PETER H.
FARQUHAR
Peter H. Farquhar, PhD, is Director, Center
for Product Research, Graduote School of
Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA,
The research was supported by fhe Mar-
keting Science Instifufe and the Center for
Product Research, The author thanks David
Aaker and Kevin Keller for encouraging his
Vi^ork on this fopic. He acknowledges help-
ful comments by Andrea Farquhar, Russell
Fazio, Paul Herr, and Anfhony Pratkanis and
research assistance by B, P, S, Murthi, Rob-
ert Shockey, and Jay Sung, A previous ver-
sion of the article was presented at the 20th
Attitude Research Conference in Orlando,
FL, on Februar/ 1, 1989,
24 MARKETING RESEARCH, SEPTEMBER 1989
Managing Brand
Equity
Brand equity Is the "added value" with which a brand endows a product;
this added vaiue can be viewed from the perspective of the firm, the trade,
or the consumer. The author's focus is on how to buiid strong brands with the
consumer, how to sustain that brand equily over time, and how to expand
and protect a business by ieveraging brand equity.
Branding is centuries old. Brickmakers in ancient Egypt
placed symbols on their bricks to identify their products. Trade
guilds in medieval Europe required "trademarks" on their
products to assure the consumer of consistent quality and to
afford the producer legal protection in an exclusive market.
"Brand names," however, first appeared in the early six-
teenth century. Whiskey distillers shipped their products in
wooden barrels with the name of the producer burned or
"branded" onto the top of each barrel. These brand names
not only identified distillers to the consumers, but also pre-
vented substitution with cheaper products by tavern owners.
These basic purposes of branding remain important today.
The "brand" concept evolved in the eighteenth century as
the names and pictures of animals, places of origin, and fa-
mous people replaced many producers' names. The new
purpose was to strengthen the association of the brand name
with a product. Producers wanted both to make their prod-
ucts easier for consumers to remember and to differentiate
their products further from those of competitors.
In the nineteenth century, a related purpose of branding
emerged. A brand was used to enhance a product's per-
ceived value through such associations. For example, smug-
gled Scotch whiskey acquired a excellent reputation for taste
because of the special distilling processes used by bootleg-
gers. In 1835, a brand of Scotch called "Old Smuggler" was
introduced to take advantage of this established association
with quality.
The purposes and strategies of branding have evolved even
further in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, we find the
early brand experiences relevant in addressing three critical
questions. First, how do you build a strong brand? Second,
how do you sustain that brand over time? Third, how can
you expand a business by leveraging your brand? Before ad-
dressing these questions, let us explore the different per-
spectives on brands.
ft; Perspectives o n Brands
The concept of brand equity has received much attention
recently. We define brand equity as the "added value" with
which a given brand endows a product (cf. Jones 1986; Leu-
thesser 1988). A product is something that offers a functional
benefit (e.g., a toothpaste, a life insurance policy, or a car).
A brand is a name, symbol, design, or mark that enhances
the value of a producf beyond ifs functional purpose. De-
pending on which perspective is considered, the brand can A brand enhances the
have added value to the firm, the trade, or the consumer. value of a product
beyond its functional
Brand Valuation From the Firm's Perspective purpose I
From the firm's perspective, brand equity can be measured
by the incremental cash flow from associating the brand with
the product. For instance, Marriott estimated that adding its
name to Fairfield Inn increased occupancy rates by 15%. In
matched product tests with corn flakes cereal, choice in-
creased from 47% when the brand name was not known to
59% when the KeUogg's brand was identified. It is also ap-
propriate to compare the effects of two different brands on
the same product. Berry (1988, p. 16) reports:
A couple of years ago in England, Hitachi and G. E. jointly owned a
factory which made television sets for both companies; the only dif-
ference was the name on those sets. The Hitachi sets sold for a $75
premium over the G, E. setsand they sold twice as many.
In either case, the increased market share from a brand can
be readily translated into a dollar measure of equity.
Incremental cash flow also results from premium pricing
and reduced promotional expenses. Coopers & Lybrand
evaluates brand equity by comparing the premium price
commanded by a branded product with the price of un-
branded products. Arthur Young Australia assesses the prof-
itability of a branded versus an unbranded product by ac-
counting for advertising, trademark registration, and other
expenses of branding. These refinements offer a more ac-
curate measure of a brand's equity.
Brand valuation is a relatively new phenomenon. Many dif-
ferent methods have been proposed because financial ac-
counting standards for valuing intangible assets vary across
countries. The practice has been stimulated by the recent wave
of acquisitions, such as Pillsbury by Grand Metropolitan and
Kraft by Philip Morris. The Interbrand Group, for example,
evaluates brands on seven different criteria: market share and
ranking, brand stability and track record, stability of product
category, internationality, market trends, advertising and
promotional support, and legal protection (Wentz 1989).
However, more practical experience and comparative re-
search are needed to judge the validity and usefulness of brand
valuation methods (see Yovovich 1988). . -
Competitive Advantages to the Firm ^ ^
Brand equity also imparts competitive advantages to the firm.
These aspects of brand equity typically involve uncertainties
that are difficult to quantify in brand valuation studies. First,
a strong brand provides a platform for new products and for A strong brand
licensing. The creation by Anheuser-Busch of the Eagle brand provides a platform
for honey roast peanuts provided the basis for an entire line for new products and
of snack foods. Sunkist Growers now licenses its 75-year-old for licensing
brand name for oranges to several companies for use on food-
related products, beverages, and health products. The stra-
tegic potential of a brand platform should be part of measuring
brand equity. ..,,-

MANAGING BRAND EQUITY 25


A dominant brand
can be a barrier to
entry in some markets
A strong brand has
leverage due to easier
acceptance and wider
distribution 1 Tbe otber side of brand leverage is protection against pri-
26 MARKETING RESEARCH, SEPTEMBER 1989
Second, a strong brand has the resiliency to endxire crisis
situations, periods of reduced corporate support, or shifts in
consumer tastes. The Tylenol brand of acetaminophen was
able to survive a product-tampering crisis in 1982 that would
have devastated other brands. Even though Prohibition dosed
all breweries in America in 1920, Budweiser quickly returned
to its number one position as the "King of Beers" after the
Repeal in 1933. G. I. Joe, a popular toy soldier from 1964
until the mid-1970s, disappeared from the market because
many consumers shunned war toys at the close of the Viet-
nam War. In 1982, after a four-year "furlough" from toy stores,
Hasbro placed its G. I. Joe brand on a new Hne of smaller
toy soldiers. Retail sales for this line topped $200 million in
1988. Thus another important component of equity is brand
resiliency to survive difficult times.
Sucb resiliency bas even led some companies to resurrect
"bas-been" brands for tbeir new products (Saporito 1986).
For example, Pfizer revived tbe Barbasol brand and extended
it to aerosol-foam sbaving creams, sbaving gels, and anti-
perspirants. Resurrecting an old brand with higb consumer
awareness can be easier than creating a new brand in some
product categories.
Strong brands offer another advantage by providing resis-
tance from competitive attack. A dominant brand name can
be a barrier to entry in some markets. How many otber brands
can you name in each product category besides Arm & Ham-
mer baking soda. Band-Aid adhesive bandages, Bacardi rum,
Alka-Seltzer antacid, Jell-O gelatin, Campbell's soup, Cray-
ola crayons, Morton salt, Lionel trains, Pbiladelpbia cream
cbeese, and Vaseline petroleum jelly? We refer to tbis "own-
ership" of a product category as brand dominance, which is
tbe tbird strategic component of brand equity.
The Trade's Perspective on Brands
Strong brands in a product category bave obvious value to
tbe trade as well as to tbe firm. Brand equity from the trade's
perspective is measurable in brand leverage over other prod-
ucts in the market. This source of added value comes from
easier acceptance and wider distribution of a strong brand.
Well-known consumer brands typically pay lower slotting al-
lowances and bave more sbelf facings for tbeir new food
products (Gibson 1988). "
vate labels. Firms that lose the advantage of brand leverage
witb tbe trade can have serious troubles. Drug makers are
facing eroding market shares from less expensive generic
products. Designer labels compete vigorously against an in-
creasing number of popular house brands in clotbing and
department stores. Large supermarket chains are aggres-
sively pusbing tbeir own premium store brands.
Indeed, some store brands are beating national brands witb
product innovations: Jewel Stores introduced tbe first ket-
chup in a squeezable bottle in Chicago, and Kroger Company
nationally introduced the first low-calorie yogurt with Nu-
trasweet (Freedman 1988). Limits to growtb witb private la-
bels, bowever, recently convinced Sears Roebuck and otber
large retailers to stock more national brands. Tbe tension be-
tween store brands and national brands is likely to continue.
The Consumer's Perspective on Brands
Brand equity from an individual consumer's perspective is
reflected by the increase in attitude strength for a product us-
ing tbe brand. An attitude is defined bere as tbe association
between an "object" (e.g., tbe branded product) and tbe Attitude strength is a
"evaluation" of tbat object stored in an individual's memory
(Fazio 1986). Many popular definitions equate an "attitude" major determinant of
witb the summary evaluation of tbe brand stored in memory. product purchase
Our definition helps in measuring brand equity because at- behavior
titude strength is a major determinant of product purchase
behavior.
Three Elements for Building a Strong Brand
Three elements are essential in building a strong brand with
the consumer: a positive brand evaluation, an accessible brand
attitude, and a consistent brand image.
Positive Brand Evaluations
Quality is the cornerstone of a strong brand. A firm must
have a quality product that delivers superior performance to
the consumer in order to achieve a positive evaluation of the
brand in the consumer's memory.
Three types of evaluations can be stored in a consumer's
memory. Affective responses involve emotions or feelings to-
ward the brand (e.g., the brand makes me feel good about
myself, the brand is a familiar friend, or the brand symbol-
izes status, affiliation, or uniqueness). Cognitive evaluations are
inferences made from beliefs about the brand (e.g., the brand
lowers the risk of something bad or the brand is more effec-
tive than others). Behavioral intentions are developed from habits
or heuristics toward the brand (e.g., the brand is the only
one my family uses, the brand is a "change of pace," or the
brand is on sale this week). Efforts to create positive brand
evaluations usually are oriented to one of these types.
Positive evaluations are necessary for building a strong
brand, but a common error is to assume they are sufficient.
Herr and Fazio (1988, p. 15) note:
. . . the marketing manager needs an array of tactics to create atti-
tudes, strengthen weak existing attitudes, or change unfavorable at-
titudes. However, inducing positive attitudes is not in and of itself
sufficient to have much influence upon consumer behavior. The gen- Illustration by Jennifer Bobbe
eral principle offered by the attitude-behavior process model and the
research that has been conducted to test it is that attitudes must be
accessible from memory in order to influence subsequent perceptions
and behavior. Thus, the advertiser cannot be concerned solely with
the creation of a positive attitude toward the brand.
Accessible Brand Attitudes
The second element in building a strong brand is attitude
accessibility. Accessibility refers to how quickly an individual
can retrieve something stored in memory. Stored evaluations
can be retrieved from memory in two ways (see Herr and
Fazio 1988). Automatic activation occurs spontaneously from
memory upon the mere observation of the attitude object.
The process is inescapable and effortless. Controlled activation
requires the active attention of the individual to retrieve a

MANAGING BRAND EQUITY 27

 previously stored evaluation or to construct a summary eval-
uation of the attitude object. For most individuals, seeing a
rattlesnake or a puppy will automatically activate an attitude,
whereas seeing a goat or a zebra will not.
Consumer research by Fazio (1986) and others shows that
the likelihood of automatic activation depends on the strength
of the object-evaluation association. Moreover, the stronger
the association between a brand and its evaluation stored in
a consumer's memory, the more likely it is that attitudes will
guide product perceptions and influence purchase behavior.
Therefore, attitude accessibility is a key in building a strong
brand. A positive evaluation is not enough if it is not readily
retrieved from memory.
The managerial implication of this research is clear. One
goal in building a strong brand must be to foster accessible
attitudes and thus to affect subsequent consumer behavior.
Two approaches emerge from the literature on attitude for-
mation (see Herr and Fazio 1988).
Attitudes formed from direct behavioral experience are much
more accessible than attitudes formed from indirect nonbe-
Product trial is more havioral experience. In particular, product trial is more ef-
effective than ,^ fective than advertising in forming an accessible attitude.
advertising in | Consider the implications of direct behavioral experience in
forming an accessible the slogan, "If you drive an Acura, you'll buy an Acura."
attitude Similarly, the biggest boost to self-shaving was providing
Gillette safety razors to each French and American soldier
and sailor in World War I.
Repeated attitudinal expression can increase attitude accessi-
bility. Three tactics are suggested. First, encourage the con-
sumer to imagine how it feels to use or buy the branded
product. An ad showing a person literally diving into a
mountain of ice cream warns, "If you're afraid of emotional
heights, beware of Haagen-Dazs deep chocolate." Another
ad asks, "Why buy a lamp when you can invest in a Stiffel?"
This tactic seems most appropriate for premium brands.
Second, use multiple evaluative statements in advertising
copy to strengthen the brand's associations. An ad for Phil-
adelphia cream cheese asks, "Is this why people love Philly
for breakfast?" (with the inscription "1/2 the calories of but-
ter" circled on the package)" . . . or is there more to it?"
(with cream cheese shown on toast, an English muffin, and
a cherry). Does Miller Lite beer have "great taste" or is it
"less filUng"?
Third, induce customers to access their attitudes at the point
of purchase or shortly thereafter. The label on a box of Arm
& Hammer baking soda claims, "The standard of purity and
quality for over 135 years." A banner in a card store above
a Hallmark display notes, "When you care enough to send
the very best." One sign in a photo shop advises, "We use
Kodak paper for a good look" and nearby another says, "Don't
take chances with your pictures. Insist on Kodak paper."
Consistent Brand Image
The third element in building a strong brand is to have a
consistent brand image. Ogilvy (1983, p. 14) describes the
importance of both a brand image and consistency.

28 MARKETING RESEARCH, SEPTEMBER 1989

 You now have to decide what "image" you want for your brand.
Image means personality. Products, like people, have personalities,
and they can make them or break them in the marketplace. . . .
Every advertisement should be thought of as a contribution to the
brand image. It follows that your advertising should consistently project
the same image, year after year. This is difficult to achieve, because
there are always forces at work to change the advertising. . . .
An excellent illustration is the "Marlboro man" who has ap-
peared in almost the same cigarette advertising for more than
30 years.
One of the original purposes of branding is to distinguish
the product in a way that is easily remembered. In 1887, J.
P. Towle, a grocer in St. Paul, Minnesota, placed maple syrup
in a convenient tin container shaped like a miniature log cabin;
the Log Cabin brand is still prospering, though the unique
container disappeared more than 50 years ago.
A brand personality can also distinguish the product. Re-
member the cherub-faced Campbell's Kids (1904), the Mor-
ton Salt umbreUa girl (1921), and the JoUy Green Giant (1925)?
Matex Corporation's superior rust-proofing compound called Focus on a unique
Thixo-Tex had dismal sales until the character Rusty Jones aspect of the brand
was created and the brand name was changed. The lesson that is easy for
is to focus on a unique aspect of the brand that is easy for consumers to
consumers to remember.
remember
Consistency of the brand's image is part of managing the
relationship between the consumer and the brand. The Marl-
boro man perhaps had no need to change, but the image of
Betty Crocker has been updated five times since 1921 to re-
flect changes in lifestyles and families. A relationship devel-
ops between the personality of a brand and the personality
of the consumer with each purchase (Berry 1988). This spe-
cial relationship between a brand and a consumer must be
analyzed, nurtured, and reinforced. It is the consistency of
this brand-consumer relationship that counts; if one changes,
the other must, too. No wonder so many people were upset
when Coca-Cola was replaced in 1985 by the new Coke.

Leveraging Brand Equity

There are three ways to get brand equity: build it, borrow
it, or buy it. Brand equity is built by (1) creating positive brand
evaluations with a quality product, (2) fostering accessible
brand attitudes to have the most impact on consumer pur-
chase behavior, and (3) developing a consistent brand image
to form a relationship with the consumer. Let us next con-
sider borrowing and buying brand equity.
Borrowing Brand Equity
Many firms borrow on the equity in their brand names by Line extension and
extending them to other products. It is helpful to distinguish
between two types of brand extensions. A line extension applies category extensions
an existing brand name to a product in one of the firm's ex- are ways of
isting categories. For example, the Coca-Cola brand includes borrowing brand
Classic, Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine-Free Coke, Cherry Coke, equity
and other soft drinks. The Wesson brand applies to vegetable
oil, com oil, and sunflower oil. Even the Tide brand no longer
appears on a single laundry detergent.

MANAGING BRAND EQUITY 29

 Often a line extension involves a different flavor or ingre-
dient, a different form, or a different application for the brand.
One recent survey of leading companies found that 89% of
new consumer product introducfions were Une extensions,
6% were category extensions, and only 5% were new brands
(Ogiba 1988).
A category extension applies an exisfing brand name to a
new category. Recent category extensions include Jell-O Pud-
ding Pops, Bic disposable lighters, Woolite rug cleaner. Cracker
Jack gourmet popping corn. Ivory shampoo, and many oth-
ers. Category extensions can also occur when a brand is li-
censed to another firm, such as Coca-Cola clothing by Mur-
jani.
The potenfial benefifs of category extensions include im-
mediate name recognition and the transference of benefits
associated with a familiar brand. For example, Chipman-
Union's introduction of branded deodorizing athlefic socks
in 1980 was helped by licensing the Odor-Eaters name used
originally by Combe, Inc. for its successful line of deodor-
izing foot pads. Moreover, category extensions eliminate the
high costs of establishing a new brand and often reduce the
costs of gaining distribution (e.g., see Kesler 1987; Morein
1975).
A well-known brand name does not guarantee a successful
exfension. Abrams (1981) points to Arm & Hammer antiper-
spirant and Welch's prune juice as extensions that failed. In-
Extensions can deed, an extension can also weaken the parent brand in the
weaken the parent original category. Miller High Life sales were cannibalized by
brand in the original Miller Lite beer. Tauber (1981) describes how the Carnation
category Company withdrew its plan several years ago to introduce a
contraceptive dog food. Lady Friskies, after tests showed it
would adversely affect sales of the parent brand, Eriskies.
Therefore, leveraging a brand's equity through extensions
to new categories carries both opportunities and risks. The
opportunities are represented by the firm's growth potential
in the new category. Risk comes not only from a new prod-
uct failure, but also from the success of a category extension.
Success carries the risk that the entire brand franchise can be
diluted. Ries and Trout (1986) describe many of the dangers
of overextending a brand name and generally advise against
category extensions.
Extending Brand Equity to New Categories
Schoenfeld (1985, p. 44) remarks, "Not long ago, extend-
ing a brand name was seen as a prescripfion for failure."
Despite the frenzy of recent brand extensions, many new
products will fail and some brands will lose equity. Firms
should have a brand plan to guide decisions about brand ex-
tensions. For example, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
decided not to put its name on a new banking operafion and
Walt Disney created Touchstone Films rather than extend its
name to adult movies (Yovovich 1988).
Three factors are needed to extend a brand to a new cat-
egory (Tauber 1981).
v: Perceptual fit. The consumer must perceive the new item
to be consistent with the parent brand (e.g., the Harley

30 MARKETING RESEARCH, SEPTEMBER 1989

 Davidson motorcycle brand on white wine coolers was
not a big success for Scooter Juice).
Competitive leverage. The new item must be comparable
or superior to other products in the category (e.g.. Land
O' Lakes bread and Lifesavers gum failed to offer con-
sumers anything new).
Benefit transfer. The benefit offered by the parent brand
must be desired by consumers of products in the new
category (e.g.. Vaseline Intensive Care lotion promises
gentleness and healing).
Aaker and Keller (1988) examine the effects of these and re-
lated factors on possible brand extensions.
Brand equity can be diluted by category extensions. Prod-
uct failure can injure the reputation of the parent brand. Neg-
ative associations can flow from the new item back to the par-
ent brand. Brand confusion can result from a successful
extension that develops an image somewhat different from
that of the parent brand. For example, extending the well-
known Chiquita brand from bananas to orange drink, as-
sorted fruit pops, and other food products is a very risky
strategy. Ries and Trout (1986) describe several examples of
how category extensions have diluted brand names.
The teeter-totter principle expresses the conventional wis-
dom on category extensions: "One name can't stand for two
distinctly different products. When one goes up, the other Pioneers in a product
goes down" (Ries and Trout, 1986, p. 99). This principle is category tend to use
a corollary to brand image consistency, but implementation new brand names,
is rather delicate (e.g., when are two products "distinctly" whereas later entrants
different?). Sullivan's (1988, 1989) field research on brand ex-
tensions shows that successful pioneers in a product cate- use extended brands
gory tend to use new brand names; later entrants often use
extended brands as competition increases in the category.
Consumer research by Farquhar, Herr, and Fazio (1989)
shows that the success of brand extensions depends in part
on consumers' associations between the parent brand and its
product category, the relatedness of this original category and
the extended category, and the benefits transferred from the
parent brand to the new item. Preliminary results indicate
that "typical" brands (e.g., Colgate or Close-Up) in a product
category (toothpaste) are more easily extended, in the sense
of learning new associations, to closely related target cate-
gories (mouthwash) than to distant categories (antiperspi-
rant). "Dominant" brands (Crest toothpaste. Perdue chicken,
or Chiquita bananas) are difficult to extend to unrelated cat-
egories because of the exemplary nature of such brands in
their original product categories.
Once again, attitude accessibility is a key to unraveling brand
extensions. Dominant brands are "too accessible" to the con-
sumer; they interfere with learning associations to new target
categories. Typical brands also yield accessible attitudes. If
these attitudes can be linked to another category by learning
a superordinate concept (e.g., Coleman means camping
equipment, Gucci symbolizes luxury, or Ivory offers gentle-
ness), they will be accessible for brand extensions included
under this broader concept.

MANAGING BRAND EQUITY 31

 Because brand extensions offer repeated attitudinal expres-
sions, they can be a powerful tool for increasing equity for
the entire brand franchise. For example. Courtyard by Mar-
riott reinforces the Marriott brand as much as it builds aware-
ness for the Courtyard name.
Buying Brand Equity
Acquisition of a company, its brands, and products is ob-
viously one way of buying brand equity. A more common
approach is licensing-in the rights to use someone else's brand
Acquisition and 1 on one's product. For example, Lipton holds licenses for
licensing are ways of Sunkist Fun Fruits and Sunkist juice drinks. In some cate-
buying brand equity gories like apparel and toys, licensed products account for
half of all sales. Indeed, retail sales of licensed products to-
taled $60 billion last year.
Licensing-out one's brand for products in new categories can
serve several purposes. For example, licensed brand exten-
sions can offer vital protection for a parent brand. Concerned
about its brand name becoming a generic word for motor
homes, Winnebago decided in 1982 to license-out its name
on tents, sleeping bags, and other camping products. This
brand extension strategy focused on younger consumers, who
might be moved up to Winnebago motor homes later in life.
Moreover, this strategy placed the brand name in new dis-
tribution channels that could reinforce sales of the core prod-
uct (Kesler 1987).
Licensing a famous brand name does not guarantee a suc-
cessful extension. Jack Daniel Distillery put its brand on char-
coal briquets, Dunkin' Donuts on a cereal, Jacuzzi on bath
toiletries, Harley Davidson on cigarettes, Adidas on a col-
ogne, and so on. Licensing brands can be counterproductive
if product quality is lacking or if the extended products have
little or no association with the original product category. The
same requirements of perceptual fit, competitive leverage, and
benefit transfer apply to all category extensions, whether li-
censed or not.
Managing Brand Equity
Brand equity is managed in three distinct stages (see also
Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis 1986). The first stage is intro-
duction. Start with a quality product and then build a brand
image that creates a positive consumer evaluation. The key
strategy is to plan how the brand can be used as a platform
Plan how the brand for new products and extensions.
can be used as a The second stage is elaboration. One lesson is that favorable
platform for new evaluations alone do not influence behavior. Instead, the goal
products and at this stage should be to foster attitude accessibility in the
extensions consumer's mind; make the brand easy to remember. The
next goal is to increase brand equity by encouraging direct
behavioral experiences and repeated attitudinal expressions
by the consumer as often as possible. It is important to be
consistent in managing the special relationship between the
brand and the consumer.
The last stage is fortification. The strategy is to leverage one's
equity by extending the brand to other products. Successful
brand extensions require perceptual fit, competitive leverage,
and benefit transfer. The primary focus should be on ex-

MARKETING RESEARCH, SEPTEMBER 1989

tending typical, rather than dominant, brands to closely re-
lated target categories. Licensed brand extensions also can
help in protecfing a brand, opening new distribufion chan-
nels, and developing potenfial customers for the core prod-
uct. Dilution of brand equity can result from product failures,
negative associafions, and brand confusion.
References
Aaker, David A. and Kevin Lane Keller (1988), "Consumer Evaluations
of Brand Extensions," working paper. School of Business Administra-
tion, University of California, Berkeley; to appear in the Journal of Mar-
keting.
Abrams, Bill (1981), "Exploiting Proven Names Can Cut the Risk of New
Products," Wall Street Journal (January 22).
Berry, Norman C. (1988), "Revitalizing Brands," Journal of Consumer Mar-
keting, 5 (Summer), 15-20.
Farquhar, Peter H., Paul M. Herr, and Russell H. Fazio (1989), "Extend-
ing Brand Equity to New Categories," working paper. Center for Prod-
uct Research, Carnegie Mellon University.
Fazio, Russell H. (1986), "How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?", in Hand-
book of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, R. M. Sor-
rentino and E. T. Higgins, eds. New York: Guiford Press, 204-43.
Freedman, Alix M. (1988), "Supermarkets Push Private-Label Lines," Wall
Street Journal (November 15), Bl.
Gibson, Richard (1988), "Space War: Supermarkets Demand Food Firms'
Payments Just to Get on the Shelf," Wall Street Journal (November 1).
Herr, Paul M. and Russell H. Fazio (1988), "The Attitude-to-Behavior Pro-
cess: Implications for Consumer Behavior," working paper, Indiana
University.
Jones, John Philip (1986), What's in a Name? Advertising and the Concept of
Brands. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Kesler, Lori (1987), "Extensions Leave Brand in New Areas," Advertising
Age (June 1), S1-S2.
Leuthesser, Lance, ed. (1988), "Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity: A Conference Summary," Report 88-104. Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute.
Morein, Joseph A. (1975), "Shift from Brand to Product Line Marketing,"
Harvard Business Review, 53 (September/October), 56-64.
Ogiba, Edward F. (1988), "The Dangers of Leveraging," Adweek Qanuary
4), 42.
OgUvy, David (1983), Ogilvy on Advertising. New York: Crown Publishmg.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. Maclnnis (1986),
"Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management," Journal of Marketing, 50
(October), 135-45.
Ries, Al and Jack Trout (1986), Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, 1st
ed., rev. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Saporito, Bill (1986), "Has-Been Brands Go Back to Work," Fortune (April
28), 123-4.
Schoenfeld, Gerald (1985), "Line Extensions: Milking a Name for All It's
Worth," Adweek (November 18), 44-45.
Sullivan, Mary W. (1988), "Brand Extension Strategies of Consumer Prod-
uct Firms," working paper. University of Chicago.
(1989), "Brand Extension and Order of Entry," working paper.
University of Chicago.
Tauber, Edward, M. (1981). "Brand Franchise Extension: New Product
Benefits From Existing Brand Names," Business Horizons, 24 (2), 36-41.
(1988), "Brand Leverage: Strategy for Growth in a Cost-Control
World, ' Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (August-September), 26-30.
Wentz, Laurel (1989), "How Experts Value Brands," Advertising Age (Jan-
uary 16), 24.
Yovovich, B. G. (1988), "What Is Your Brand ReaUy Worth?" Adweek's
WeeA: (August 8), 18-24.
Reprint No. MR13104

MANAGING BRAND EQUITY 33