Search

International audience; This research builds on similarity theory in order to understand the key success factors of brand naming strategies for the cross-gender extension of female patronymic brands targeting men. Study 1 demonstrates that the most common naming strategy – adding a “Men” descriptor to the brand name – does not significantly increase brand attitude as the perceived brand masculinity cannot be enhanced for men. Study 2 extends Study 1 bytesting two more distant brand naming strategies: (1) dropping the first name and (2) using brand initials. The results show an inverted-U relationship pattern that reveals the key role of similarity: Dropping the first name has the most positive impact on brand extension attitude, purchase intention, and spillover effect. By contrast, the strategy using brand initials is too dissimilar from the initial brand name to be attractive to men. These findings provide managerial implications for practitioners considering a cross-gender brand extension strategy.

Purpose Mixed-target brands with strong gender identities, whether it be feminine or masculine, are not always successful at targeting both men and women, particularly in symbolic product categories. While attempting to maximize their sales for both targets, managers often struggle to capitalize on a single brand, and they hesitate between different naming strategies. This paper aims to build on brand gender literature and understand these brands’ (i.e. brands targeting both men and women) potential to adopt an endorsed brand strategy rather than a branded house strategy. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a before/after experimental design to examine the effect that introducing a gender-incongruent endorsed brand (i.e. feminine endorsed brand name of masculine master brands and masculine endorsed brand name of feminine master brands) can have on consumers’ brand attitude. Findings First, adopting an endorsed brand strategy increases the perceived brand femininity of masculine master brands, but there is no increase in feminine master brands’ perceived brand masculinity. Second, this strategy has a negative impact on consumer attitude toward the master brand, with a stronger negative effect for feminine master brands than for masculine master brands, which is mediated by the brand gender perception change. Third, a negative feedback effect on the brand’s gender-congruent users is revealed. Research limitations/implications One limitation of this work is that the focus is on one sole extrinsic brand characteristic (i.e. brand name) in our experimental design, which artificially influences the relative brand name importance for consumers. Moreover, the studies offered a short text to introduce the renaming. This may have made the respondents focus on the brand more than they would have in real-world conditions. Practical implications This research provides many insights for masculine or feminine mixed-target brands managers in symbolic product categories, as it shows that changing from a branded house strategy to an endorsed brand strategy appears to be unsuccessful in the short run, regardless of master brand’s gender. Moreover, the study reveals negative feedback effects on the attitude toward the initial master brand, following its renaming, in the short run. Originality/value This research provides a warning to managers trying to gender-bend their existing brands because it can lead to brand dilution. It also emphasizes the asymmetrical evaluation of masculine vs feminine master brands, as manipulating a brand’s perceived masculinity appears very difficult to do successfully.