extensions (Hem et al., 2003; Klink & Smith, 2001),regardless of fit between the extension and the parent brand. Moreover, highlyinnovative consumers are more likely to evaluate brand extensions more positively,simply because they like the higher level of stimulation, the exploratory behaviour, andthe attached perceived risk involved in the evaluation and choice process. In support ofthis, Klink and Smith (2001) found that innovative consumers put less importance onthe fact that the extension belongs to a particular category, which is related to thebrand’s current product portfolio (category fit). Moreover, factors such as image fit oreven overall fit might play a lesser role in their extension evaluation processes (Czellar,2003). Consequently, this tendency could explain a lower dependency on category fitand image fit in assessments of extensions among innovative consumers. Hence:

H6: The effect of perceived category fit on extension attitude is weaker/stronger whenconsumer innovativeness is high/low

H7: The effect of perceived image fit on extension attitude is weaker/stronger whenconsumer innovativeness is high/low

Alongside the effects of individual characteristics, the culture of the country inwhich a brand extension is launched may impact assessments of it (see Monga & John,2007). A joint analysis of the replicas of D.A. Aaker and Keller’s work (1990) showsthat the factors affecting evaluations of brand extensions are the same across countries,although the importance attached to each factor may vary according to the cultural


context (Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Echambadi et al., 2006). It may even be thatevaluation of fit is contingent on differences in information processing across cultures(e.g. J.L. Aaker & Maheswaran, 1997; Monga & John, 2007).

Several aspects of culture have been related to consumer behaviour (e.g. Monga &John, 2007;S. Singh, 2006). According to Hofstede (1980, 1991), countries can differin the cultural dimension of masculinity/femininity, individualism/collectivism, powerdistance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation. Following thisframework, S. Singh (2006) demonstrated that individualistic and masculine societies,low in power distance and uncertainty avoidance, are more prone to adoptinnovations, regardless of fit. Moreover, the higher the country individualism, thelower the perceived fit and the resulting brand-extension evaluation will be (Basu &John, 2007; Han & Schmitt, 1997; Monga & John, 2007). The explanation lies inhow ‘holistic thinkers’ (collectivist cultures) focus more on relationships betweenobjects than ‘analytical thinkers’ (individualist cultures) (Masuda & Nisbett, 2001).However, collective societies could also attach more importance to company-relatedaspects if the perceived fit is low (Han & Schmitt, 1997).

From this discussion, it follows that consumers may attach different importanceweights to perceptions of fit as a function of the cultural orientation within their homecountry, and/or as a function of their individual degree of innovativeness. However,due to the scant literature on this issue and the somewhat contradictory findings, themoderating role of cultural orientation on perceptions of category fit and image fit arenot delineated in detail, but rather expressed in general terms. Hence:

H8: The effect of perceived category fit on extension attitude depends on the culturalorientation in the country where the brand extension is launched

H9: The effect of perceived image fit on extension attitude depends on the culturalorientation in the country where the brand extension is launched

To test the proposed hypotheses and the proposed moderating influences ofconsumer innovativeness and cultural orientation, Norway and Spain were selectedas target countries. These countries differ substantially on Hofstede’s (1980, 1991)cultural-orientation dimensions (see Table 1). Norway is characterised with lowerpower distance, lower uncertainty avoidance, lower masculinity, but higherindividualism in comparison with Spain. On all cultural-orientation dimensions,Hofstede’s values indicate that Norway should be a more innovative country thanSpain (S. Singh, 2006), apart from for the masculinity dimension. In support of this,

Table 1 Cultural variation in Norway and Spain.

Dimension Norway score Spain score Mean scorea

Power distance 31 57 56.96 (N ¼ 53)

Individualism/Collectivism 69 51 43.34 (N ¼ 53)

Masculinity/Femininity 8 42 49.58 (N ¼ 53)

Uncertainty avoidance 50 86 65.62 (N ¼ 53)

Long-term orientation 20 Unavailable 45.16 (N ¼ 24)

Source: Hofstede (1991).aThe mean score refers to all the countries analysed by Hofstede.


Tellis, Stremersch, and Yin (2003) found that the time-to-takeoff for new products isalmost half as long in Scandinavian countries, such as Norway (4 years), compared toMediterranean countries such as Spain (7.1 years).

Methodology

In order to increase the external validity of the results, existing parent brands wereselected. The brands chosen compete in the market of sports equipment and employ asimilar marketing strategy in the two countries. Sports brands are not uncommon instudies on brand extensions (Chen & Chen, 2000; del Rıo, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001;de Magalhaes & Varela, 1997; Martınez & de Chernatony, 2004; Martınez et al.,2008). Consequently, analyses of this type of extensions would help to complete thepicture on cross-cultural differences from previous research.

Hypothetical products were used as brand extensions, as such products arecommonly used in studies measuring the feedback effects on the parent brand (Johnet al., 1998; Loken & John, 1993). This procedure allows isolation of the specificeffects of the new category from other influences occurring in real market settings suchas marketing communication campaigns and competitors’ actions (Diamantopouloset al., 2005). In the present study, the parent brands and their extensions were selectedbased on the results from two pre-tests, which were conducted in Norway and Spain.

Pre-test 1

The objective of the first pre-test was to select two sports brands (for clothing andfootwear), which were sufficiently familiar (Low & Lamb, 2000) but had differentimage perceptions. In this pre-test, 60 students from the Norwegian School ofEconomics and Business Administration in Bergen, and 81 students from theUniversity of Zaragoza took part. Convenience samples are usually employed forthese purposes (e.g. Kim, 2003; Volckner & Sattler, 2006).

Faced with four well-known brands in each market, individuals had to assess brandfamiliarity (F) and brand image (I). Two questions were measured on seven-pointLikert scales (where 1 ¼ totally unfamiliar and 7 ¼ very familiar; 1 ¼ bad image and7 ¼ excellent image). In both countries, the responses revealed the same two brands:Nike and Puma.

The Norwegian data showed high familiarity ratings for Nike and Puma (FNN ¼5.9; FNP ¼ 5.4). Yet their brand image was significantly different (INN ¼ 5.5; INP ¼5.3; Z ¼ �1.69; p < .1). In Spain, Nike and Puma (FSN ¼ 6.6; FSP ¼ 5.6) were alsoboth highly familiar brands with differing images (ISN ¼ 6.2; ISP ¼ 5.1; Z ¼ �5.45;p < .05). Although Nike was better assessed than Puma, their high familiarity ratingsensure that these brands are able to elicit unique brand associations. Moreover, theyare not yet extended too far from the sports market as recommended by D.A. Aakerand Keller (1990).

Pre-test 2

The second pre-test was carried out with 60 Norwegian and 80 Spanish students. Theaim was to identify two extensions for each brand that varied in perceived fit betweenthe new product and the current product portfolio (category fit) or the image of theparent brand (image fit). Individuals were asked about their perceptions of category fit(CF) (where 1 ¼ not at all similar and 7 ¼ very similar) and image fit (IF) (where 1 ¼


non-coherent and 7 ¼ very coherent) of four hypothetical extensions. Skis and DVDplayers were chosen as suitable extensions for both brands, as they varied consistentlyon perceived fit across the Norwegian and Spanish markets. The pre-tests showed thatthese extensions were comparable in the two markets.

The Norwegian data showed significant differences in category fit between skis andDVD players for Nike (CFN1 ¼ 2.2; CFN2 ¼ 1.3; Z ¼ �4.97; p < .05), as well as forPuma (CFN1¼ 2.0; CFN2¼ 1.3; Z¼ �4.65; p < .05). Moreover, skis were perceivedas more coherent with the image of Nike (IFN1¼ 2.6; IFN2¼ 1.2; Z¼�5.61; p < .05)and with the image of Puma (IFN1¼ 2.0; IFN2¼ 1.2; Z¼�4.80; p < .05) than DVDplayers. The same results were evident in the Spanish sample. Significant differenceswere found in category fit between skis and DVD players for Nike (CFS1 ¼ 3.3;CFS2 ¼ 1.3; Z ¼ �5.12; p < .05), as well as for Puma (CFS1 ¼ 3.3; CFS2 ¼ 1.1;Z¼�4.91; p < .05). Moreover, skis were perceived as more coherent with the imageof Nike (IFS1 ¼ 4.2; IFS2 ¼ 1.4; Z ¼ �5.56; p < .05) and with the image of Puma(IFS1 ¼ 3.9; IFS2 ¼ 1.1; Z ¼ �5.11; p < .05) than DVD players.

Samples and procedure

The main study involved four questionnaires with different combinations of twoparent brands and two extensions. The original questionnaires were written inSpanish and then translated into English and Norwegian, trying to assure translationequivalence by means of back-translation (Usunier, 2000). Moreover, prior to theexecution of the fieldwork, a pilot test with the target samples from each country wasundertaken to correct potential problems with the measurement scales. Thequestionnaires were also structured to minimise order effects (Klink & Smith,2001). First, individuals were asked about their level of consumer innovativeness,their brand familiarity, and their established brand image. Shortly after, respondentsknew that the brand had launched the potential extensions (skis or DVD players) andthey had to assess their perceptions of category fit, image fit, and their attitude towardsthe extension. Then, questions measuring the parent-brand image after theintroduction of the extensions were introduced.

The fieldwork took place during May 2005 in Spain and during November 2006 inNorway. The total sample consisted of 200 Spaniard (195 valid cases) and 267Norwegian (263 valid cases) respondents, and each individual answered aquestionnaire either as a personal interview (Spain) or as an e-mail survey (Norway).In Norway, the NORSTAT research data-collection company was used to recruitrespondents. According to Eurostat (2006) estimates, the level of internet access inNorwegian households is nearly 70%, which is about 30% higher than in Spain.Therefore, an online approach was just as effective in reaching the generalpopulation in Norway as a traditional survey.

The Spanish sample was approached by a team of trained interviews in differentdays, times, and parts of a foremost city, in which market tests are often conducted.Participation in the Norwegian survey was respondents drawn from NORSTATsrepresentative pool of Norwegian consumers. In both cases, a quota sampling wasapplied by stratifying the population in terms of gender (50.8% women, 49.2% men)and age (20.5% 16–25, 45.1% 26–45, 34.4% >46), the same as the Norwegian data(46.8% women, 53.2% men; 25.5% 16–25, 36.9% 26–45, 37.6% >46). It issignificant that the proposed brand extensions are not limited to specific marketsegments, which is necessary to examine spill-over effects on the image held by thegeneral population.


Variables measurement

Responses to all items except the demographic variables were measured on seven-point Likert scales, and by requesting individuals to indicate their agreement ordisagreement with specific statements. The importance of brand image in thepresent study necessitated the use of a general scale, which is not limited to specificdimensions. Therefore, brand image was measured using a combination of itemsrevealing tangible and intangible brand associations as well as global brandreputation. The set of items was a collection of drawn from several other studies(e.g. Martin & Brown, 1990; Weiss, Anderson, & MacInnis, 1999).

Consumer innovativeness was measured on the dimensions of hedonistic and socialinnovativeness (Roehrich, 1995), with the former reflecting pleasure-seeking orstimulation needs and the latter reflecting people’s need to be unique. Theremaining factors consisted of one dimension, and the scales are described in Table 2.

Results

Data analysis was performed in two stages for each of the two countries independently.First, the scale validation was performed by analysing the statistical properties of thescales, then the hypotheses were tested.

Scale validation

The validation process began by examining the scales’ dimensionality through themethodology of principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation. This analysisrevealed a one-dimension solution for all the factors except for consumerinnovativeness and brand image. In relation to consumer innovativeness, thefactorial analysis gave support to the dimensions of hedonist and socialinnovativeness. Regarding brand image, the suitability of the dimensions of functionalimage, affective image, and reputation was verified (Cronbach’s alpha > .7). However,FUIM3 was previously removed from the datasets because the item-total correlation waslower than .5.

The second phase of the validation procedure involved fitting the confirmatorymodel to all the scales hypothesised to co-vary (see Figure 1). Structural equationmodelling (SEM) was employed in order to test the measurement model, but withoutthe moderating factors. Table 3 and Table 4 summarise the results obtained with theEQS 5.b and ML robust estimation method. They show that all scales satisfied thereliability and the convergent validity criteria in the Norwegian sample as well as inthe Spanish data.

Regarding convergent validity, all factor loadings were significant (t > 1.96) andexceeded the cut-off point of .5 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). R2 coefficients were alsoabove or very close to the recommended value of .5, except for CAFI1 in Norway(.378). Nevertheless, this item was not deleted, since category fit was measured withonly two items and the remaining indices were positive (l ¼ .615; t > 1.96).

The indicators of reliability guaranteed the internal consistency of the scales.Cronbach’s alphas were above the threshold of .7 or, at least .6 (CAFI in Norway),which indicates acceptable reliability. The values obtained on the composite reliabilitycoefficients and the extracted variance analyses (EVA) were also higher than .6 and .5,respectively (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Given that the varianceexplained (AVE) within constructs was above the variance explained across


constructs, the discriminant validity between the different factors was also confirmed(Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003).

Goodness-of-fit indices are reported in Tables 3 and 4 to verify whether the modelfits the data of the total sample. These indices showed acceptable values with theexception of the chi-square test (p < .01) (Hair et al., 1998). However, SEM models

Table 2 Scales used in the questionnaires.

Scale Measured concept

Brand image Functional image (FUIM)

Martin and Brown (1990),Aaker (1996), Weiss et al.(1999)

FUIM1: The products have a high qualityFUIM2: The products have better characteristics than the

competitors

FUIM3: The products of the competitors are usually cheaper

Affective image (AFIM)

AFIM1: The brand is nice

AFIM2: The brand has a personality thatdistinguishes itself from competitors

AFIM3: It’s a brand that doesn’t disappoint its customers

Reputation image (REIM)

REIM1: It’s one of the best brands in the sector

REIM2: The brand is very consolidated in the market

Extension attitude (EXAT) EXAT1: Favourability of the extension

Aaker and Keller (1990) EXAT2: Perceived quality of the extension

Pryor and Brodie (1998) EXAT3: Likelihood of trying the extension

Brand familiarity (FAMI) FAMI1: Familiarity with the brand’s products

Dawar (1996) FAMI2: Purchasing frequency of the brand’s products

FAMI3: Knowledge of the brand’s products

Category fit (CAFI) CAFI1: The extension is similar to the brand’s products

Aaker and Keller (1990)Taylor and Bearden (2002)

CAFI2: The firm’s resources are helpful to make theproduct extension

Image fit (IMFI) IMFI1: The product extension fits with the brand image

Taylor and Bearden (2002) IMFI2: Launching the extension is logical for the company

Keller and Aaker (1992) IMFI3: Launching the extension is appropriate for thecompany

Consumer innovativeness Hedonist innovativeness (HINN)

Roehrich (1995) HINN1: I am more interested in buying new than knownproducts

HINN2: I like to buy new and different products

HINN3: New products excite me

Social innovativeness (SINN)

SINN1: I am usually among the first to try new products

SINN2: I try new products before my friends and neighbours

SINN3: I know more than others about the latest newproducts


may be judged to provide acceptable fit even though the chi-square value, which is verydependent on sample size, is not statistically significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).Regarding fit indices, the RMSEA error statistic was below the maximum value of .08in both the Norwegian (RMSEA ¼ .065) and Spanish (RMSEA ¼ .060) markets.Moreover, incremental fit measures were above the required .9 level for Norway(NNFI ¼ .933; CFI ¼ .950; IFI ¼ .951) and Spain (NNFI ¼ .954; CFI ¼ .965; IFI ¼.966), which lends support to the adequacy of the proposed model.

Apart from analysing the individual validity of the scales, conducting a cross-cultural comparison requires a test of the equivalence or comparability of data fromthe two countries (e.g. J. Singh, 1995; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Onceproved configural invariance or similarity of factor structures across groups, metricinvariance was tested by constraining the factor pattern coefficients to be equal acrosscountries (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). This analysis revealed statisticaldifferences in items AFIM2 (w2diff. ¼ 4.64, p ¼ .03), CAFI1 (w2diff. ¼ 12.76, p ¼.00) and IMFI1 (w2diff.¼ 5.40, p¼ .02) although the remaining non-fixed items weremetrically invariant for each factor. Hence, partial metric invariance is proved (Byrne,Shavelson, & Muthen, 1989; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998), and thus theconvenience of applying further comparisons.

Test of model and hypotheses

When the factor structure of the measurement models and the metric equivalence wereconfirmed, the hypotheses were tested through SEM. This methodology is suitable for

Table 3 Assessment indices of the measurement model (Norway).

Factor Item l (t) R2Cronbach’s

alphaComposite reliability

coefficient

Extractedvarianceanalysis

FUIM FUIM1 .883 (17.44) .779 .811 .809 .681

FUIM2 .763 (14.17) .582

AFIM AFIM1 .848 (18.07) .720 .870 .853 .661

AFIM2 .868 (18.55) .754

AFIM3 .714 (11.57) .510

REIM REIM1 .871 (17.42) .759 .767 .795 .661

REIM2 .750 (16.07) .563

EXAT EXAT1 .824 (16.82) .679 .808 .819 .601

EXAT2 .726 (12.76) .527

EXAT3 .773 (16.58) .598

FAMI FAMI1 .807 (17.29) .652 .883 .886 .722

FAMI2 .827 (19.08) .684

FAMI3 .912 (21.13) .833

CAFI CAFI1 .615 (9.95) .378 .658 .670 .508

CAFI2 .798 (11.78) .637

IMFI IMFI1 .814 (17.30) .662 .900 .904 .759

IMFI2 .892 (21.11) .795

IMFI3 .905 (20.07) .819

Fit indices: w2 ¼ 240.641 (114), (p < .01); RMSEA ¼ .065; NNFI ¼ .933; CFI ¼ .950; IFI ¼ .951.


testing hypotheses in cross-sectional data (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 2000). Prior totesting the hypotheses, the overall effect of brand extensions on the extended brandwas examined. To make the comparisons easier, the pre-images and post-images wereestimated as the arithmetic means of their respective items. Figure 2 shows the resultsfor the Norwegian market, whereas Figure 3 focuses on Spain.

In all cases, the brand extension affected the parent-brand image negatively. Thisnegative effect was particularly evident in the Norwegian sample. The t-values werenot, however, significant for Nike-Skis (t ¼ 1.34) and Puma-Skis (t ¼ .88) in theSpanish sample. Moreover, a closer examination of the data reveals that feedbackeffects caused by the brand extension were more damaging for very incongruentproducts (DVD) than for slightly incongruent ones (skis). All in all, neither of theextensions improved brand image but instead created negative impressions, whichdiluted existing beliefs.

The estimated SEM-model could help to explain the feedback effects caused by fitand other variables. To test the hypotheses adequately, brand image was considered asa second-order factor consisting of the functional image, affective image, andreputation dimensions. The estimation method was ML Robust as applied for themeasurement model, and the results are displayed in Tables 5 and 6. More than 50% ofthe variance was explained by the considered independent variables for both extensionattitude (R2

N ¼ .540; R2S ¼ .609) and brand image (R2

N ¼ .504; R2S ¼ .583).

H1 was rejected in the Norwegian market, but not in the Spanish sample, as thecoefficient relating brand familiarity with extension attitude is positive and significant(bS¼ .13, t¼ 1.94). Hence, the degree of experience that consumers have with a branddoes not always influence their attitudes towards new products.

Table 4 Assessment indices of the measurement model (Spain).

Factor Item l (t) R2Cronbach’s

alphaComposite

reliability coefficientExtracted

variance analysis

FUIM FUIM1 .807 (14.03) .652 .736 .839 .723

FUIM2 .891 (16.41) .794

AFIM AFIM1 .800 (14.24) .641 .729 .795 .564

AFIM2 .751 (11.82) .564

AFIM3 .699 (10.53) .488

REIM REIM1 .918 (17.13) .843 .732 .822 .700

REIM2 .746 (10.54) .557

EXAT EXAT1 .776 (13.29) .602 .811 .818 .601

EXAT2 .691 (10.68) .478

EXAT3 .850 (20.35) .723

FAMI FAMI1 .781 (12.92) .609 .821 .824 .611

FAMI2 .721 (11.42) .519

FAMI3 .838 (14.39) .701

CAFI CAFI1 .858 (19.79) .736 .804 .807 .677

CAFI2 .786 (14.94) .617

IMFI IMFI1 .929 (28.06) .864 .918 .917 .787

IMFI2 .900 (21.20) .811

IMFI3 .829 (14.84) .687

Fit indices: w2 ¼ 194.541 (114), (p < .01); RMSEA ¼ .060; NNFI ¼ .954; CFI ¼ .965; IFI ¼ .966.


H2, which postulated a positive effect of category fit on extension attitude, was alsoonly supported in the Spanish sample (bS ¼ .36, t ¼ 5.27). With regards to H3, imagefit had a positive effect on the extension attitude, as the coefficients of the two sampleswere positive and significant (bN¼ .73, t¼ 10.14; bS¼ .68, t¼ 7.89). Consequently, it

Figure 2 Variation in brand images caused by brand extensions (Norway). *p � .05.

4.09*

4.85

3.52*

4.10*

4.44

3.71*

3

4

5

IMAG* (i) IMAG* (f)

Nike-SkisNike-DVDsPuma-SkisPuma-DVDs

4.86

4.32

Figure 3 Variation in brand images caused by brand extensions (Spain). *p � .05.

4.87

5.00

4.12*

4.61

4.70

4.27*

4

5

6

Nike-SkisNike-DVDsPuma-SkisPuma-DVDs

5.61

4.69

IMAG* (i) IMAG* (f)


seems that brand extensions that are consistent with the symbolic image of the parentbrand will be preferred in international markets, regardless of the similarity betweenthe product categories in the brands present portfolio.

The two hypotheses concerned with antecedents of brand image were supported inthe Spanish data. Thus, as predicted in H4, a favourable attitude towards the extensionis associated with a favourable brand image (bS¼ .72, t¼ 6.98). Similarly, as proposedin H5, brand image is reinforced when brand familiarity increases (bS¼ .17, t¼ 2.63).On the other hand, extension attitude was the only factor that affected the brandimage held by Norwegians (bN ¼ .70, t ¼ 9.69). Consequently, feedback effects ofbrand extensions mainly seem to depend on the consumers’ evaluation of brandextensions, since the effect of brand familiarity could be country-driven.

The moderating role of consumer innovativeness regarding the effect of perceivedfit on extension attitude (H6 and H7) was analysed by means of multi-sample analysis(see Tables 7 and 8). Thus, the country’s database was split into two sub-samples basedon respondents with high vs. low hedonist or social innovativeness (mean� .25� SD).Previously, it was obtained that individuals with higher hedonist innovativeness had amore favourable average extension attitude than the low innovative consumers bothfor Norway (EXATN¼ 3.8 > 3.5; t¼�1.70; p < .1) and Spain (EXATS¼ 4.2 > 3.8; t¼ �2.01; p < .05). This relationship was not significant for social innovativeness,which demonstrates the need of considering both dimensions in an independent way.Afterwards, the standardised factor loadings of the proposed model (i.e. lambdacoefficients) were restricted to be the same across samples and the structuralcoefficients were compared by Lagrange Multiplier tests (Iglesias & Vazquez, 2001).

As shown in Tables 7 and 8, the moderating effects of consumer innovativenesswere very different depending on the country and dimension analysed. Regarding H6,

Table 5 Assessment indices of the structural model (Norway).

Hypotheses Standardised b (t) Hypotheses validation

H1: FAMI! EXAT .05 (.85) No

H2: CAFI! EXAT .06 (1.17) No

H3: IMFI! EXAT .73* (10.14) Yes

H4: EXAT! IMAG .70* (9.69) Yes

H5: FAMI! IMAG .09 (1.54) No

Fit indices: w2 ¼ 288.314 (131), (p < .01); RMSEA ¼ .068; NNFI ¼ .927; CFI ¼ .938; IFI ¼ .938.*p � .05.

Table 6 Assessment indices of the structural model (Spain).

Hypotheses Standardised b (t) Hypotheses validation

H1: FAMI! EXAT .13** (1.94) Yes

H2: CAFI! EXAT .36* (5.27) Yes

H3: IMFI! EXAT .68* (7.89) Yes

H4: EXAT! IMAG .72* (6.98) Yes

H5: FAMI! IMAG .17* (2.63) Yes

Fit indices: w2 ¼ 227.919 (131), (p < .01); RMSEA ¼ .062; NNFI ¼ .951; CFI ¼ .958; IFI ¼ .959.*p � .05; **p � .1.


the effect of category fit on extension attitude was lower in the innovative sample thanin the non-innovative sample only for Spain on the hedonist dimension (bS ¼ .16 <.69; w2diff. ¼ 4.15, p ¼ .04). The expected difference in the effect of image fit onextension attitude was not verified neither in Norway nor in Spain, regardless of thedimension considered. Yet, a greater effect was found in Spain for highly innovativeconsumers (on hedonist c. innovativeness) compared to less innovative consumers (bS

¼ .79 > .43; w2diff. ¼ 4.75, p ¼ .03). Thus, H7 is rejected.In order to test moderating effects of country culture, further moderating analysis was

conducted. Lending support to H8 and H9, the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test showedsignificant differences in the relationship between extension attitude and either categoryfit (w2diff. ¼ 4.87, p ¼ .03) or image fit (w2diff. ¼ 3.27, p ¼ .07). In the Norwegiansample, increasing category fit produced worse extension evaluations compared to theSpanish sample (b¼ .06 < .36), although this was not statistically significant (t < 1.64).The opposite occurred for image fit (b ¼ .73 > .68), which was significantly related toextension attitude, and the effects were significantly stronger in the Norwegian sample.

Moderating effects of consumer innovativeness and cultural orientation wereanalysed to test the remaining hypotheses. Regarding consumer innovativeness, theLM test showed significant differences related to the effect of familiarity on brandimage (H5) for social innovativeness in both Norway (w2diff. ¼ 5.99, p ¼ .01) andSpain (w2diff. ¼ 7.69, p ¼ .01). More specifically, brand familiarity only influencedbrand image for high social innovativeness in Norway (bN ¼ .24 > �.04) and lowsocial innovativeness in Spain (bS ¼ �.04 < .32). However, the LM test was notsignificant when cultural orientation was considered as a moderator with theexception of the relation between perceived fit and extension attitude.

Table 7 Results of the multi-sample analysis (Norway).

Hedonist C. innovativeness Social C. innovativeness

Hypotheses High b Low b c2diff. High b Low b c2diff.

H1: FAMI! EXAT .01 .08 .193 .00 .06 .193

H2: CAFI! EXAT .06 �.08 .148 .09 �.10 .134

H3: IMFI! EXAT .76* .68* .684 .78* .73* .004

H4: EXAT! IMAG .67* .76* .796 .70* .72* .292

H5: FAMI! IMAG .09 .09 .635 .24* �.04 5.992*

*p � .05.

Table 8 Results of the multi-sample analysis (Spain).

Hedonist C. innovativeness Social C. innovativeness

Hypotheses High b Low b c2diff. High b Low b c2diff.

H1: FAMI! EXAT .13** .13 .153 .14 .10 .133

H2: CAFI! EXAT .16* .69* 4.150* .27* .44* .005

H3: IMFI! EXAT .79* .43* 4.751* .69* .65* .009

H4: EXAT! IMAG .76* .67* .031 .82* .67* .074

H5: FAMI! IMAG .12 .25* .009 �.04 .32* 7.688*

*p � .05; **p � .1.


Conclusions and implications

Use of brand extensions in global branding are widespread because it providesconsiderable cost savings compared to new brand establishments. It is thereforecrucial to shed new light on the upsides and downsides of such global growthstrategies. This study addresses the potential, reciprocal, transfer effects thatlaunches of brand extensions can have on the image of global sports brands. Forbrands such as Nike or Puma, with brand values estimated above $10 billion(Interbrand, 2008), it is vital to know how to avoid the risk of brand-image dilution.

By analysing the data of two different countries, Norway and Spain, it was provedthat attitude towards brand extensions can cause negative feedback effects on theextended brand image. This attitude and the resulting image will mainly depend onperceived image fit, which seems more important than category fit (Bhat & Reddy,2001; Seltene, 2004). As Kim (2003) stated, consumers would mainly assess brandextensions by evaluating the deeper meaning of the brand rather than just the fitbetween product categories. Moreover, the study shows that brand-image dilutioncan arise from both slightly incongruent extensions (skis) and severely incongruentextensions (DVD players), as elucidated by the bookkeeping model (Weber &Crocker, 1983).

A major result of this research is that individual characteristics and cultural traitscould be more important than expected. D.A. Aaker and Keller (1993) noticed that thedifferences found in cross-cultural studies could be explained by factors such asprocedure and stimuli as well as culture. However, most of the studies warn ofdifferent responses to brand extensions depending on the country examined(Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Han & Schmitt, 1997; Monga & John, 2007). Thispaper takes a step forward and shows that the weight attached to brand familiarity,category fit, and consumer innovativeness also varies across countries.

The findings show that brand-extension evaluation and feedback effects depend onbrand familiarity in the Spanish sample but not in the Norwegian one. It is self-evidentthat brand familiarity has a direct effect on development of parent-brand associations(Hoek et al., 2000). However, in countries where the uncertainty avoidance is higher,like Spain, the greater element should be the necessity of trust in brand equity toevaluate brand extensions. This cultural dimension can also explain why perceivedcategory fit was only assessed by Spaniards.

The moderating role of consumer innovativeness and cultural orientation of theorigin country was examined through a multi-sample analysis, which was conductedsubsequent to the general estimation of the proposed model. Following Roehrich’s(1995) proposal, consumer innovativeness was split into two dimensions measuringthe need for stimulation (hedonist innovativeness) and the consumers’ need foruniqueness (social innovativeness). Hedonist innovativeness was the only dimensionstatistically associated to extension attitude. On the other hand, each factor showedmoderating effects that vary according to the country.

In the Spanish sample, the high-hedonist consumers put more emphasis on image fitand less emphasis on category fit in their brand evaluations compared to the low-hedonist consumers. This finding extends previous research by showing thathedonist–innovative consumers do not consider category fit (Klink & Smith, 2001)but seek to maintain the coherence between the brand image and the new associations.Focusing on social innovativeness, we found that the higher the social innovativeness,the stronger the relationship between familiarity and brand image will be forNorwegians but not for Spaniards.


The differences concerned with consumer innovativeness emerged again afterestablishing a comparison between the Spanish and the Norwegian sample. The LMtests revealed that the Norwegians put more emphasis on image fit and less emphasison category fit compared to the Spaniards in their brand evaluations. Norway is a moreindividualistic country than Spain, and, therefore, perceived fit is expected to play astronger role in assessments of brand extensions (Han & Schmitt, 1997). However, theNorwegians score lower on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinitycompared to Spaniards (Hofstede, 1991). These cultural features depict Norwegiansas more innovative and risk-taking than people from Spain (S. Singh, 2006). Because ofthis stronger degree of innovativeness, Norwegians may have a higher need forcognition (Wood & Swait, 2002). This may indicate that Norwegians will thinkmore in their assessments of extensions and could possibly find more links betweenthe extension and the parent brand on contextual factors such as imagery, productcomplementarities, or usage situations (image fit). However, they could also identifymore mismatches between the two entities (for both the slightly incongruent andseverely incongruent extension) on functional category dimensions (category fit).Less perceived category fit indicates less transfer of positive perceptions to theextension attitude and consequently more negative feedback effects on the parent-brand image. This seems to be the case in the Norwegian sample, relative to theSpanish sample.

The present results may help brand managers to monitor important variables whenlaunching brand extensions internationally. First, a brand-extension strategy should beavoided when the new product is not coherent with associations of the parent brand. Ifimage fit is guaranteed, there is less need for the extension to fit the present productportfolio. Moreover, firms should emphasise image fit more when targetingMediterranean countries than when targeting Scandinavian countries. In thesecountries, the first consumers of the products (i.e. innovators) will place moreimportance on image fit. In general, companies must have in mind that consumerresponse to brand-extension strategies depends on both the consumer innovativenessand the country innovativeness. Hence, the strategy of improving consumers’behaviour through strengthening brand equity dimensions (e.g. brand familiarity)will only succeed in specific countries.

This research has several limitations that represent opportunities for furtherresearch. First, the generalisability of the findings may be somewhat limited as thebrands applied were exclusively sports brands. To complete the picture, researchersshould apply the proposed model to other types of brand extensions. A secondlimitation is that the brand extensions used were hypothetical products. Eventhough hypothetical brand extensions are frequently applied to isolate the effectsstudied from external variables, this limitation still represents a real challenge instudies of perceptual and attitudinal variables. Finally, it would be interesting toreplicate the study in other geographical areas and countries since personality traitssuch as hedonist and social innovativeness are very dependent on cultural factors.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following sources for their financial help: CICYT (Ref:SEJ2005-02315), Government of Aragon (‘GENERES’, Ref.S-09; ‘PM0262/2006’) and The

Norwegian Research Council.


References

Aaker, D.A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. CaliforniaManagement Review, 38(3), 102–120.

Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal ofMarketing, 54, 27–41.

Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1993). Interpreting cross-cultural replications of brand extensionresearch. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(1), 55–59.

Aaker, J.L., & Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effects of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journalof Consumer Research, 24(3), 315–328.

Alba, J.W., & Hutchinson, J.W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 13, 55–59.

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A reviewand recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Balachander, S., & Ghose, S. (2003). Reciprocal spillover effects: A strategic benefit of brandextensions. Journal of Marketing, 76, 4–13.

Barone, M.J., Miniard, P.W., & Romeo, J.B. (2000). The influence of positive mood on brandextension evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 386–400.

Basu, A., & John, D.R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: Theinfluence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33,529–536.

Bhat, S., & Reddy, S.K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect onbrand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 53, 111–122.

Bird, M., & Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1970). Consumer attitudes and brand usage. Journal of theMarket Research Society, 12, 233–247.

Bottomley, P.A., & Holden, S.J.S. (2001). Do we really know how consumers evaluate brandextensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal ofMarketing Research, 38, 494–500.

Boush, D.M., & Loken, B. (1991). A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation.Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 16–28.

Broniarczyk, S.M., & Alba, J.W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension.Journal of Marketing, 21, 214–228.

Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factorcovariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance.Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.

Chen, C.H., & Chen, S.K. (2000). Brand dilution effect of extension failure – A Taiwan study.Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 243–254.

Chen, K.J., & Liu, C.M. (2004). Positive brand extension trial and choice of parent brand.Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(1), 25–36.

Czellar, S. (2003). Consumer attitude towards brand extensions: An integrative model andresearch propositions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(1), 97–115.

Dawar, N. (1996). Extensions of broad brands: The role of retrieval in evaluations of fit. Journalof Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 189–207.

del Rıo, A.B., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on consumerresponse. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425.

de Magalhaes, E., & Varela, J.A. (1997). Consistencia entre categorıas de productos,congruencia entre imagenes y valoracion de las extensiones de marca. Revista Europea deDireccion y Economıa de la Empresa, 6(3), 79–92 [in Spanish].

Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G., & Grime, I. (2005). The impact of brand extensions onbrand personality: Experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 39(1/2),129–149.

Echambadi, R., Arroniz, I., Reinartz, W., & Lee, J. (2006). Empirical generalizations from brandextension research: How sure are we? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23,253–261.


Erdem, T. (1998). An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing Research,35, 339–351.

Eurostat (2006). Internet usage in the EU25 [online], ES News Release, 146(10), 1–3. RetrievedDecember 27, 2007, from http://Ec.Europa.Eu/Eurostat/

Goldsmith, R.E. (1983). Psychographics and new product adoption: An exploratory study.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 1071–1076.

Grime, I., Diamantopoulos, A., & Smith, G. (2002). Consumer evaluations of extensions andtheir effects on the core brand. European Journal of Marketing, 36(11/12), 1415–1438.

Gurhan-Chanli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extension on brand name dilutionand enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 464–473.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5thed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Han, J.K., & Schmitt, B.H. (1997). Product-category dynamics and corporate identity in brandextensions: A comparison of Hong Kong and U.S. consumers. Journal of InternationalMarketing, 5(1), 77–92.

Hem, L.E., de Chernatony, L., & Iversen, N.M. (2003). Factors influencing successful brandextensions. Journal of Marketing Management, 19(7–8), 781–806.

Hoek, J., Dunnett, J., Wright, M., & Gendall, P. (2000). Descriptive and evaluative attributes:What relevance to marketers? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(6), 415–435.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hoyer, W.D., & Brown, S.P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 141–148.

Hsieh, M.H. (2002). Identifying brand image dimensionality and measuring the degree ofbrand globalization: A cross-national study. Journal of International Marketing, 10(2), 46–67.

Hsieh, M.H., Pan, S.L., & Setiono, R. (2004). Product-, corporate-, and country-imagedimensions and purchase behavior: A multicountry analysis. Academy of MarketingScience, 32(3), 251–270.

Hultink, E.J., Hart, S., Robben, H.S.J., & Griffin, A. (2000). Launch decisions and new productsuccess: An empirical comparison of consumer and industrial products. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 17, 5–23.

Iglesias, V., & Vazquez, R. (2001). The moderating effects of exclusive dealing agreements ondistributor satisfaction. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 9(3), 1–19.

Interbrand (2008). Best global brands. 2008 rankings. Retreived January 26, 2009, from http://www.interbrand.com/best_globsl_brands.aspx

John, D.R., Loken, B.,& Joiner, C. (1998). The negative impact of extensions: Can flagshipproducts be diluted. Journal of Marketing, 62, 19–32.

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplescommand language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International (SSI).

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management. New York: Prentice-Hall.Kim, J.Y. (2003). Communication message strategies for brand extensions. Journal of Product

and Brand Management, 12(7), 462–476.Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The ownership effect in consumer responses to

brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing, 63, 88–101.Klink, R., & Smith, D. (2001). Threats to the external validity of brand extension research.

Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 326–335.Korchia, M. (2004). The effects of brand associations on three constructs. Proceedings of the

33rd EMAC Conference, Murcia, Spain.Lane, V. (2000). The impact of ad repetition and ad content on consumer perceptions of

incongruent extensions. Journal of Marketing, 64, 80–91.


http://Ec.Europa.Eu/Eurostat

http://www.interbrand.com/best_globsl_brands.aspx

http://www.interbrand.com/best_globsl_brands.aspx

Lane, V., & Jacobson, R. (1995). Stock market reactions to brand extension announcements:The effects of brand attitude and familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63–77.

Lane, V., & Jacobson, R. (1997). The reciprocal impact of brand leveraging: Feedback effectsfrom brand extension evaluation to brand evaluation. Marketing Letters, 8(3), 261–271.

Lei, J., Dawar, N., & Lemmink, J. (2008). Negative spillover in brand portfolios: Exploring theantecedents of asymmetric effects. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 11–123.

Levin, A., Davis, C., & Levin, I. (1996). Theoretical and empirical linkages between consumers’responses to different branding strategies. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 296–300.

Loken, B., & John, D.R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have anegative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57, 71–84.

Low, G.S., & Lamb, C.W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations.Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(6), 350–368.

Mao, H., & Krishnan, H.S. (2006). Effects of prototype and exemplar fit on brand extensionevaluations: A two-process contingency model. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 41–49.

Martin, G.S., & Brown, T.J. (1990). In search of brand equity: The conceptualization andmeasurement of the brand impression construct. Marketing Theory and Applications, 2,431–438.

Martınez, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2004). The effect of brand extension strategies upon brandimage. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(1), 39–50.

Martınez, E., & Pina, J.M. (2009). Modeling the brand extensions’ influence on brand image.Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 50–60.

Martınez, E., Polo, Y., & de Chernatony, L. (2008). Effect of brand extension strategies on brandimage: A comparative study of the UK and Spanish markets. International Marketing Review,25(1), 107–137.

Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R.E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparingcontext sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 922–934.

Monga, A.B., & John, D.R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: Theinfluence of analytical versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 529–536.

Morrin, M. (1999). The impact of brand extensions on parent brand memory structures andretrieval processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 517–525.

Muthukrisnan, A.V., & Weitz, B.A. (1991). Role of product knowledge in evaluation of brandextensions. In R.H. Holeman & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol.18, pp. 407–413). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

Nedungadi, P. (1990). Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice withoutaltering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 263–276.

Park, C.W., McCarthy, M.S., & Milberg, S.J. (1993). The effects of direct and associative brandextension strategies on consumer response to brand extensions. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 20, 28–33.

Park, W.C., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role ofproduct feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,185–193.

Pryor, K., & Brodie, R.J. (1998). How advertising slogans can prime evaluations of brandextensions: Further empirical results. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(6),497–508.

Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R., & Oliva, T.A. (1993). Brand equity and the extendibility of brandnames. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 61–75.

Reddy, S.K., Holak, S.L., & Bhat, S. (1994). To extend or not to extend: Success determinants ofline extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 243–262.

Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1981). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.Roehrich, G. (1995). Innovativites hedoniste et sociale: Proposition d’une echelle de mesure.

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 9(2), 19–41 [in French].Romeo, J.B. (1991). The effect of negative information on the evaluations of brand extensions

and the family brand. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 399–406.


Seltene, M. (2004). Processus d’evaluation de l’extension de marque par le consommateur:Conception et validation d’un modele de decomposition. Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 19(1), 3–24 [in French].

Sheinin, D.A. (2000). The effects of experience with brand extensions on parent brandknowledge. Journal of Business Research, 49, 47–55.

Singh, J. (1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, 26(3), 597–619.

Singh, S. (2006). Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers’ propensity to adoptinnovations. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 173–191.

Smith, D.C., & Andrews, J. (1995). Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customer’sevaluations of new products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 115–124.

Srivastava, R.K., & Shocker, A.D. (1991). Brand equity: A perspective on its meaning andmeasurement. Report #91–124. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Steenkamp, J.B.E., & Baumgartner, H. (1992). The role of optimum stimulation level inexploratory consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 434–448.

Steenkamp, J.B.E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.

Steenkamp, J.B.E., & Baumgartner, H. (2000). On the use of structural equation models formarketing modelling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17, 195–202.

Sullivan, M.W. (1990). Measuring spillovers in umbrella branded products. Journal of Business,63(3), 309–329.

Swaminathan, V., Fox, R.J., & Reddy, S.K. (2001). The impact of brand extension introductionon choice. Journal of Marketing, 65, 1–15.

Taylor, V.A., & Bearden, W.O. (2002). The effects of price on brand extension evaluations: Themoderating role of extension similarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2),131–140.

Tellis, G.J., Stremersch, S., & Yin, E. (2003). The international takeoff of new products: Therole of economics, culture, and country innovativeness. Marketing Science, 22(2), 188–208.

Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005). Brand extension brand concept congruency and feedback effectsrevised. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(4/5), 250–255.

Usunier, J.C. (2000). Marketing across cultures (3rd ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education,Prentice Hall Europe.

Volckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing,70(2), 18–34.

Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitariandimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 310–320.

Wanke, M., Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in product line extensions:Context is not destiny. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(4), 299–322.

Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961–977.

Weiss, A.M., Anderson, E., & MacInnis, D.J. (1999). Reputation management as a motivationfor sales structure decisions. Journal of Marketing, 63, 74–89.

Wood, S.L., & Swait, J. (2002). Psychological indicators of innovation adoption: Cross-classification based on need for cognition and need for change. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 12(1), 1–13.

About the authors

Jose M. Pina is a lecturer in the Marketing and Management Department of the University ofZaragoza (Spain). He has a PhD in Brand Strategy and he has published the results of his researchin journals such as the European Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Business Research, and theJournal of Product and Brand Management. Moreover, he has attended and presented research


papers to several national and international conferences on marketing. His research interestincludes brand extensions, corporate image, co-branding, and country-of-origin issues.

Corresponding author: Jose M. Pina, Associate Professor, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas yEmpresariales, The University of Zaragoza, Gran vıa 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain.

T þ34 976 761000 (ext. 4693)E [email protected]

Nina M. Iversen has a Doctor Oecon degree in Marketing at the Norwegian School of Economicsand Business Administration in Bergen, where she currently works as an Associate Professor. Shehas publications in journals such as the European Journal of Marketing, the Journal of MarketingManagement and the Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. Her research interests are oninternational marketing, brand extensions, country-of-origin effects, and on how these variablesaffect consumer judgments. She has attended various academic conferences with diverseresearch projects.

E [email protected]

Eva Martinez has a PhD in Business and Economics Studies and is a Professor in Marketing in theMarketing and Management Department of the University of Zaragoza (Spain). She has been aVisiting Scholar at the Centre for Research in Brand Marketing at the Business School,University of Birmingham, England. She has published several research papers on brandingand brand marketing in international journals such as the Journal of Consumer Marketing, theJournal of Business Research, and the International Marketing Review. She is also a frequentpresenter at national and international conferences.

T þ34 976 762713

E [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]



Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

53467441