Is a Conpan Knovn I lIe Conpan Il Keeps?

Assessing lIe SpiIIovev EJJecls oJ Bvand

AIIiances on Consunev Bvand Alliludes
AulIov|s) Bevnavd L. Sinonin and JuIie A. BulI
Souvce JouvnaI oJ MavIeling BeseavcI, VoI. 35, No. 1 |FeI., 1998), pp. 30-42
FuIIisIed I American Marketing Association
SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151928 .
Accessed 29/11/2013 0435
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Marketing Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BERNARD L. SIMONIN and JULIE A. RUTH*
The authors examine the
growing
and
pervasive phenomenon
of brand
alliances as
they
affect consumers' brand attitudes. The results of the
main
study (n
=
350)
and two
replication
studies
(n
=
150,
n =
210)
together
demonstrate that
(1)
consumer attitudes toward the brand
alliance influence
subsequent impressions
of each
partner's
brand
(i.e.,
"spillover" effects), (2)
brand
familiarity
moderates the
strength
of rela-
tions between constructs in a manner consistent with information inte-
gration
and attitude
accessibility theories,
and
(3)
each
partner
brand is
not
necessarily
affected
equally by
its
participation
in a
particular
alliance.
These results
represent
a
first, necessary step
in
understanding why
and
how a brand could be affected
by
"the
company
it
keeps"
in its brand
alliance
relationships.
Is a
Company
Known
by
the
Company
It
Keeps? Assessing
the
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances on
Consumer Brand Attitudes
Compaq
President-CEO Eckhard Pfeiffer last week
blasted Intel at a
computer
conference in
Spain,
claim-
ing among
other
points
that "Intel Inside" detracts from
the
Compaq
brand
(Advertising Age;
see Johnson
1994).
The role and
impact
of brands in consumer behavior has
witnessed a
resurgence
of
interest,
with focal issues
ranging
from consumer evaluations of brand extensions to brand
eq-
uity (Aaker
and Keller 1990;
Loken and Roedder John
1993;
see also JMR's 1994
special
issue on brand
equity).
One consumer brand
marketing strategy
that has
experi-
enced
explosive growth
in the 1990s has been the use of co-
marketing
or
joint branding,
in which two
(or more)
brands
are
presented simultaneously
to consumers
(e.g.,
Intel mi-
croprocessors
"inside"
Compaq personal computers).
In re-
cent
years, cooperative
brand activities have
enjoyed
a 40%
annual
growth
rate
(Spethmann
and Benezra
1994),
with ex-
amples ranging
from
Breyer's
ice cream
containing
Reese's
Pieces candies to the
bundling
of branded
computer
soft-
*Bernard L. Simonin and Julie A. Ruth are assistant
professors, Depart-
ment of
Marketing
and International Business, School of Business Admin-
istration, University
of
Washington (e-mail: simonin@u.washington.edu;
jruth@u.washington.edu).
This research was
supported by
a
grant
from the
Center for International Business Education and Research
(CIBER)
at the
University
of
Washington.
The authors thank the editor and four
anony-
mous JMR reviewers for their constructive comments on
previous
versions
of this article.
Journal
of Marketing
Research
Vol. XXXV
(February 1998),
30-42
ware in one
package (e.g.,
Microsoft
Office)
to short-term
"cross-promotions"
between
Krups
coffeemakers and Godi-
va Chocolatier's
gourmet
coffee.
Jointly
branded credit
cards
(e.g.,
Northwest Airlines and Visa credit
card)
are ex-
pected
to account for 50% of all credit cards
by
1998
(Jen-
nings 1995).
However,
the sentiments
expressed by Compaq's
chief
executive officer
(Johnson 1994)
reflect concern for how
consumers react to such "brand alliances,"
suggesting
that
brand alliances are not without
complexities
and
potential
negative
effects.
Despite
the
prevalence
of such
cooperative
ventures between brands and
strong
academic interest in al-
liance
relationships
in
marketing
and business
generally
(Anderson, Hakansson,
and Johanson
1994;
Bucklin and
Sengupta 1993), relatively
little is known about how con-
sumers react to
cooperative
brand
marketing and, critically,
if and how
exposure
to such brand alliances affects con-
sumer evaluations of the
partner
brands.
Although many
dif-
ferent terms have been used to refer to
cooperative
brand
marketing
activities
(e.g.,
brand alliances,
co-branding,
co-
marketing, cross-promotion, joint branding, joint promo-
tion, symbiotic marketing),
we
adopt
the
terminology
used
by
Rao and Ruekert
(1994),
in which brand alliances in-
volve the short- or
long-term
association or combination of
two or more individual brands,
products,
and/or other dis-
tinctive
proprietary
assets. These brands or
products
can be
represented physically (e.g.,
bundled
package
of two or
more
brands)
or
symbolically (e.g.,
an
advertisement) by
the
30
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances
association of brand
names, logos,
or other
proprietary
as-
sets of the brand. Such collaborative efforts can take a vari-
ety
of
forms, including
bundled
products (e.g., "variety
packs"
of branded
cereals),
true
product
combinations
(e.g.,
canned mixed
drinks, such as a branded
whiskey/cola
com-
bination), component products (e.g.,
a branded micro-
processor
in a branded
computer), composite
brand exten-
sions
(e.g.,
Slim-Fast chocolate cake mix
by
Godiva; Park,
Jun,
and Shocker
1996),
or
joint
sales
promotions (e.g., buy
one
brand, get
a second brand
free).
The
purpose
of this article is to
identify
and examine em-
pirically
the antecedents of brand alliance evaluations to fo-
cus on two
important
research
questions: (1)
Do brand al-
liance evaluations
"spill
over" on
subsequent
evaluations of
the individual
partner
brands?
(2)
What effect does brand fa-
miliarity
have on the
system
of
relationships, including
the
possible spillover
effects of the alliance on each
partner's
brand? After
positioning
our research in
light
of the litera-
ture on
bundling
and brand
extensions,
we use theories of
information
integration
and attitude
accessibility
to
provide
a foundation for
proposing
and then
testing
a model of brand
alliance evaluations and their
spillover
effects
(see Figure
1).
The
findings
show that, as
hypothesized,
brand alliance
evaluations have
spillover
effects on attitudes toward each
partner's
brand and that the
strength
of these effects is mod-
erated
by
brand
familiarity.
Two
replication
studies
using
two different
contexts, products,
and brands
provide
addi-
tional evidence that consumers'
perception
of the brand is
affected
by
"the
company
it
keeps"
in brand alliances.
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
This
study
of brand alliances builds on
multiple
research
streams, including bundling, branding,
information
integra-
tion,
and attitude
accessibility.
As a
marketing stimulus,
a
bundle is the closest combinatorial form that has been
addressed in the literature. Whereas brand alliances involve
the simultaneous association of two or more brands in
joint
marketing activity,
bundles
typically
are considered to be
two or more
products
marketed in a
single package (Guilti-
nan
1987).
Much of the research on
bundling,
steered
by
a
long
tradition in the economic literature
(e.g.,
Adams and
Yellen
1976;
Schmalensee
1982),
focuses on market-level
analyses
with
relatively
little attention to individual
buyer
behavior
(Yadav 1994). Among
those that do focus on con-
sumer-related
issues,
several address
pricing-related judg-
ments,
such as
perceived savings
and
willingness
to
pay
for
various
types
of bundles
(e.g.,
Gaeth et al.
1990;
Simonin
and Ruth
1995;
Yadav and Monroe
1993).
Several issues remain
unexplored,
however.
First, few,
if
any,
of these studies examine the
impact
of brands in the
evaluation of a bundle. For
example,
in an
investigation
of
nonbrand
bundles,
Yadav
(1994) applies
an
anchoring
and
adjusting
model of decision
making
to show that
people
tend to examine the nonbranded bundle items
(e.g.,
a bundle
Figure
1
CONCEPTUAL AND STRUCTURAL MODEL
Moderating
Effect
I
BRAND FAMILIARITY
I
31
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF MARKETING
RESEARCH,
FEBRUARY 1998
consisting
of a
computer, printer,
and
printer stand)
in de-
creasing
order of
perceived importance
and then
adjust
the
"anchor" in
forming
evaluations. Gaeth and
colleagues
(1990) experimentally
varied the attributes of items in a
bundle to determine if consumers form an overall evaluation
of the bundle on the basis of an
average
of its
components.
In both
cases,
brand-related information was not
incorporat-
ed into the
stimuli,
and therefore brand associations and
brand affect were not addressed. Second,
and critical for our
study,
research on
bundling
has limited the
scope
of investi-
gation
to factors
influencing
the choice of the bundle itself
or its
components, omitting
the
question
of the
long-term
at-
titudinal
spillover
effects on bundle
components.
Although
research on bundles has not addressed issues of
brand
evaluations,
the extensive
history
of the brand in con-
sumer research
points
to the
prominence
of brand attitudes
in information
processing
and decision
making (Lutz 1991;
Petty, Unnava,
and Strathman
1991).
For
example,
con-
sumers
generally
indicate more favorable evaluations of
brand extensions offered
by relatively well-liked, high-
quality
brands
(Aaker
and Keller
1990).
One
key
difference
between brand extensions and brand
alliances, however, is
that brand extensions
typically
do not involve more than one
brand
(for
an
exception,
see Park, Jun,
and Shocker
1996).
Although
the literature on brand extensions addresses the
impact
of brand attitudes as
applied
in a new
product
cate-
gory (e.g.,
one brand and two
product categories),
it is
gen-
erally
silent on how consumers use brand attitudes and as-
sociations in
responding
to the combination of two or more
brands
(e.g.,
one brand and its
product
combined or associ-
ated with a second branded
product).
Information Integration Theory
We turn to information
integration theory
and attitude
accessibility
to
provide
a theoretical foundation for under-
standing
consumers' consideration of a brand alliance.
Information
integration theory
describes the
process by
which stimuli are combined to form beliefs or attitudes
(Anderson 1981). According
to information
integration
the-
ory,
attitudes or beliefs are formed and modified as
people
receive,
interpret,
evaluate,
and then
integrate
stimulus
information with
existing
beliefs or attitudes.
Moreover,
the
more salient or accessible a brand attitude,
the more
likely
it is that the individual will access that attitude
upon
observing
cues associated with the brand
(Fazio 1986,
1989)
and will bias information
processing
in a direction
implied by
the valence of those attitudes
(Fazio
and
Williams
1986;
Houston and Fazio
1989). Similarly,
con-
sumer researchers have
long
known that
judgments
of a
product
or service are influenced
by
the
perceptual
or eval-
uative characteristics of material in close
proximity,
which
are
generally
referred to as context
effects (Lynch,
Chakravarti,
and Mitra
1991).
With brand
alliances,
one brand
certainly
is
presented
in
the context of the other and vice versa, so that
judgments
about the brand alliance are
likely
to be affected
by prior
at-
titudes toward each
brand,
and
subsequent judgments
about
each brand are
likely
to be affected
by
the context of the oth-
er brand. The brand alliance stimulus information, present-
ed through advertising or by experiencing it directly, ac-
cesses related affect and beliefs about those brands and
products
that are stored in
memory.
Evaluations
of Marketing
Alliances and Their
Impact
on
Brand Attitudes
As is more
fully developed subsequently,
we
propose
that
when consumers are
exposed
to a brand alliance,
several
factors influence the favorableness of their attitudes toward
the
alliance, including preexisting
attitudes toward the
brands in the
partnership, perceived
fit of the
products,
and
perceived
fit of the brands.
Using
a latent variable model
representation, Figure
1
captures
the
hypothesized
relation-
ships. Although
we evaluate the
adequacy
of our model and
its
system
of
relationships simultaneously (Bagozzi 1980),
for
completeness
we
provide
theoretical
support
for each
hypothesis separately.
The
effects of
the brand alliance on
postexposure
brand
evaluation. Because the brand alliance
potentially repre-
sents new evaluations and associations for both
brands,
atti-
tude toward the alliance itself can influence how both
brands are evaluated. For
example,
when Intel suffered
problems
with its Pentium
microprocessors, personal
com-
puter
brand
partners
such as Dell and
Gateway
2000 were
concerned about the
negative spillover
on their brands
(Fisher 1994). Similarly, previous
research observes that
poor
brand extensions
present
a certain
degree
of risk
by
possibly diluting
consumer evaluations of the core brand
(Loken
and Roedder John
1993;
Sullivan
1990).
Loken and
Roedder John
(1993, pp. 82-83)
also
anticipate
the
possi-
bility
that "brand 'enhancement' rather than brand 'dilution'
takes
place
when extensions are
perceived positively."
In-
deed,
for an
average-quality
brand,
Keller and Aaker
(1992)
find that a
prior,
successful extension results in increased
evaluation of not
only
a
proposed
extension but also the core
brand itself.
These
results, though
not observed in all cases
(e.g.,
Keller and Aaker
[1992]
do not find dilution effects
through
unsuccessful
extensions), suggest
that brands can be
affected
positively
or
negatively by
their own extensions. In
a brand alliance
setting,
similar
potential
exists for an
alliance to influence the
partner
brands. Attitudes toward
each
participating
brand
may change
when consumers
process
information about collaborative
relationships (e.g.,
advertisement
depicting
a brand
alliance)
or
experience
the
product
of an alliance
(e.g., purchase
and consume a Sub-
way
sandwich with
Grey Poupon
mustard;
Smith
1993).
Because an alliance
represents
a new
type
of "brand associ-
ation,"
we
expect
that
Hi:
Attitudes toward the brand alliance are related
positively
to
postexposure
attitudes toward the brands
(Hla
refers to Part-
ner A,
Hlb
refers to Partner
B).
This does not
imply
that brand alliances
always "help" part-
ner brands;
this
suggests
that more
favorably
evaluated
alliances will tend to
yield
more favorable
subsequent
eval-
uations of the
partner
brands than will less
favorably
evalu-
ated alliances.
Prior research also has demonstrated that attitudes are rel-
atively
stable
psychological
constructs
(Fishbein
and
Ajzen
1975).
Because of this
stability, preexisting
attitudes toward
the brand will be related
highly
to
postexposure
attitudes to-
ward that same brand.
Thus,
to determine whether attitudes
toward the alliance spill
over and influence postexposure
at-
titudes toward the
partner
brands,
it is
important
to control
for the theoretical and
highly predictive relationship
be-
32
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances
tween attitudes toward the same
object (i.e.,
each
brand)
over time:
H2:
Prior attitudes toward a
partner
brand are related
positively
to
postexposure
attitudes toward that same brand
(H2a
refers
to Partner A, H2b
to Partner
B).
Antecedents
of
attitudes toward the brand alliance. Con-
sumers'
prior
brand attitudes toward each
partner
are ex-
pected
to influence evaluations of the brand alliance direct-
ly.
A
comparable
effect of attitudes has been
postulated
in
the brand extension literature
(Aaker
and Keller
1990).
Al-
so,
in a
study
of
multiproduct bundles,
Gaeth and
colleagues
(1990)
observe that evaluations of bundled
products
are en-
hanced
by including
a
high-quality, favorably
evaluated tie-
in
product
in the bundle. Consistent with both information
integration
and attitude
accessibility theories,
the evalua-
tions associated with the brands will be retrieved automati-
cally
when the brand and its associations are accessed in
memory by
the
presentation
of a
sufficiently strong
brand
alliance cue.
Thus,
it is
expected
that favorable
(unfavor-
able) prior
brand attitudes will
yield relatively
favorable
(unfavorable)
attitudes toward the brand alliance:
H3:
Prior attitudes toward the brands are related
positively
to at-
titudes toward the brand alliance
(H3a
refers to Partner A,
H3b
refers to Partner
B).
Consumers'
perception
of
"product fit,"
or the extent to
which consumers
perceive
the two
product categories
to be
compatible,
is
expected
to
play
a
significant
role in how
consumers
respond
to the brand alliance. Several distinct
research
streams, including
those on
bundling (Guiltinan
1987;
Harlam et al.
1995), joint
sales
promotions (Varadara-
jan 1986),
and brand
extensions,
support
this notion. Prior
brand extension research
(Aaker
and Keller
1990;
Dacin and
Smith 1994; Park,
Milberg,
and Lawson 1991) observes that
product category similarity
or "fit" works
through
its rela-
tionship
with brand
attitudes;
in the case of
ill-fitting
exten-
sions,
favorable brand attitudes
might
not be transferred to
the brand extension.
Conceptually, however,
it is
important
to
distinguish
the
notion of
product
fit as entertained in the brand extension
literature from the construct
presented
here in the brand al-
liance context. In brand extension
research,
fit
captures
the
similarity
of
product categories
associated with an
existing
brand and its extension
(Park, Milberg,
and Lawson
1991).
For
example, Betty
Crocker
bicycles represent
an
example
of low fit that would influence
acceptance
of the extension
by moderating
the effects of
prior
brand attitudes toward
Betty
Crocker on attitudes toward the extension
(Aaker
and
Keller
1990).
Whereas with extensions consumers
might
question
the fit on the basis of the
transferability
of firm
skills in
producing
the
original
and extension
products
(Aaker
and Keller
1990),
with alliances no such transfer-
ability
of skills is
required
because those skills are embod-
ied
by
the
partner that,
in
general,
contributes its own ex-
pertise-what
it does best.
In contrast to brand
extensions,
in brand alliances
product
fit refers
uniquely
to the relatedness of the
product
cate-
gories
referred to or
implied by
the brand alliance
(e.g.,
ice
cream with chocolate
fudge), irrespective
of the brands. It is
expected
that attitudes toward the brand alliance are
likely
to be enhanced when a
relatively high degree
of
product
fit
exists. In
support
of such a direct effect of
product
fit on
brand alliance
evaluations,
Aaker and Keller
(1990, p. 30)
also
acknowledge
that "a
poor
fit ...
may actually
stimulate
undesirable beliefs and associations."
H4: Product fit is related
positively
to attitudes toward the brand
alliance.
A collaborative
relationship
also involves the brand
images
of each
partner (Varadarajan 1986; Young
and
Greyser 1983),
where brand
image
is defined as
perceptions
of the brand that reflect consumer associations of the brand
in
memory (Keller 1993).
When two or more brands are
pre-
sented
jointly
or in the context of one
another,
both brands'
evaluations are
likely
to be elicited in addition to certain
stored
brand-specific
associations
(Broniarczyk
and Alba
1994).
If the two
images
are somehow inconsistent, con-
sumers
might
activate a causal or attributional search
(Folkes 1988;
see also Keller and Aaker
1992), through
which
they
are
likely
to
question why
these two brands are
associated
(e.g.,
a
joint promotion involving
McDonald's
and a
low-share,
low-quality
brand of
cola).
Such a
poor
fit
in terms of brand
images
and associations can
trigger
unde-
sirable beliefs and
judgments,
in
support
of a direct relation-
ship
between brand fit and the alliance.
Although
consumers
might
make an assessment of brand fit on the basis of brand-
specific
associations such as attributes or
performance
lev-
els
(Park,
Youl
Jun,
and Shocker
1996),
at a more abstract
level these brands' associations
may
or
may
not be consis-
tent or "cohesive"
(Keller 1993; Park, Milberg,
and Lawson
1991).
If there is an overall
perception
of "fit" or "cohesive-
ness" between the two
brands,
the alliance will be evaluated
more
favorably
than conditions in which the brands and their
associations are inconsistent or
incompatible:
H5:
Brand fit is related
positively
to attitudes toward the brand
alliance.
Moderating Impact of
Brand
Familiarity
All brands are not
alike, however,
as research shows that
increased
familiarity
with
products
or brands results in dif-
ferential effects in information
processing
and brand evalu-
ation
(Alba
and Hutchinson
1987;
Fazio
1986, 1989;
John-
son and Russo
1984; Ratneshwar, Shocker,
and Stewart
1987).
For familiar
brands,
the relative
degree
of
liking
for
the brand is well established and stable because brand-
related
experiences
and associations are extensive
(Bettman
and
Sujan 1987).
For
relatively
unfamiliar
brands,
in con-
trast, preexisting
attitudes
may
be either unformed or weak
in terms of attitude
strength
and
accessibility (Fazio 1986,
1989).
By
extension to the alliance
phenomenon,
the
moderating
impact
of brand
familiarity
will result in
asymmetric
contri-
butions to and effects of the brand alliance. These moderat-
ing
effects of
familiarity
will be
captured by comparing
the
strength
of relations between constructs in
Figure
1
(see
Joreskog
and Sorbom
1989; MacKenzie and
Spreng 1992).
Two different
types
of
comparisons
can be made:
(1)
for a
given partner,
where
familiarity
toward that
partner
varies
greatly
across consumers
(e.g., P75o10
fam
> P75high
fam
in conditions of
high compared
with low
familiarity),
and
(2)
between
partners
that differ in levels of
familiarity by
comparing,
for
example,
the contributions of each
partner
to
the alliance
(e.g., P51 > 54).
33
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF MARKETING
RESEARCH,
FEBRUARY 1998
For a
given partner.
In
general,
we
expect
that the
spillover impact
of the alliance on a
low-familiarity
brand
will be
relatively strong.
Because its
existing
network of as-
sociations is
relatively
small and
currently
weak in accessi-
bility (Fazio 1986, 1989),
the alliance evaluations
represent
new affective information that can add relevant brand-
specific
associations
(Broniarczyk
and Alba
1994)
to this
partner. Conversely, primarily
because of the extensiveness
of associations and
strength
of affect that a familiar brand
already holds,
attitudes towardl a familiar brand will be
more resistant to
change (P7510w
fam
> P75high fam).
For exam-
ple,
in the brand alliance
consisting
of
Kellogg's Pop-Tarts
filled with Smucker's
Jam,
the effect of this alliance on
Smucker's is
expected
to be
larger
when Smucker's is less
known than when it is better known:
H6a:
For lower
(higher)
levels of brand
familiarity,
the effect of
the brand alliance on
post-attitudes
will be
larger (smaller).
Furthermore,
asymmetry
in the
accessibility
of affect and
associations will affect the
strength
of relations
among
other
constructs. A
strong relationship
is
expected
between
pre-
and
post-attitudes
for
highly
familiar brands because affect
is well established in consumers' minds. In
comparison,
when
familiarity
with that brand is
relatively low,
affect
generally
is not well established and thus is less accessible
and stable.
Accordingly,
in conditions of lower
(higher)
brand
familiarity,
there will be a weaker
(stronger)
relation-
ship
between
pre-
and
post-attitudes
toward that
particular
brand
(i.e., f74)
as well as a weaker
(stronger) relationship
between
prior
attitudes and the brand alliance
(i.e., P54):
H6b:
For lower
(higher)
levels of brand
familiarity,
the effect of
pre-
on
post-attitudes
will be smaller
(larger).
H6:
For lower
(higher)
levels of brand
familiarity,
the effect of
prior
attitudes on the brand alliance will be smaller
(larger).
In addition, under conditions of low
familiarity, judg-
ments of brand fit are
relatively
difficult to make because of
a weak network of associations on which to base such a
judgment.
Thus,
when one of the
partners
has low brand
familiarity, perceptions
of brand fit will exert a
relatively
weak influence on the brand alliance
(i.e., P53):
H6d:
When lower
(higher)
brand
familiarity
is
present,
the effect
of brand fit on the brand alliance will be smaller
(larger).
In
contrast,
no differences are
expected
in the effect of
product
fit on the brand alliance
(i.e., 352),
because intrin-
sically, product
fit is a
product-based
rather than a brand-
based assessment.
Between
partners (comparing
Partner A with Partner
B).
The
moderating impact
of brand
familiarity
also can be
evaluated when
assessing
the relative contribution of and on
the two
partners.
Researchers interested in bundle evalua-
tions
similarly
have
investigated
the relative
impact
or
"weight" (Anderson 1981)
of
components
on the overall im-
pression
of the
product
bundle. Gaeth and
colleagues
(1990),
for
example, report
that
nearly equal weight
is
giv-
en to the
primary
and tie-in
components.
Yadav
(1994),
IFor clarity,
for the remainder of the article, we do not mention "attitudes
toward" various
objects
when we refer to them. For
example, by
"brand
alliance," we
imply
"attitudes toward a brand alliance" in the
hypotheses
development
and results.
however,
observes mixed results in which the most
impor-
tant
component
in two- and three-item bundles
generally
carries the
greater weight
in bundle evaluations.
In the brand alliance
context,
the relative contributions of
partner
brands on alliance evaluations are
likely
to
depend
on their
comparative
levels of brand
familiarity.
That
is,
the
same
underlying psychological
mechanism of attitude
accessibility
discussed
previously
should be at work when
comparing
across
partners (e.g., comparing P51
with
154),
where the more familiar brand
partner
is
expected
to exert
greater
attitudinal
impact
on the brand alliance. In
light
of
our
example,
it means that Smucker's would contribute less
to the alliance than would
Kellogg's
when Smucker's is less
known than
Kellogg's:
H7a:
Brands less
(more)
familiar than their
partners
will con-
tribute less
(more)
than their
partners
to the brand alliance
(P54 < P5 1)
As discussed
previously,
the literature on
bundling gener-
ally
has restricted its
inquiry
to the bundle itself and has not
assessed the
psychological spillover
effect of the bundle on
its
components.
In the case of brand alliances, however,
it is
critically important
to assess the relative
(symmetric
versus
asymmetric) spillover
effect of the alliance on the
"compo-
nents"-the
partner
brands. For unfamiliar
compared
with
familiar
brands,
the brand alliance is
expected
to exert a rel-
atively stronger
influence on
subsequent
brand attitudes
because, again,
unfamiliar brands lack an extensive network
of
prior
associations
(Bettman
and
Sujan
1987;
Fazio 1986,
1989):
H7b:
Brands less
(more)
familiar than their
partners
will
experi-
ence
stronger (weaker) spillover
effects than their
partners
(P75 > P65)
In
contrast,
under conditions in which both brands
enjoy
relatively high
brand
familiarity,
attitude
accessibility
will
be
high
for both
partners.
Thus,
the effects exerted
by
the
brand alliance on
subsequent
brand attitudes are
expected
to
be
equivalent.
Likewise,
no differences in
strength
are
pos-
tulated for the
impact
of
prior
attitudes on the brand alliance
when both brands are familiar:
Hsa: Highly
familiar brands will contribute
equally
to the brand
alliance
(P51 = 54).
Hsb: Highly
familiar brands will
experience equal spillover
ef-
fects
(175 = P65).
MAIN STUDY
To test the
postulated
model
formally,
it was
important
to
identify
a brand alliance in which brand
familiarity
would
be
uniformly high
for one
partner
and variable for the other.
Moreover,
it was critical to use real rather than fictitious
brands so that
genuine
brand affect and associations could
be activated
by
the brand alliance.
Multiple
brands were
necessary
so that the results would not be
dependent
on the
particular
brands selected.
Pretest
A
pretest
was conducted to determine if these conditions
were met with a brn n n n
f
and alliance consisting of automobile and
microprocessor ("chip") partners.
This brand alliance sce-
nario was selected because
cooperative
brand
promotion
34
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances
between
chip
brands and their
partners (e.g., personal
com-
puters, automobiles,
stereo
equipment)
is a
prevalent
brand
alliance form and therefore
replicates
current advertise-
ments
involving products
that use
microprocessors
as com-
ponents (e.g.,
"Intel
Inside").
We also
anticipated
that brand
familiarity
for automobiles would be
relatively high
and
would
vary
for
chips,
which was
key
for
testing
our
hypotheses.
In
addition,
the
pretest provided
an
opportunity
to ensure
appropriate
measures for each
construct, which
were drawn from
prior
attitude and brand extension research
and used for the main
study.
Pretest
subjects (n
=
183)
recruited at a
major university
were
assigned randomly
to one of seven alliance
pairs
in-
volving
an automobile
brand-Ford-paired with one of
four
microprocessor brands-Motorola, Fujitsu, Samsung,
or Siemens-and Motorola
paired
with one of four automo-
bile
brands-Ford, Toyota, Hyundai,
or
Volkswagen.
The
target stimulus,
an advertisement
showing
the
logos
of the
automobile and
chip brands,
stated that
"(car brand)
and
(chip brand)
are the
right partners
for
you"
and contained
additional
copy describing
the alliance
(see
the
Appendix).
Respondents
first answered a series of
questions regard-
ing familiarity
with and
prior
attitudes toward a
variety
of
brands,
including
those
represented by
the alliance as well
as brands that were included for
purposes
of
masking
the na-
ture of the
pretest. Respondents
then reviewed the
stimulus,
completed
a
thought-listing procedure,
and
provided
an
overall evaluation of the brand alliance. The results show
that
familiarity
for the car brands was
relatively
and uni-
formly high (Mcar
= 6.57 on a
seven-point scale, standard
deviation =
.75),
and as
expected, familiarity
for
chip
brands
was moderate and more variable
(MChip
= 4.47 on a seven-
point scale, standard deviation =
2.15).
This
scenario, then,
provides
an
opportunity
to examine the effects of
highly
fa-
miliar brands
(i.e.,
automobile
brands)
in collaboration with
partners
that
vary
in terms of brand
familiarity (i.e.,
micro-
processor brands).2
Design
and Procedure
for the Main
Study
As in the
pretest,
a brand alliance was
presented
to
respondents
in the form of a
print
advertisement. This adver-
tisement described the
partnership
between a car brand and
a
microprocessor
brand. In this
study,
the car brand was
Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen,
or
Hyundai;
the
microprocessor
brand was
Motorola, Fujitsu, Siemens,
or
Samsung. Thus,
each car brand was
paired
with each
microprocessor brand,
yielding
16 versions of the brand alliance.
Respondents
were staff members and students recruited
through
the
campus newspaper
of a
major university.
Re-
spondents (n
=
350)
were
assigned randomly
to I of the 16
versions of the brand alliance.
Respondents
were
given
a
booklet
containing marketing materials, described as "in de-
21n addition, the
pretest
was
designed
to examine more
thoroughly
the
psychological persuasion process
associated with the evaluation of brand
alliances. The
open-ended responses
to the brand alliance were
analyzed
using
verbal
protocol methodology.
Such
recipient-generated thoughts
have been shown to mediate the effect of
persuasive messages
on brand
attitude
change (Wright 1980). Following
standard data
coding procedures,
the data were
subjected
to
regression analysis (Wright 1980). The results
showed that the favorableness of elaborations
regarding
the two
products
(product fit),
the two brands
(brand fit),
and each
partner
were related to
attitudes toward the brand alliance. Additional information
regarding
these
results is available from the authors.
velopment stages"
to minimize advertisement-based evalua-
tions.
Respondents
first answered a series of
questions
re-
garding familiarity
with and
prior
attitudes toward a
variety
of
brands,
including
those
represented by
the alliance as
well as those that were included for
purposes
of
masking
the
nature of this
study. Following
unrelated filler material that
lasted
approximately
15
minutes, respondents
then turned to
the
target stimulus, which
depicted
the brand alliance of car
and
microprocessor
brands
(see
the
Appendix). Respon-
dents viewed the stimulus
depicting
the brand alliance and
then
responded
to
questions regarding
their attitudes toward
the brand
alliance,
perceptions
of
product fit,
perceptions
of
brand
fit, and other related
questions.
At the end of the
hour-long
session and
just prior
to exit-
ing
the
study,
the
respondents
were asked to indicate their
attitudes toward each brand in the alliance. It is
important
to
note that a
significant
amount of time
elapsed
between eval-
uation of the brand alliance and the final attitude
questions
(approximately
30
minutes),
because
respondents
viewed
additional unrelated filler material in the interim.
Upon
completion, respondents
were thanked and
paid
for their
participation.
Measures
All measures were assessed
through seven-point bipolar
semantic differential
scales,
including
measures of attitudes
toward each
partner
brand and the brand alliance
(nega-
tive/positive, unfavorable/unfavorable,
bad/good;
see
Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum
1957)
as well as brand and
product
fit
(is/is
not
consistent, is/is not
complementary;
see
Aaker and Keller
1990). Familiarity
with the car brand and
the
chip
brand were measured
through
three
seven-point
semantic differential scales
assessing
the
degree
to which the
respondent
was
familiar/unfamiliar,
recognized/did
not rec-
ognize,
and had heard of/had not heard of the brand before.
Cronbach's
alphas
were .80 and .94 for the scales
represent-
ing familiarity
with the car and
microprocessor brands,
respectively.
Consistent with the
pretest results, car brand
familiarity
was
uniformly high
and
chip
brand
familiarity
was variable
(Mca,
=
6.56, standard deviation = .77 versus
MChip
= 3.85, standard deviation =
2.21).
To
develop
a two-
group comparison,
a median
split
was used to divide the sam-
ple
into two
groups
on the basis of
chip
brand
familiarity.
Analysis
The model was
analyzed
with LISREL8
(Joreskog
and
Sorbom
1993).3
Because of the
longitudinal
nature of the
questionnaire (attitudes
toward brands are measured at two
different
points
of time with the same indicators before and
after the
exposure
to the
alliance),
the model was
adapted
to
allow for correlated error terms for the measures of
pre-
and
postexposure
attitude toward the brands
(J6reskog
and Sor-
bom 1993, 1996).4 Furthermore,
controlling
for
prior
atti-
tudes' effects on
postexposure
attitudes eliminated the need
3Covariance matrices are available from the authors.
4The model is
depicted
and
specified
to run with LISREL7. Under this
version, the
only way
to allow for a correlation of the error terms between
exogenous
and
endogenous
variables is to
specify
the entire model on the
Y-measurement side and to free the
proper
elements of the matrix 0?
(mea-
surement errors). With LISREL8, such a model with correlated errors can
be
specified
with the more traditional X-Y measurement and
,-r\
struc-
tural
layout
because of the
presence
of a new
parameter
matrix
Oe6
that
explicitly represents
the covariance matrix between 6 and e.
35
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1998
Table 1
STRUCTURAL PARAMETER ESTIMATES AND GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES
(FULL SAMPLE)
Hypotheses
Paths Estimate T-value
Hla AttBA
=
Post-Attcar 65 .166 5.326
H,b AttBA
=>
Post-AttChip
P75
.349 8.809
H2a Pre-Attcar,
=
Post-Attcar 161
.803 22.314
H2b
Pre-Attchip
=>
Post-Attchip P74
.569 13.010
H3a
Pre-Attcar
=
AttBA P51
.270 6.132
H3b
Pre-Attchip
=
AttBA P54
.192 4.321
H4 Fitproducts
=
AttBA P52
.217 4.224
H5 FitBrands
'
AttBA P53
.394 6.993
NFI = .971 Standardized RMR = .029
NNFI =.981
X2 (132 df)
= 264.25
CFI = .985 p-value < 0, n = 350
All estimates are
significant
at the
p
< .05 level.
to use difference scores,
which have been shown to be sus-
ceptible
to
problems
associated with
reliability
and discrim-
inant
validity (Peter, Churchill,
and Brown
1993).
Results
for
the Full
Sample
In terms of the
quality
of the measurement model,
the
constructs
display satisfactory
levels of
reliability
as indi-
cated
by composite
reliabilities
ranging
from .87 to .98. All
of the factor
loadings
are
significant (t-values greater
than
14.04)
and are
highly
related to their
respective
constructs in
support
of
convergent validity.
Likewise,
a series of chi-
square
difference tests on the factor correlations
provides
evidence of discriminant
validity among
all constructs
(Anderson
and
Gerbing 1988).
In
particular,
the
significant
X2d
=
32.86
((AttBA, FitBrands), X2d
= 44.84
(AttBA. FitProd-
ucts), and X2d
=
45.94
((DFitBrands, FitProducts) indicate that atti-
tudes toward the brand alliance
(AttBA), perceptions
of
brand fit
(FitBrands),
and
perceptions
of
product
fit
(Fitprod-
ucts)
are not correlated
perfectly
and that discriminant valid-
ity
is achieved
among
them
(Bagozzi
and
Phillips 1982).
They represent
distinct constructs in the model.
Turning
to the structural model itself, Table 1
reports
the
parameter
estimates and
goodness-of-fit
indicators of the
structural
equation system. Although
the overall
chi-square
is
significant
(X2 (132 df)
=
264.25, p
<
0),
as
might
be ex-
pected
with this statistic's
sensitivity
to
sample
size
(Bagozzi
and Yi 1988;
Bentler
1990),
all the other fit indices
(normed
fit index
[NFI]
=
.971,
non-normed fit index
[NNFI]
=
.981, comparative
fit index
[CFI]
=
.985,
and stan-
dardized root mean
square
residual
[RMR]
=
.029)
are with-
in a
satisfactory range
and show that a substantial amount of
variance is accounted for
by
the model.
Effects
on
postexposure
brand attitudes. The
postulated
post-attitudinal relationships
are
significant
and
positive
(see
Table
1).
Both
AttBA (165
=
.166)
and
pre-Attcar (161
=
.803)
have
significant, positive relationships
with
post-
Attcar (R2
=
.75). Furthermore,
both
AttBA (P75
=
.349)
and
pre-Attchip
(P74
=
.569)
have
significant, positive
relation-
ships
with
post-Attchip
(R2
=
.54).
That
is,
brand alliances do
measurably
affect
perceptions
of
partner
brands,
a relation-
ship
of
significant
theoretical and
practical importance
that
lacked
empirical
evidence. These results show that,
to the
extent that consumers hold more
(rather
than
less)
favorable
assessments of the brand alliance,
the
spillover
effects on
the
partner
brands will be more favorable.
Antecedents
of
attitudes toward the brand alliance. Over-
all, a substantial amount of variance in
AttBA (R2
=
.47)
is
explained by
the
postulated
antecedents,
which are all
sig-
nificant. Pre-Attcar
(P5
=
.270),
pre-AttchI (P54
=
.192),
Fitproducts (152
=
.217),
as
well
as
FitBrands (j'53
=
.394),
are
all related
significantly
and
positively
to
AttBA.
That
is,
to
the extent that consumers hold more
(rather
than
less)
fa-
vorable assessments of the
partnering
brands, product
cate-
gory
fit, and brand
image fit,
the more
(less)
favorable their
evaluations of the brand alliance will be. Consistent with re-
search on brand extensions,
in that
product
fit
plays
a
sig-
nificant
role,
these results also show that brand
image
fit as
well as attitudes toward each brand are related
strongly
to
brand alliance evaluations.5 As
such,
the fit of brands con-
stitutes a
significant
variable,
unique
to.the
phenomenon
un-
der
study compared
with
bundling
literature.
In
summary,
these results show that
Hl-H5
are
supported
individually
and
simultaneously. By controlling
for the
pre-
dictable effect of
prior
attitudes on
postexposure
attitudes
toward the brands in the
partnership,
the confirmation of the
significant
effects of AttBA
on both
partners
constitutes a
major finding.
Indeed,
brand alliances matter. The
signifi-
cant
spillover
effect on
partner
brands confirms the theoret-
ical
importance
of the brand alliance in attitudinal shifts
resulting
from
partner
brands. These results also demon-
strate that
managerial
attention should be directed toward
the
reality
that
ultimately
in consumers' minds brands are
affected
by
"the
company they keep."
For a Given Partner: Results
for High
Versus Low
Familiarity
With the
Chip
Brand
The
hypotheses regarding
brand
familiarity
were based
on the notion that a more familiar
partner
brand would be
more accessible than a less familiar
partner
brand and
therefore more
likely
to access associations and affect in
memory upon presentation
in a brand alliance stimulus.
Hypothesized asymmetries
in
familiarity
effects were tested
by comparing
the same
path
coefficient across two
groups:
5Furthermore, to examine the
possibility
of a
moderating
effect of
prod-
uct fit and brand fit that would mirror those in brand extension research, a
series of
multiple group analyses
was
performed (median splits
on
product
fit and brand
fit). Following
the same
procedure
used to test for moderat-
ing
effects of
familiarity,
no such
moderating
effects were detected with
respect
to both the alliance
spillover
effects and the contributions of brand
evaluations to the alliance.
36
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances
one in which
familiarity
with both
(car
and
chip brand) part-
ners is
high
versus one in which brand
familiarity
is
high
for
one
(car brands)
and low for the other
(chip brands).
The test
involves
constraining appropriate pairs
of
P
estimates, one
pair
at a
time,
to be
equal
across the two
groups
and then
evaluating
whether the
resulting change
in the
chi-square
is
significant
with one
degree
of freedom
(Bagozzi
and
Heatherton
1994; J6reskog
and Sorbom
1993). By holding
familiarity
with one
partner
constant
(the
car
brands),
we
then can examine the
impact
of a
given partner's
brand
familiarity (the chip brands).
Table 2 shows the coefficient estimates as well as the
goodness-of-fit
indices for the
two-group comparison.
Sim-
ilar to the
previous
run,
the various fit indices
suggest
that
the model
represents
an
acceptable
fit to the data. As we
show in Table
2,
all coefficient estimates are
significant
and
positive,
as
hypothesized
in
H1-H5,
with the
exception
of
the
relationship
in the
low-familiarity
condition between
pre-Attchip
and
AttBA (P54
=
.024).6
For the
relationship
between
AttBA
and
post-Attchip,
no
statistically significant
difference
(X2d
=
.28, n.s.)
is ob-
served between the
high-
and
low-familiarity
conditions for
chips.
That
is,
the contribution of the brand alliance on the
chip
brand is the same whether the
chip
brand was relative-
ly
familiar or not,
which indicates that
H6a
is not
supported.
The other
hypothesized
effects of
familiarity, however,
are
significant.
The
relationship
between
pre-
and
post-Attchip
is
significantly stronger
(x2
d
=
41.01, p
<
0)
in conditions
of
high familiarity ( 174high
fam =
.732)
versus conditions of
low
familiarity (P74?10
fam =
.145),
which is consistent with
H6b. Likewise,
pre-Attchip
exerts a
stronger
effect on
AttBA
(X2
d
=
5.63, p
<
.02)
in conditions of
high familiarity
(P54high fan
=
.235) compared
with low
familiarity (3541ow
fam =
6For
completeness,
the direct
paths (unspecified
in
Figure 1)
between the
four antecedents and the two
post-attitude
variables were tested for
signif-
icance
through
a series of
chi-square
difference tests. Under the
high-famil-
iarity condition, none of these six
unspecified paths
is
significant.
Like-
wise, under the
low-familiarity condition, these
paths
are not
significant,
with the
exception
of the
path
between
FitBrands
and
post-Attchip.
.024),
in
support
of
H6c.
As
posited
in
H6d, FitBrands
has a
stronger impact
on
AttBA (X2
d = 4.18, p <
.05)
under condi-
tions of
high familiarity (P53high
fam =
.481) compared
with
low familiarity
(P531OW
fam =
.265).
These results show that the
relationships
between the an-
tecedents and the brand alliance-fit of brands and, here,
chip
brand attitudes-are sensitive to the actual levels of a
given partner's (chip)
brand
familiarity. Conversely,
these
results
suggest
that the direct effect of the brand alliance on
the
partner
brands is not affected
by
a
given partner's
famil-
iarity (H6a).
Between Partners: Results
for
Relative Contributions
of
Brand Attitudes
To
investigate
the relative contributions of the two
part-
ners
(H7a,b; H8a,b),
a baseline model was
developed
in which
estimates of all
hypothesized paths
in
Figure
1 were free to
vary (see
Table
3,
M 1:
Baseline). Then,
the same model was
run in which the effects of
pre-Attcar
and
pre-Attchip
on
AttBA
were constrained to be
equal (M2: 351
=
P54).
The chi-
square
difference test
comparing
M2 with
M1
was
signifi-
cant under conditions of low
familiarity
with the
chip
brand,
which shows that the null
hypothesis (i.e., path
estimates are
equal)
must be
rejected (X2
d =
6.14, p
<
.01).
This result
supports H7a,
which
posits
an
asymmetry
in the effects of
familiar versus unfamiliar
partners
on the brand
alliance,
in
this case when the familiar car brand exerted a
stronger
effect than the unfamiliar
chip
brand on attitudes toward the
alliance. In
contrast,
under conditions of
high chip
brand
familiarity,
the
chi-square
difference test was not
significant
(X2 d
= .65, n.s.),
in
support
of
H8a.
That is, both
partners
exerted
relatively equal
influence on the alliance.
Turing
to the
spillover
effects of the brand alliance on sub-
sequent
brand
attitudes,
the
chi-square
difference test com-
paring
M3 with M1 was
statistically significant
under condi-
tions of low
familiarity,
which indicates that the null
hypoth-
esis
(i.e.,
estimates are
equal)
must be
rejected
(x2 d
=
7.21, p
<
.02).
As
postulated
in
H7b,
an
asymmetry
exists in the ef-
fects of
AttBA
on
subsequent
attitudes toward familiar and un-
Table 2
STRUCTURAL PARAMETER ESTIMATES, GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES,
AND
X2
DIFFERENCE TESTS
UNDER HIGH- AND LOW-FAMILIARITY CONDITIONS
Microprocessors Microprocessors
High Familiarity
Low
Familiarity
Paths/Hypotheses
Estimate T-value Estimate T-value
Difference
Test*
AttBA
=>
Post-Attcar I65
.193 4.455 .146 3.363
AttBA
=>
Post-Attchip
375
.318 6.867 .363 5.220
Pre-Attcar
=
Post-Attcar P61
.775 16.547 .822 16.853
Pre-Attchip
=
Post-Attchip
P74
.732 13.709 .145 2.010 >
Pre-Attcar =>
AttBA P51
.280 4.868 .263 3.932
Pre-Attchip
=
AttBA P54
.235 3.905 .024 .378 >
Fitproducts i AttBA P52
.149 2.293 .328 4.074
FitBrands
=
AttBA P53
.481 6.376 .265 3.347 >
NFI
=
.944 Standardized RMR
=
.059
NNFI = .967 x2
(276 df)
=
515.83
CFI
= .973 p-value <
0, n =
350
All
estimates, except
for
354 (low familiarity),
are
significant
at the
p
< .05 level.
*Equal signs (
=
) indicate that the
high-familiarity
condition estimate is not
significantly
different from the
low-familiarity
condition estimate
according
to
a
x2
difference test. Greater-than
signs (
>
)
indicate that the
high-familiarity
condition estimate is
significantly greater
than the
low-familiarity
condition esti-
mate
according
to a
X2
difference test
(X2
>
3.84, p
<
.05).
37
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1998
Table 3
ATTITUDINAL SYMMETRIES BETWEEN BRANDS, WITHIN-GROUP
X2
DIFFERENCE TESTS
Microprocessors Microprocessors
Models
Hypotheses High Familiarity
Low
Familiarity
Ml Baseline
P65
= 192
P51
= .275
165
= .146
51
= .276
75
=
.316
54=
.227
75
=
.370
54
=
.023
X2 (132 df) = 167.87
X2 (132 df)
= 329.05
M2
151i
=
154 165
= .193
1351
=
.252
165
= 148
13
= .148
H8a, H7a P75
=315 =
54
= .252
75
=.363
54
= .148
X2 (133 df)=
168.22
X2 (133 df)= 335.19
M2-M
X2d (ldf)
= .65 M2-M1
X2d (ldf)
= 6.14*
M3
165
=
175 165
= .251
,5
= .273 165
= .206
151
= .272
H8b, H7b P75
= .251
54
= .230
75
= .206
54
= .031
X2 (133 df) = 171.69
X2 (133 df)
= 336.26
M3-M
X2d (ldf)
= 3.82 M3-M1
X2d (ldf)
= 7.21*
*Estimates are
significantly
different from one another
according
to the
X2
difference test at the
p
< .05 level.
familiar
partner
brands. In conditions of
high familiarity
with
both
brands,
the
chi-square
different test was not
statistically
significant
(X2 d =
3.82, p
<
.07),
which is consistent with
H8b.
In
summary,
as
expected,
unfamiliar
compared
with fa-
miliar brands "receive"
greater spillover
effects
(be they
detrimental or
beneficial)
from the brand alliance
(H7b).
Conversely,
as an
antecedent,
the
impact
of a
relatively
un-
familiar brand on brand alliance evaluations is smaller than
the effect of its familiar
partner (H7a).
Generalizability of
the Model
To assess the
generalizability
of the
postulated
model fur-
ther,
it was
important
to assess its robustness with other
types
of alliances
consisting
of different contexts,
products,
and brands. The
study
was
replicated
for two distinct but
also
prevalent
brand alliance contexts: Northwest Airlines
partnering
with Visa credit card7 and
Disney teaming up
with a
major
retailer.8 The
purpose
of these
replications
was
to assess the
integrity
of the
original
model rather than the
moderating
effects of brand
familiarity. Following
the same
procedure
as in the
previous study,
two new, independent
data sets were collected
(n NW-Visa
=
150;
n
Disney-Retailers
=
210)
and
analyzed
with LISREL8.
Similar to the
car-chip study,
the measurement models
for both the Northwest Airlines-Visa and the
Disney-Re-
tailers brand alliances
display satisfactory
levels of conver-
gent
and discriminant
validity.
The results of the theoretical
model are indicative of a
relatively comparable
fit
(X2Nw-
Visa (132 df)
= 221.14, p
< 0, standardized RMR = .041, NFI
=
.950,
NNFI =
.973,
and CFI =
.989;
X2Disney-Retailers
(132
df)
=
249.06, p
<
0,
standardized RMR =
.058, NFI =
.949,
NNFI =
.968,
and CFI =
.975). Turning
to the
parameter
es-
timates,
Table 4
reports
results that are,
once
again, fully
7The stimulus was a
print
advertisement
showcasing
the merits of a Visa
Card linked to the Northwest Airlines
frequent flyer program.
Both brands
were
highly
familiar
(MNW
=
6.46; Mvisa
=
6.85).
sThe
stimulus consisted of a
print
advertisement
announcing
that
Disney
vacation
packages
would be offered
through
a
major
retailer
(Kmart, Sears,
or
Nordstrom). Such
"dual-signature" advertising
often describes a brand
that is
part
of a
product/service
assortment offered
by
a retailer
(Young
and
Greyser 1983)
and
represents
a brand alliance in the sense that two brands
are
presented simultaneously
and in
cooperation
with each other. All the
brands were
highly
familiar
(MDi.ney
=
6.55; MKmart
=
6.28;
MSears
=
6.24;
MNordstrom
=
6.67).
Table 4
REPLICATION STUDIES ESTIMATES
Hypothesis Coefficient
Northwest-Visa
Disney-Retailers
Hia 165
.204 .149
Hib P75
.159 .155
H2a 161
.686 .851
H2b 174
.769 .787
H3a 15i
.214 .276
H3b 054
.213 .195
H4 152
.219 .153
H5 P53
.311 .290
All estimates are
significant
at the
p
< .05 level.
supportive
of the
hypothesized
model. All the
hypothesized
paths
are
significant.9
In
particular,
the alliance exerts
sig-
nificant
spillover
effects on the
partner
brands,
which is con-
sistent with H1
(P65NW
=
.204,
P75Visa
=
.159,
P65Disney
=
.149,
P75Retailers
=
.155).
All the
postulated
antecedents of
AttBA
are
significant
and
explain
a fair amount of the vari-
ance in the construct
(R2NW-Visa
=
.50;
R2Disney-Retailers
=
.31).
A
significant
amount of variance also is accounted for
in all of the
postexposure
brand attitude variables
(R2NW
=
.66; R2Visa
=
.75; R2Disney
=
.72; R2Retailers
=
.74). Finally,
when
looking
at the relative contribution from and on the
partner
brands,
the results are identical to the main
study
un-
der conditions of
high familiarity.
That
is,
in both cases,
Northwest Airlines and Visa and
Disney
and the retailer
partners
exert
equal,
attitudinal influences on their
respec-
tive brand alliances
(M2-M1:
x2 d =
.01, n.s.;
X2
d
=
.64,
n.s., respectively).
Likewise, for the effects of the alliance
on
subsequent
brand attitudes,
the
chi-square
difference
tests
(M3-M 1)
indicate that there is no difference in the ef-
fect of the alliance on Northwest Airlines versus Visa
(X2 d
=
.35, n.s.)
or of the alliance on
Disney
versus retailer
brands
(X2 d
=
.01, n.s.).
In
summary,
these two
replications
cross-validate the
original
results and
provide
further
sup-
port
for the
hypothesized
model.
9None of the
unspecified,
direct
paths
between the four antecedents and
the two
post-attitude
variables is
significantL
38
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances
DISCUSSION
The results of the main
study
in
conjunction
with the
replication
studies
consistently
show that brand alliances
have the
potential
to
modify subsequent
attitudes toward the
partnering
brands. Even after
controlling
for
prior
brand atti-
tudes,
significant spillover
effects of brand alliances on the
partner
brands were observed. That such a
significant
rela-
tionship
exists at all is
impressive
in
light
of the
strength
of
relations between the same-brand attitudes over time.
As
such,
brand alliances could
represent strategic
market-
ing opportunities
to add to or alter a brand's
specific
associ-
ations
(Broniarczyk
and Alba
1994).
That
is,
the
positive
signs
associated with the
P65
and
375
coefficients mean that
the extent to which a brand alliance
"helps"
or "hurts"
part-
ner brands is
dependent
on the
degree
to which the brand al-
liance itself is evaluated
favorably.
These results
provide
empirical
evidence for others'
conjectures
that such an al-
liance could serve as a
perceptual, strategic
"boost" or detri-
ment for the
partnering
brands
(Rao
and Ruekert
1994).
Furthermore, our results show that
prior
brand attitudes as
well as
product
fit and brand fit are related to attitudes to-
ward the brand alliance. A beneficial
partner
could be not
only
a brand evaluated
favorably by
consumers but also one
that "combines" to
produce
favorable
perceptions
of
product
fit or brand fit.
Thus,
it would be
possible
to collaborate suc-
cessfully
with a brand that has somewhat less favorable
brand attitudes but
represents
a favorable fit in terms of
products
or brands. This is consistent with
previous
re-
search, which shows that
favorably
evaluated brand exten-
sions can be introduced
by moderately
to
poorly
evaluated
brands
through extending
into
categories
that build on and
enhance
strong brand-specific
associations
(Broniarczyk
and Alba
1994).
Our results also show that neither
product
fit nor brand fit has direct effects on the
postexposure
brand
attitudes.
Likewise, neither
product
fit nor brand fit moder-
ates the
spillover
effects and the contributions of the brands
to the alliance.
With
respect
to the first
replication study,
the model holds
for two brands
(Northwest
Airlines and
Visa) engaged
in a
multitude of brand alliances and their active
promotion (e.g.,
with
hotels, other
airlines, restaurants,
car
rentals, and
long-
distance
providers).
Given the
ubiquitous
nature of such
partner relationships,
it is to be
expected
that the influence
of
any
one
particular partner might
be
relatively small,
if not
insignificant,
because of
possible ceiling
effects. The second
replication study (Disney-Retailers) provides
evidence and
a fresh
perspective
on
viewing
the
strategic
role to be
played
by
a retailer's branded merchandise assortment. It also
sug-
gests
that
though
an alliance
might
not exist
explicitly
in the
minds of
corporate executives,
it
might
exist in the
eyes
of
the
public.
At this
juncture,
it is
meaningful
to consider
why
spillover
effects were observed in all three
studies,
whereas
such
spillover
effects
(dilution
or
enhancement)
have not
been observed
consistently
in brand extension research.
Again,
it is
important
to
recognize
that brand alliances are
conceptually
different from brand extensions in that two
(or
more)
brands and their affect are
present. Also,
from a
methodological point
of
view, unlike the
relatively
"cold"
information
provided
about
prospective
extensions
engaged
in
by
fictitious brands
(for
a
discussion, see Loken and
Roedder John
1993),
the brand alliance cues
provided
in our
study represent
"real"
(rather
than
prospective) strategic
ac-
tions
by
"real"
(rather
than
fictitious) brands that have a cer-
tain "richness" of
brand-specific
associations.
Brand Alliances and
Familiarity
The results show that brand
familiarity plays
a
key
role in
understanding
brand alliance evaluations and their
spillover
effects. Consistent with the effects of information
integra-
tion, a
partner
brand that is more salient because of familiar-
ity (or
because of other factors in
advertising,
such as size or
order, or in the use and
enjoyment
of the
product)
exerts a
relatively greater
effect on the
alliance, in line with Yadav's
findings
related to an
anchoring
and
adjusting
model of bun-
dle evaluation. When the two
partner
brands differ in famil-
iarity,
the two brands do not make
equal
contributions to
brand alliance
evaluations, similar to
"weights"
in informa-
tion
integration (Anderson 1981).
In
fact,
although
car brand
attitudes are
significant,
attitudes toward the unfamiliar
brand,
the
chip
brand in this
case, do not
display
a
signifi-
cant
relationship
with brand alliance evaluations.
Not
only
does
familiarity
influence the relative contribu-
tions of the two brands on brand alliance
evaluation,
it also
affects the relative
magnitude
of the
spillover
effects across
partners.
When both brands are
highly familiar, the
hypothe-
sis of
equal
contribution
(weight)
of the alliance on both
part-
ners could not be
rejected
in the main
study
and the
replica-
tions. In
contrast,
in conditions in which the car brand is fa-
miliar but the
chip
brand is not, the results
clearly
show that
the brand alliance evaluation
generates
a
greater spillover
on
the unfamiliar brand
compared
with the familiar
partner.
The results also show that
H6a is not
supported (even
though P751ow
fam = .384 is
greater
than
P75high
fam =
.318).
Although
there was a
statistically significant
difference in
chip
brand
familiarity
between the two
groups, perhaps
this
difference still was not
large enough
to
produce
a statisti-
cally significant
difference in the size of the
coefficients,
analogous
to a somewhat weak
manipulation
in an
experi-
mental
setting.
An alternative
explanation
relates to the
type
of alliance
itself, with a branded
component.
It is
possible
that brand
familiarity
will exert differential
spillover
effects
only
in those cases in which the
"component"
branded
prod-
uct has sufficient
meaning
"on its own." For an alliance such
as
Kellogg's Pop-Tarts
with Smucker's Jam
filling, perhaps
the
impact
of brand
familiarity
would be observed when
comparing
the
spillover
coefficients across conditions of
high
and low
familiarity
with
Smucker's, a branded
product
that can be
purchased
and consumed "on its
own," that is,
outside of its alliance with
Kellogg's.
Overall, these results are consistent with the notion of the
"free rider" that could
develop
for a less-known brand team-
ing up
with a well-liked and well-known
partner
brand. Un-
der such a
scenario,
the less-known brand
might
contribute
little but
gain
much from the
partner, especially
in
light
of
the much smaller direct effect of the
pre-attitudes
on
post-at-
titudes toward the unfamiliar brand
(H6b,
see Table
2). Still,
it should be
recognized
that in this case some
countervailing
forces are
likely
to
operate
in the
model;
for a less-known
partner,
the effect of brand fit is reduced
significantly (H6d).
By
the same
token, these results show that better-known
brands still
might
have an incentive to
pair
with less-known
brands as
long
as the attitudes toward the
partner
and the
perception
of brand fit are not detrimental. In
particular,
the
39
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF MARKETING
RESEARCH,
FEBRUARY 1998
fit of
products
and the attitudes toward the alliance
(due
to a
novel,
pleasantly surprising,
or
particularly intriguing part-
nership) might compensate
for these
shortcomings.
In
summary,
on the basis of the
development
of a
gener-
ic,
conceptual
model of brand
alliances,
this
study
has
shown
empirically
that
*Brand alliances of various
types significantly
affect the
respec-
tive
partnering brands;
*Even brands that have
engaged
in
many prior
alliances
(e.g.,
Visa)
are affected
significantly;
*These
spillover
effects do not
necessarily
affect the
partners
equally;
*Brands less familiar than their
partners experience stronger
spillover
effects than their
partners;
*When two
highly
familiar brands
ally, they experience equal
spillover effects;
*Both
product
fit and brand fit
significantly
affect attitudes to-
ward the alliance;
*The
impact
of
product
and brand fit on the core brands is me-
diated
fully by
the alliance;
*Prior attitudes toward the
partner
brands affect attitudes toward
the alliance;
*Partners do not
necessarily
contribute
equally
to the alliance;
*Brands less familiar than their
partners
contribute less to the al-
liance than their
partners;
*When two
highly
familiar brands
ally,
both contribute
equally
to the alliance;
*Product fit and brand fit moderate neither the contribution of
the brands to the alliance nor the
spillover
effects of the al-
liance on the core brands.
Further Research
This research focuses on situations in which each
partner
brand is
highly
familiar or one
partner's
brand is familiar
and the other brand is not. Even
though
the case of
"equally
unfamiliar"
partners
has not been tested
directly
in our
study,
this case can be
expected
to
correspond
to the situa-
tion in which both
partners
are
highly
familiar. That
is,
equal
contributions to and from the brand alliance are
expected
between
partners. Although psychologically
such
a condition warrants further
testing, strategically
this
type
of
pairing
is an
exception
and
might
not be
appealing
to
companies.
Although
this research has considered three distinct
types
and contexts of brand alliances and found consistent results
across
them,
the robustness and limits of the model should
be
explored
under different alliance scenarios. For
example,
the case of brand alliances
involving
more than two
partners
(e.g., Betty
Crocker cake mix with
Hershey
chocolate kiss-
es with Oreo cookie
frosting)
remains to be addressed di-
rectly,
as does the case of
joint
sales
promotions (buy
one
brand in one
category
and
get
a brand in another
category
free),
for which
spillover
effects
might
be absent or
might
not affect
partner
brands
uniformly.
These brand alliance
forms, including product
bundles or combinations com-
posed
of different variants of the same brand
(e.g.,
Dole
ap-
ple juice
and
pineapple juice), represent pertinent
variations
that
might point
to certain
boundary
conditions for the mod-
el. Such
boundary
conditions also
might
be revealed
by
al-
liances
involving generally
controversial or
stigmatized
brands as well as shocking
or
gross product combinations,
which
might trigger enough
of a turnoff to
impede any po-
tential
positive
effect from either
partner
brand.
Our measures of
product
fit were
relatively generic,
which enabled us to test the exact same model in different
alliance contexts.
Still,
much could be learned from investi-
gating
the
underlying
dimensions of
product category
fit in
the context of brand alliances.
Furthermore,
exploring
the
underlying
dimensions of brand
fit,
including
the
congru-
ence of
brand-specific
associations
represented
in the al-
liance
(Broniarczyk
and Alba
1994;
Keller
1993),
would
add to our
understanding
of brand alliances and their effec-
tiveness.
Although
some brand alliances that
might
not
rep-
resent
intuitively
favorable brand fit
(e.g.,
a brand alliance
between
Disney
and
Playboy)
can be
envisioned,
the subtle
integration
of
meaning
between two brands
might
be diffi-
cult to
anticipate
in advance. For
example,
when H&R
Block
participated
in a
joint promotion
with Excedrin to ob-
tain
relatively inexpensive advertising exposure,
the associ-
ation of H&R Block with
migraine
headaches
ultimately
re-
sulted in
negative press (The
Wall Street Journal
1991).
In line with research on brand extensions and
dilution,
the role of
"intervening"
brand alliances constitutes a rich
research
ground
and extension of our work.
Here,
the re-
search
question
mirrors Keller and Aaker's
(1992, p. 36)
question,
"Can the introduction of a brand extension in-
crease the likelihood of
acceptance
of
subsequent
brand ex-
tensions?" The issue of
prior
brand alliances
affecting per-
ceptions
of
ensuing
alliances and related
spillover
effects on
a core brand calls for a closer look at the notion of "brand
alliance
portfolio."
Similar to Dacin and Smith's
(1994)
fo-
cus on the role of
parent
brand-extension
similarity
and
brand
portfolio relatedness,
much could be learned from re-
visiting
the role of brand and
product
fits in
light
of brand
alliance
portfolio
relatedness. The
ubiquitous
nature of a
brand with
respect
to its alliance
portfolio
can be twofold:
many partners
in a same
set'(e.g.,
Intel with
personal
com-
puter
brands:
Compaq,
IBM, Hewlett-Packard,
and Dell)
and
partners
in
many
sets
(e.g.,
Visa with branded airlines,
hotels,
and
restaurants). Then,
the fundamental
question
that our Northwest-Visa
replication study only
has
begun
to answer is, Can brands
getting
in too
many
alliances risk
dilution,
and under what conditions?
Alternatively,
are
there conditions in which
ubiquitous
brand alliance behav-
ior results in brand enhancement? In addition to the
ubiqui-
ty
of
alliances,
further research also should examine other
possible moderators,
such as
repetition
of
exposure
to the
alliance and
product knowledge,
which have been shown to
be
important
to consumer
persuasion (Johnson
and Russo
1984).
Because of its
parsimonious
and universal character,
the
proposed
model constitutes a basic and sound foundation for
further research on collaborative
marketing phenomena
in
general.
For
example,
in the case of
joint
venture announce-
ments,
no
particular product
combinations
may
be dis-
closed. Such was the case when
Pepsi-Cola
and Starbucks
initially
announced their intention to form an alliance. No
reference to
particular products
was
made,
but this
partner-
ship
elicited much media
coverage
and
speculation.
Still,
we
expect
that, drawing
on their
knowledge
of the
products
of
the
firms,
consumers
might
have formed
impressions along
the same
process
described in our model. As alliance rela-
tionships grow
in number and
complexity,
this line of re-
search focused on customer
perceptions
becomes even more
critical for academics and
practitioners
alike.
40
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances
APPENDIX
BRAND ALLIANCE STIMULUS
Headline
(Car Brand)
and
(Chip Brand)
Are the
Right
Partners for
You.
Body Copy
The
engineers
at
(Car Brand)
search
relentlessly
for the
very
best
parts
and accessories to use in
making (Car Brand)
vehicles.
They
found the best
microprocessors
are made
by
(Chip Brand).
They
found that
(Chip Brand) microprocessors
are
pow-
erful
yet
fuel-efficient. That's
why (Chip Brand)
micro-
processors
are used in
every
vehicle made
by (Car Brand).
Just one of the reasons
why people
around the world believe
(Car Brand)
vehicles to be
superior.
(Car
Brand
logo
and brand
name)(Chip
Brand
logo
and
brand
name)
Tagline
(Chip Brand)
and
(Car Brand), partners
for
you.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller
(1990),
"Consumer Eval-
uations of Brand Extensions," Journal
of Marketing,
54
(Janu-
ary),
27-41.
Adams, William J. and Janet L. Yellen
(1976), "Commodity
Bundling
and the Burden of
Monopoly," Quarterly
Journal
of
Economics, 90
(August),
475-98.
Alba, Joseph
W. and J.
Wesley
Hutchinson
(1987),
"Dimensions
of Consumer
Expertise,"
Journal
of
Consumer Research, 13
(March),
411-35.
Anderson, James C. and D. W.
Gerbing (1988),
"Structural
Equa-
tion
Modeling
in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-
Step Approach," Psychological
Bulletin, 103
(May),
411-23.
, Hakan Hakansson,
and Jan Johanson
(1994), "Dyadic
Business
Relationships
Within a Business Network," Journal
of
Marketing,
58
(4),
1-15.
Anderson, Norman H.
(1981),
Foundations
of Information
Inte-
gration Theory.
New York: Academic Press.
Bagozzi,
Richard P.
(1980),
Causal Models in
Marketing.
New
York: John
Wiley
& Sons.
and Todd E. Heatherton
(1994),
"A General
Approach
to
Representing
Multifaceted
Personality
Constructs:
Application
to State Self-Esteem,"
Structural
Equation Modeling,
1
(1),
35-67.
and
Lynn
W.
Phillips (1982), "Representing
and
Testing
Organizational
Theories: A Holistic Construal," Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
27
(September),
459-89.
and
Youjae
Yi
(1988),
"On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation
Models," Journal
of
the
Academy of Marketing
Sci-
ence,
16
(Spring),
77-94.
Bentler, Peter M.
(1990), "Comparative
Fit Indexes in Structural
Models," Psychological
Bulletin, 107
(March),
238-46.
Bettman, James R. and Mita
Sujan (1987),
"Effects of
Framing
on
Evaluation of
Comparable
and
Noncomparable
Alternatives
by
Expert
and Novice Consumers," Journal
of
Consumer Research,
14
(September),
141-54.
Broniarczyk,
Susan M. and
Joseph
W. Alba
(1994),
"The
Impor-
tance of Brand in Brand Extension," Journal
of Marketing
Re-
search, 31
(May),
214-28.
Bucklin, Louis P. and Sanjit Sengupta (1993), "Organizing Suc-
cessful
Co-Marketing
Alliances," Journal
of Marketing,
57
(April),
32-46.
Dacin, Peter A. and Daniel C. Smith
(1994),
"The Effect of Brand
Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Ex-
tensions,"
Journal
of Marketing
Research, 31
(May),
229-42.
Fazio,
Russell H.
(1986),
"How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?" in
The Handbook
of
Motivation and
Cognition:
Foundations
for
Social Behavior,
R. M. Sorrentino and E.
Tory Higgins,
eds.
New York: Guilford Press.
(1989),
"On the Power and
Functionality
of Attitudes: The
Role of Attitude
Accessibility,"
in Attitude Structure and Func-
tion, Anthony
Pratkanis, Stephen
Breckler, and
Anthony
Green-
wald, eds. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
and Carol J. Williams
(1986),
"Attitude
Accessibility
as a
Moderator of the
Attitude-Perception
and Attitude-Behavior
Relations: An
Investigation
of the 1984 Presidential Elections,"
Journal
of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
51
(September),
505-14.
Fishbein,
Martin and Icek
Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory
and Research. Read-
ing,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, Lawrence M.
(1994),
"Pentium Flaw Creates Confusion for
PC
Buyers,"
New York Times, (December 14), Cl, C6.
Folkes,
Valerie S.
(1988),
"Recent Attribution Research in Con-
sumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions," Journal
of
Consumer Research,
14
(March),
548-65.
Gaeth, Gary J., Irwin P. Levin, Goutam
Chakraborty,
and Aron M.
Levin
(1990),
"Consumer Evaluation of Multi-Product Bundles:
An Information
Integration Analysis," Marketing Letters,
2
(1),
47-57.
Guiltinan, Joseph
P.
(1987),
"The Price
Bundling
of Services: A
Normative Framework," Journal
of Marketing,
51
(April),
74-85.
Harlam, Bari A., Aradhna Krishna, Donald R. Lehmann, and Carl
Mela
(1995), "Impact
of Bundle
Type,
Price
Framing
and Fa-
miliarity
on Purchase Intention for the Bundle," Journal
of
Busi-
ness Research, 33
(May),
57-66.
Houston, David A. and Russell H. Fazio
(1989),
"Biased Process-
ing
as a Function of Attitude
Accessibility: Making Objective
Judgments Subjectively,"
Social
Cognition,
7
(Spring),
51-66.
Jennings,
Robert
(1995), "Saturation, Conferees Find None in Co-
Branding,"
American Banker, 160
(79),
13.
Johnson, Bradley (1994), "IBM, Compaq
Tire of 'Intel Inside'
Track," Advertising Age, (September 19),
52.
Johnson, Eric J. and J. Edward Russo
(1984),
"Product
Familiarity
and
Learning
New Information," Journal
of
Consumer Re-
search, 11
(June),
542-50.
Joreskog,
Karl G. and
Dag
Sorbom
(1989),
LISREL VII: A Guide
to the
Program
and
Applications,
2d ed.
Chicago:
SPSS.
and
(1993),
LISREL VII.
Chicago:
SPSS.
and
(1996),
LISREL VIII.
Chicago:
SPSS.
Keller, Kevin Lane
(1993), "Conceptualizing, Measuring,
and
Managing
Customer-Based Brand
Equity,"
Journal
of
Market-
ing,
57
(January),
1-22.
and David A. Aaker
(1992),
"The Effect of
Sequential
In-
troduction of Brand Extensions," Journal
of Marketing
Re-
search, 29
(February),
35-50.
Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder John
(1993), "Diluting
Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a
Negative
Im-
pact?"
Journal
of Marketing,
57
(3),
71-84.
Lutz, Richard J.
(1991),
"The Role of Attitude
Theory
in Market-
ing,"
in
Perspectives
in Consumer Behavior, Harold H. Kassar-
jian and Thomas S. Robertson, eds.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Lynch,
John G., Jr., Dipankar Chakravarti, and Anusree Mitra
(1991),
"Contrast Effects in Consumer
Judgments: Changes
in
Mental
Representations
or in the
Anchoring
of
Rating
Scales?"
Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (3), 284-97.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard A.
Spreng (1992),
"How Does
Motivation Moderate the
Impact
of Central and
Peripheral
Pro-
41
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF MARKETING
RESEARCH,
FEBRUARY 1998
cessing
on Brand Attitudes and Intentions?" Journal
of
Con-
sumer
Research, 18
(March),
519-29.
Osgood,
C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum
(1957),
The Mea-
surement
of Meaning. Urbana, IL:
University
of Illinois Press.
Park, C. Whan, Sandra
Milberg,
and Robert Lawson
(1991),
"Eval-
uation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Level Similar-
ity
and Brand
Concept Consistency,"
Journal
of
Consumer Re-
search, 18
(September),
185-93.
,
Sung
Youl
Jun, and Allan D. Shocker
(1996), "Compos-
ite
Branding
Alliances: An
Investigation
of Extension and Feed-
back Effects," Journal
of Marketing Research, 33
(November),
453-66.
Peter, J.
Paul, Gilbert A. Churchill Jr., and Tom J. Brown
(1993),
"Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Re-
search," Journal
of
Consumer Research, 19
(March),
655-62.
Petty,
Richard E., Rao Unnava, and Alan J. Strathman
(1991),
"Theories of Attitude
Change,"
in Handbook
of
Consumer Be-
havior, Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H.
Kassarjian,
eds. En-
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rao, Akshay
R. and Robert W. Ruekert
(1994),
"Brand Alliances
as
Signals
of Product
Quality,"
Sloan
Management Review, 36
(Fall),
87-97.
Ratneshwar, Srinivasan, Allan D. Shocker, and David W. Stewart
(1987),
"Toward
Understanding
the Attraction Effect: The Im-
plications
of Product Stimulus
Meaningfulness
and
Familiarity,"
Journal
of
Consumer Research, 13
(March),
520-33.
Schmalensee, Richard
(1982), "Commodity Bundling by Single
Product
Monopolies,"
Journal
of
Law and Economics, 25
(April),
67-72.
T
his
forward-thinking
book
provides
methods for
companies
that want to
sup-
port
and nurture the
spirit
of innovation.
i
Based on a
10-step approach
to
creating
and
developing
new ideas,
Innovation examines the
problems
related to
managing innovation, defines
and
explains
the
management styles
and tools that cultivate innovation, and
concludes with a tool kit that
helps
business
people
create innovations.
lInnovaition
i,s a
pOVwerful
book[ that
\\i1l
ch.lr;t aitd vitalize entire orgr;ni-
/.llilons. KLuc/mlTrski ,hol.s
lhow t take \our
orgtani.artion beyond reenginee-er
ing to
qualtirfi:tahic re.tults that swil
d(ri.i
c'ourll bottom linre.c
-1'/1,ho 5 A. Rierv, G{lden C('t
Corporamtiot
$30.95 AMA Members/$37.95 Nonmembers
1996.
Simonin, Bernard L. and Julie A. Ruth
(1995), "Bundling
as a
Strategy
for New Product Introductions: Effects on Consumers'
Reservation Prices for the Bundle, the New Product and the Tie-
In," Journal
of
Business
Research, 33
(3),
219-30.
Smith, Robert E.
(1993), "Integrating
Information from Advertis-
ing
and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer
Response
to
Product Information," Journal
of Marketing Research, 30
(May),
204-19.
Spethmann, Betsy
and Karen Benezra
(1994),
"Co-Brand or Be
Damned," Brandweek, 35
(45), 20-25.
Sullivan, Mary (1990), "Measuring Image Spillovers
in Umbrella-
Branded
Products," Journal
of Business, 63
(3),
309-29.
Varadarajan, Rajan (1986),
"Horizontal
Cooperative
Sales Promo-
tion: A Framework for Classification and Additional
Perspec-
tives," Journal
of Marketing,
50
(April),
61-73.
The Wall Street Journal
(1991),
"H&R Block, Excedrin Discover
Joint Promotions Can Be Painful,"
(February 28), B3.
Wright,
Peter L.
(1980), "Message-Evoked Thoughts:
Persuasion
Research
Using Thought Verbalizations," Journal
of
Consumer
Research, 7
(September),
151-75.
Yadav, Manjit
S.
(1994),
"How
Buyers
Evaluate Product Bundles:
A Model of
Anchoring
and
Adjustment,"
Journal
of
Consumer
Research, 21
(September),
342-53.
and Kent B. Monroe
(1993),
"How
Buyers
Perceive
Savings
in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle's Transaction Val-
ue," Journal
of Marketing Research, 30
(August),
350-58.
Young,
Robert F. and
Stephen
A.
Greyser (1983), Managing
Co-
operative Advertising:
A
Strategic Approach. Lexington,
MA:
D.C. Heath.
Edward Forrest and Richard
Mizerski,
editors
his
fascinating
book
provides
a
thorough
view of
one of the hottest trends in
marketing today. Recognized
authorities have
compiled
this
guide
to
provide practical
advice about how to
develop
strategies
for the new interactive media and how to
put
those
strategies
to work
in
profitable marketing programs. Among
the authors and
topics
included are:
Don
Peppers
and Martha
Rogers
on interactive
dialogs
* John
Crosby
on
marketing
and
selling
high-tech products *
Tracy
Emerick on
marketing strategies
for the
Internet * Charles Marralli on Web
advertising * John Nardone on
measuring
the effectiveness of interactive media * and more.
$42/AMA Members/$47.95 Nonmembers
1996.
*W~11 I)E .'I. I')I ' , ').~ *?. B I' rT
A S ' S A SI~~?l
A . . ii ''I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
42
This content downloaded from 92.242.59.41 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:35:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions