Search

Given that the vast majority of brand extensions fail, it is important to understand how extension failure influences consumer judgments of the parent brand that launched the extension. In the brand extension literature, there is a paucity of research on the role of consumer characteristics in influencing response to such failures. To fill this gap, the present research examines the impact of consumers' implicit theory orientation—their perspective on whether personality traits are malleable versus fixed—on the severity of negative feedback effects following extension failure. Seven studies show that entity theorists, who believe in the fixedness of personality traits, penalize parent brands more than incremental theorists, who endorse trait malleability. This brand penalty effect arises because as compared to incremental theorists, entity theorists are motivated to view brands as a cohesive group and therefore equate extension failure with the diminishment of the overarching parent brand. This effect is more likely when brand cohesiveness is low or ambiguous, but it is less likely when brand cohesiveness is high. Furthermore, while entity theorists are more likely to reduce brand evaluations after extension failure, the two groups do not differ in parent brand evaluations after extension success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Three studies document that consumers'' implicit theories about the fixedness/malleability of personality guide brand personality updating in a brand extension context. The first two studies show that extension fit with the parent brand impacts brand personality updating only for incremental (vs. entity theorists). Specifically, for incremental theorists, brand personality is enhanced (vs. diluted) when extension fit is poor (vs. good), and only when brand personality is salient. The third study identifies conditions under which entity theorists focus on brand personality. Interestingly, overall evaluations of the parent brand and extension vary only with extension fit. Implications of our research are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: While research on innovation and new product development abounds in the literature, studies on firms deleting brands from their portfolio are virtually non-existent. This paper provides a pioneering examination of how brand elimination might influence consumer evaluations of the firm. As compared to a widely-held belief that brand elimination would adversely affect firm image, we propose that in situations where brand elimination can be viewed as the firm''s effort to improve performance, consumers will rate this action favorably, with concomitant outcomes relating to firm evaluation. These ideas are supported in three studies. Study 1 finds that elimination targeting a weak (vs. strong) brand is more likely to be associated with eliminate-to-improve attributions, and consequently, more favorable evaluations. Study 2 shows that explanations provided by the firm (as against explanations generated internally by the consumers) help consumers make positive attributions for elimination targeting a strong brand, but lower evaluations when a weak brand is being eliminated. Study 3 establishes that loyal consumers are more likely to assess the applicability of an ‘eliminate-to-improve’ attribution and give favorable evaluations only when the eliminated brand is weak. Non-loyal consumers in general respond favorably to the elimination, regardless of brand strength. Future directions for brand elimination research are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]