2024年3月15日发(作者：1650是低端显卡吗)

C. WHAN PARK, SUNG YOUL JUN, and ALLAN D. SHOCKER*

The authors report two studies investigating the effectiveness of a com-

posite brand in a brand extension context. In composite brand extension,

a combination of two existing brand names in different positions as head-

er and modifier is used as the brand name for a new product (e.g., Slim-

Fast chocolate cakemix by Godiva).The results of both studies reveal that

by combining two brands with complementary attribute levels, a compos-

ite brand extension appears to have a better attribute profile than a direct

extension of the header brand (Study 1) and has a better attribute profile

when it consists of two complementary brands than when it consists of

two highly favorable but not complementary brands (Study 2). The

improved attribute profile seems to enhance a composite's effectiveness

in influencing consumer choice and preference (Study 2). In addition, the

positions of the constituent brand names in the composite brand name

are found to be important in the formation of the composite's attribute pro-

file and its feedback effects on the constituent brands. A composite brand

extension has different attribute profiles and feedback effects, depending

on the positions of the constituent brand names.

Composite Branding Alliances:

An Investigation of Extension

and Feedback Effects

A brand name is a basic element of a firm's market offer-

able evaluations of extension products (Aaker and Keller

ing that aids consumers' understanding of the offering's

1990; Bousch and Loken 1991; Broniarczyk and Alba

characteristics. It serves as an encoding and retrieval cue for

1994a; Dacin and Smith 1994; Park, Milberg, and Lawson

brand-related infonnation (Cohen and Basu 1987). It signals

1991) and whether extensions result in negative feedback ef-

the often intangible product properties that must otherwise

fects for the original brand (Keller and Aaker 1992; Loken

be leamed through experience or taken on faith (Erdem

and Roedder John 1993; Park, McCarthy, and Milberg 1993;

1993). It also serves as a powerful heuristic cue for evalua-

Romeo 1991). Such research has centered primarily on is-

tion and choice decisions (Park and Lessig 1981). The brand

sues of fit between the brand and extension product cate-

name thus can have a significant strategic impact on long-

gories (e.g., a Honda lawn mower). Although additional

term brand performance, going far beyond its role as a

branding ideas have been suggested (Farquhar 1989; Park,

subelement of the marketing mix (Park, Jaworski, and

McCarthy, and Milberg 1993; Schmitt and Dube 1992), rel-

Maclnnis 1986).

atively little attention has been paid to other possible brand-

Strategic implications of branding strategies have increas-

ing strategies that may afford cost efficiency and competi-

ingly been addressed in the broader context of brand equity.

tive advantage.

Previous research has examined line and brand extensionWe examine one such branding strategy, which involves

decisions to identify when such decisions will lead to favor-combining two existing brand names to create a composite

brand name for a new product. For instance, in the fictitious

*C. Whan Park is the Albert Wesley Frey Distinguished Professor of

example Slim-Fast chocolate cakemix by Godiva, the two

Marketing and Sung Youl Jun is a visiting assistant professor. University of

Pittsburgh. Allan D. Shocker is the Curtis L. Carlson Professor of

firms (brands) ally themselves to enter a new product-mar-

Marketing. University of Minnesota. The authors thank Deborah Roedder

ket by sharing manufacturing and marketing expertise. We

John (University of Minnesota), Deborah Maclnnis (University of Southern

term that approach a composite brand extension (CBE) strat-

California). S. Ratneshwar (University of Connecticut). Dan Smith, Tim

egy. Current examples include Healthy Choice cereal by

Heath (University of Pittsburgh), and three anonymous JMR reviewers for

Kellogg's and Special K frozen waffles by Eggo.

their many helpful comments and suggestions on drafts of this article. The

authors also acknowledge Cheil Communications (Seoul. Korea) for its

There are many reasons why firms or brands might form

financial support of their study.

an alliance to market a new product with a CBE strategy.

Consider the fictitious Slim-Fast chocolate cakemix by Go-

Journal of Marketing Research

453

Vol. XXXIII (November 1996), 453-466

454

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 1996

diva. Slim-Fast diet food products are currently targeted to a

mass market and have extensive distribution. Because its

products are associated mainly with dieting and weight loss,

Slim-Fast may consider cakemix a suitable product for its

extension. It may find, however, that general perceptions of

bland taste in its products are the main obstacle to market

penetration in the cakemix category. Godiva chocolates'

strength in delivering superior taste may highly complement

Slim-Fast's products. Association with Godiva may enable

Slim-Fast to extend its name to other products with greater

success than would be possible by a direct extension or sub-

branding. By indirect association of the Slim-Fast name

with Godiva, the original image of Slim-Fast also may be

improved. Godiva, however, because of its appeal to a select

upscale market, limited distribution outlets, and strong iden-

tification with boxed chocolates, may not want to market a

new cakemix with mass appeal. It may nevertheless want to

convey a healthier connotation (e.g., rich yet healthy) by re-

ducing the perception of high fat and calorie content through

association with a brand that has the opposite image. In ad-

dition, it may seek to generate additional revenue by licens-

ing its name to other products. An alliance with Slim-Fast

may help Godiva meet those objectives. Finally, viewing a

brand from a signaling perspective (Wemerfelt 1988) sug-

gests that two brand names may provide greater assurance

about product quality than one alone. The presence of the

second brand name on a product may signal potential buy-

ers that another firm is willing to place its reputation on the

line. If both firms gain in such a relationship, an alliance

makes sense.

Such an alliance may raise questions about Godiva's brand

image, however, through possible negative feedback effects

due to the combination of its high status brand with the (low-

er status) Slim-Fast name or the association, albeit indirect,

with a product catering to a mass market. Customers may be

confused about the combination of seemingly inconsistent

characteristics of the two brands (Godiva primarily associat-

ed with expensive, high-calorie boxed chocolates and Slim-

Fast associated with inexpensive, low-calorie diet food).

Such confusion could damage the images of both brands.

Brand alliances may be the ultimate form of cooperation

between two firms in the sense that they make the relation

highly visible and the firms possibly staJce their reputations

on the outcome. The potential benefits and risks of brand al-

liances therefore must be identified and examined both the-

oretically and empirically. Our limited knowledge of the

benefits and risks may be leading to inappropriate alliances.

Moreover, though favorable consumer evaluations can be

encouraged by advertisements explaining the bases for fit

between a parent brand and its extension (Chakravarti,

Maclnnis, and Nakamoto 1990), the effectiveness may be

enhanced when the brand name itself also conveys informa-

tion about the fit. In view of the powerful role of consumers'

intuitive beliefs in attribute inference making (Broniarczyk

and Alba 1994b), composite branding may serve such pur-

poses well.

To study the potential impact of brand alliances on con-

sumers, we conduct a series of pretests and two main stud-

ies. In Study 1, we examine the CBE in terms of (1) whether

recent theoretical developments (e.g., concept combination

theory) could be useful in discovering how consumers form

the concept of a composite brand from the concepts of its

constituents, (2) the respective roles of each constituent

(partner) brand in consumers' formation of a composite con-

cept, and (3) the effectiveness of the CBE strategy relative to

a direct extension in fostering favorable extension evalua-

tion and in generating positive feedback for the constituent

brands. In Study 2, we explore the relative contributions of

two potentially important variables for the effectiveness of

the CBE strategy: attitudinal favorability toward the modifi-

er brand and attribute-level complementarity.

STUDY 1

Theory

A brand can be understood in terms of a set of attributes,

each at particular performance levels, but how does a con-

sumer form a composite concept from two or more brands?

The composite concept literature suggests two models to

account for the composition process: the selective modifica-

tion model (Smith et al. 1988) and the concept specialization

model (Cohen and Murphy 1984; Hampton 1987; Murphy

1988). The former model was developed in the context of

adjective-noun conjunctions (e.g., red apple), and the latter

was developed in the context of noun-noun conjunctions

(e.g., apartment dog). We use the concept specialization

model because we focus on noun-noun composites and

because it also incorporates adjective-noun composites (see

Murphy 1988). The relationship between two independent

concepts in the concept specialization model can be

described in terms of modifying concept and modified con-

cept. The last concept in a noun-noun composite is general-

ly the header and the preceding concept acts to modify it

(Murphy 1988). For example, in the composite concept

"apartment dog," "apartment" is the modifier and "dog" is

the header.

Because brands are purposefully created by firms, their

meaning is affected by the marketing actions of those firms

rather than arising more "naturally." The CBE application

therefore requires an adaptation of the composite concept

models. First, though determination of header and modifier

concepts is reasonably straightforward in the composite

concept examples used in the literature, it is not always as

clear in the case of a CBE. For the CBE, whether consumers

will interpret the noun preceding a preposition such as by or

from as a header or as a modifier may not be clear. The rea-

son is that the header and modifier in the CBE description

may be determined partly by such criteria as linguistic usage

precedence, the relative salience of the two brands, or the

brand's relative operative control of the product. Moreover,

through advertising and packaging, a firm can (at some cost)

suggest the relationship it intends, even if that would con-

tradict the conclusions a consumer may reach without such

infonnation. While acknowledging multiple detenninants

for header and modifier roles, we determine from the pretest

results (see the Method section) that in the context of Study

1 the relative ordering determines the header and modifier

positions; the header is the noun preceding and the modifier

is the noun following the preposition by.

Second, an issue can be raised about the degree of pro-

cessing equivalence between composite concepts and CBEs,

that is, how well the process of interpreting a CBE can be

explained by composite concept theory. The two differ

somewhat because a composite concept typically involves

two concepts (e.g., apartment and dog), whereas a CBE in-