學術產出-會議論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 Ingredient Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Brand Awareness and Feedback Effects 作者 Lou, Yung-Chien;Tsai, Meng-Chun;Yan, Xiu-Hua
樓永堅;蔡孟君貢獻者 企管系 日期 2008 上傳時間 2-九月-2015 14:51:05 (UTC+8) 摘要 The main motivation for adopting ingredient branding is that it helps the host brand to improve distribution accessibility, differentiate itself from other competitors and enhance the equity of the host brand by providing a strong signal to consumers that the composite product offers the combined benefits of two brands (Desai and Keller, 2002; Norris 1992). The ingredient brand can also build end users` brand preference, stabilize consumers demand, and establish long-term relations with manufacturers (Norris 1992). Desai and Keller (2002) defined ingredient branding as brand alliances by linking themselves through their products or other aspects of their marketing program to other firms of brands. Ingredient brand acts as one part of the product produced by the host brand. They also found that co-branded ingredient leads to more favorable evaluations of the products because ingredient brand could broaden the equity and improve the credibility of the host brand. And the ingredient brand may enhance its bargaining power to the host brand by increasing customers` awareness of its own brand name. Washburn et al. (2000) argued that regardless the original brands had high or low brand equity in consumers` perception, both partners would benefit from co-branding strategy. A high equity brand would not denigrate even if it paired with a low equity partner. Rodrigue and Biswas (2004) demonstrated that consumers` attitudes toward both original brands showed a positive feedback effect in their empirical study. They also found that the feedback effect was moderated by the exclusivity of the contract which represented the dependency of the ingredient brand. On the other hand, ingredient branding may be at the risk of brand equity diluting due to unsuccessful branding strategy. The host and ingredient brands may benefit if the branding strategy succeeds, but they may suffer from failures. Thus, we propose that the success of ingredient branding would lead to positive feedback effect on both host and ingredient brands, but the failure would lead to negative feedback effect on both brands. Although researchers found some moderators, such as favorability (Park et al. 1996), familiarity (Simonin and Ruth 1998), and quality (McCarty and Norris 1999), influence the feedback effect on brands alliances, those moderators were somehow similar and correlated. In fact, high-familiarity brands are often popular and accepted by most consumers. Consumers` attitudes toward the popular brands would usually be better than other brands. It is also a signal of high quality otherwise there will not be so many consumers paying for it. In the current study, we used the similar term brand awareness as the moderator due to the extensiveness of this concept. Another factor which may influence the feedback effect of ingredient branding is the outcome of the alliance. This factor only appeared in the brand extension literature. Keller and Aaker (1992) found that a consumer would evaluate an average quality core brand more positively than high quality one when the alliance is successful. However, an unsuccessful extension did not affect consumers` evaluation on the core brand regardless of the quality level of the core brand. Since brand with high awareness somehow represents higher quality, consumers may think ingredient branding alliance ought to be successful. Thereby, when the allied product does not perform well, consumers` attitudes toward the high-awareness brand would become less favorable than the low-awareness one. Conversely, consumers often do not have much expectation on low-awareness brand. An unsuccessful product of the brand may be considered common, but a successful alliance may surprise the consumers and increase their favorable attitudes toward the focal brand. Since the ingredient brand acts as a component of the product of host brand, the strength of feedback effect on two brands may be different.… 關聯 Advances in Consumer Research - European Conference Proceedings, 8, 232-233 資料類型 conference dc.contributor 企管系 dc.creator (作者) Lou, Yung-Chien;Tsai, Meng-Chun;Yan, Xiu-Hua dc.creator (作者) 樓永堅;蔡孟君 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2008 dc.date.accessioned 2-九月-2015 14:51:05 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-九月-2015 14:51:05 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-九月-2015 14:51:05 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/78150 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) The main motivation for adopting ingredient branding is that it helps the host brand to improve distribution accessibility, differentiate itself from other competitors and enhance the equity of the host brand by providing a strong signal to consumers that the composite product offers the combined benefits of two brands (Desai and Keller, 2002; Norris 1992). The ingredient brand can also build end users` brand preference, stabilize consumers demand, and establish long-term relations with manufacturers (Norris 1992). Desai and Keller (2002) defined ingredient branding as brand alliances by linking themselves through their products or other aspects of their marketing program to other firms of brands. Ingredient brand acts as one part of the product produced by the host brand. They also found that co-branded ingredient leads to more favorable evaluations of the products because ingredient brand could broaden the equity and improve the credibility of the host brand. And the ingredient brand may enhance its bargaining power to the host brand by increasing customers` awareness of its own brand name. Washburn et al. (2000) argued that regardless the original brands had high or low brand equity in consumers` perception, both partners would benefit from co-branding strategy. A high equity brand would not denigrate even if it paired with a low equity partner. Rodrigue and Biswas (2004) demonstrated that consumers` attitudes toward both original brands showed a positive feedback effect in their empirical study. They also found that the feedback effect was moderated by the exclusivity of the contract which represented the dependency of the ingredient brand. On the other hand, ingredient branding may be at the risk of brand equity diluting due to unsuccessful branding strategy. The host and ingredient brands may benefit if the branding strategy succeeds, but they may suffer from failures. Thus, we propose that the success of ingredient branding would lead to positive feedback effect on both host and ingredient brands, but the failure would lead to negative feedback effect on both brands. Although researchers found some moderators, such as favorability (Park et al. 1996), familiarity (Simonin and Ruth 1998), and quality (McCarty and Norris 1999), influence the feedback effect on brands alliances, those moderators were somehow similar and correlated. In fact, high-familiarity brands are often popular and accepted by most consumers. Consumers` attitudes toward the popular brands would usually be better than other brands. It is also a signal of high quality otherwise there will not be so many consumers paying for it. In the current study, we used the similar term brand awareness as the moderator due to the extensiveness of this concept. Another factor which may influence the feedback effect of ingredient branding is the outcome of the alliance. This factor only appeared in the brand extension literature. Keller and Aaker (1992) found that a consumer would evaluate an average quality core brand more positively than high quality one when the alliance is successful. However, an unsuccessful extension did not affect consumers` evaluation on the core brand regardless of the quality level of the core brand. Since brand with high awareness somehow represents higher quality, consumers may think ingredient branding alliance ought to be successful. Thereby, when the allied product does not perform well, consumers` attitudes toward the high-awareness brand would become less favorable than the low-awareness one. Conversely, consumers often do not have much expectation on low-awareness brand. An unsuccessful product of the brand may be considered common, but a successful alliance may surprise the consumers and increase their favorable attitudes toward the focal brand. Since the ingredient brand acts as a component of the product of host brand, the strength of feedback effect on two brands may be different.… dc.format.extent 176703 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.relation (關聯) Advances in Consumer Research - European Conference Proceedings, 8, 232-233 dc.title (題名) Ingredient Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Brand Awareness and Feedback Effects dc.type (資料類型) conference en
