Brand Alliance and

Customer-Based
Brand-Equity Effects
Judith H. Washburn
University of Tampa
Brian D. Till
Saint Louis University
Randi Priluck
Pace University

ABSTRACT

This research examines brand alliances, a specific marketing strat-

egy designed to transfer the positive brand equity of two or more
partner brands to the newly created joint brand. The study
explores how customer-based brand equity (that is, brand equity
as seen from the customer’s perspective) of partner brands affects
consumer evaluations of an alliance brand; how the brand equity
of one partner brand affects the other; how customer-based brand
equity of the partner brands affects consumers’ evaluations of the
search, experience, and credence attribute performance of the
alliance brand; and how product trial influences such evaluations.
Results suggest that merely the act of pairing with another brand
elevates consumers’ evaluations of the partner brands’ customer-
based brand equity, and high-equity partners enhance pretrial
evaluation of experience and credence attributes that are relevant
to the high-equity partner. As hypothesized, product trial moder-
ates the equity value of the alliance partner for experience attrib-
utes, and brand equity of the partner brands influences consumer
perceptions of the alliance brand’s equity. © 2004 Wiley Periodi-
cals, Inc.

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21(7): 487–508 (July 2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20016
487
Customer-based brand equity1 and its effect on consumption behavior
has become a widely discussed area of marketing. Throughout the 1980s
theoretical research centered on measuring a brand’s equity with the
use of a variety of financial (Farquhar & Ijiri, 1993; Simon & Sullivan,
1990; Swait, Erdem, Louviere, & Dubelaar, 1993) and customer-based
techniques (Green & Srinivasen, 1990; MacLachlan & Mulhern, 1991;
Rangaswamy, Burke, & Oliva, 1993). More recently, brand equity has
increasingly been defined in customer-based contexts (Keller, 1993)
and extended to include effects on brand preferences, purchase intent
(Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995; van Osselaer & Alba, 2000),
and brand alliances (Rao, Qu, & Ruekert, 1999; Rao & Ruekert, 1994).
This research looks at brand equity from the customer’s perspective, or
customer-based brand equity. Throughout, the term brand equity refers
to customer-based brand equity, defined as “. . . the differential effect
that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the marketing of
that brand. A brand is said to have positive customer-based brand
equity when consumers react more favorably to a product and the way
it is marketed when the brand is identified than when it is not” (Keller,
2003, p. 60).
A product’s brand name is a cue for customers and represents images
that have been formed based on their experience with a brand or infor-
mation they have obtained about the brand (Swait et al., 1993). Famil-
iar brands signal trust and tend to be favored by consumers who may
make a brand judgment based solely on brand familiarity (Holden &
Vanjuele, 1999). The associations that consumers form in their minds
affect their ultimate decision to purchase a brand, but may also influence
price sensitivity, advertising effects, and responses to competing products
(Keller, 1993). Consumers learn to predict product quality based on brand
and/or product attribute cues (van Osselaer & Alba, 2000). Huang and
Yu (1999) suggested that consumers develop associations between a
brand, brand attitudes, and brand benefits over time through sources
that include direct experience (such as trial) and indirect experience
(such as advertising). These associations lead consumers to an overall per-
ception of the brand.

1
“Customer-based brand equity is formally defined as the differential effect that brand knowledge
has on consumer response to the marketing of that brand. A brand is said to have positive cus-
tomer-based brand equity when consumers react more favorably to a product and the way it is
marketed when the brand is identified than when it is not. . . There are three key ingredients to
this definition: (1) ‘differential effect,’ (2) ‘brand knowledge,’ and (3) ‘consumer response to mar-
keting’.” (Keller, 2003, p. 60). In contrast, brand attitudes are overall evaluations of a brand from
the consumer’s perspective. Although brand attitudes are seen as forming the basis for consumer
actions and behavior toward a brand, or in other words, brand choice, AB does not explicitly
address these actions. So, customer-based brand equity includes as one of its determinants, con-
sumer attitudes toward the brand, but goes beyond the attitude and encompasses the action. Thus,
customer-based brand equity is a broader, more encompassing construct than AB. Furthermore,
brand attitude has been thoroughly studied in the literature, whereas customer-based brand
equity is a relatively new and as yet relatively unexplored concept.

488 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

 Brand alliances, the situation in which two or more brands are joined
together in some fashion (Rao et al., 1999; Rao & Ruekert, 1994;
Simonin & Ruth, 1998) provide a means to examine the effects of brand
equity on consumers’ reactions to brand combinations and how con-
sumers use perception of brand equity to evaluate product attributes
when considering a purchase. Research suggests that consumers do
make inferences regarding a brand when information is ambiguous
by examining cues that might provide additional information. Such
may be the case with brand alliances (e.g., Betty Crocker cake mix
with Hershey’s chocolate sauce or Kellogg’s Pop Tarts with Smucker’s
fruit filling), in which consumers are not familiar with the alliance
brand but are familiar with the component brands (Levin & Levin,
2000).
As in van Osselaer and Alba (2000), the present research builds
upon the associative-learning framework to understand the role of
customer-based brand equity in brand alliances. Consumers exposed
to a particular familiar brand have likely developed a series of asso-
ciations around that brand. When the brand is paired with an unfa-
miliar brand, the association may lead consumers to extend the qual-
ities of the known brand to the unknown brand. Such transfer of
associations to an unknown brand is the essence of classical condi-
tioning research. Numerous studies have successfully developed asso-
ciations for unfamiliar brands when paired with favorable visual stim-
uli using classical conditioning procedures (Grossman & Till, 1998;
Kim, Allen, & Kardes, 1996; Stuart, Shimp, & Engle, 1987). With brand
alliances, a high-equity brand may act as a favorable stimulus that
may imbue an unknown brand with which it is paired with similar
favorable attributes. Research suggests that positive affect may trans-
fer to the unknown brand, but also that brand beliefs may be trans-
ferred through the conditioning process (Kim et al., 1996; Kim, Lim,
& Bhargava, 1998). Till and Priluck (2000) found stimulus general-
ization (i.e., the extent to which a conditioned response can be trans-
ferred from one stimulus to a similar stimulus) to be a plausible expla-
nation for the transfer of positive affect from a parent brand to a line
extension.
Brand name has been shown to convey information about product
quality, even when the quality has not or cannot be observed (Rao et
al., 1999). Therefore, consumers use brand equity as a cue to make
judgments about products and their attributes, some of which may be
difficult to evaluate either before trial, such as experience attributes,
or even after trial, as in the case of credence attributes. This study
extends the research on brand alliances to examine the role brand
equity plays in consumers’ evaluations of brands within the alliance
and the brand alliance’s effect on consumers’ perceptions of a prod-
uct’s search, experience, and credence attributes.

BRAND ALLIANCE 489

BACKGROUND

Pairing two brands may add value to the consumer’s evaluations of one
or both partner brands as well as the resulting brand alliance. Accord-
ing to Rao and Ruekert (1994), “. . . because brand names are valuable
assets, they may be combined with other brand names to form a syner-
gistic alliance in which the sum is greater than the parts” (p. 87). One pri-
mary goal of brand alliances, therefore, is to enhance the value of the
brand(s). This research explores how customer-based brand equity affects
consumers’ subsequent evaluations of brands that form alliances; how var-
ious types of brand alliances affect consumers’ evaluations of a product’s
attributes, specifically its search, experience, and credence attributes;
and finally, how product trial influences these evaluations.

Brand Alliances
Researchers have begun to show more interest in brand alliances, a mar-
ket-driven relationship in which two brands coexist in an effort to enhance
the value of a product. Rao et al. (1999) defined a brand alliance as the
circumstance in which “. . . two or more brand names are presented jointly
to the consumer.” (p. 259) Different types of brand alliances include such
partnerships as: joint promotions (Rao et al., 1999) where partner brands
(e.g., Smirnoff Vodka and Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice) are presented
as complementing one another; dual branding in which two restaurants
(e.g., Tim Horton’s and Wendy’s) share the same space (Levin & Levin,
2000); and co-branding that involves the physical integration (e.g., Ruf-
fle’s potato chips with K.C. Masterpiece barbeque sauce flavoring) of two
brands (Levin & Levin, 2000). Early writing on brand alliances outlined
its dangers. For example, Farquhar (1994) suggested that brand alliances
create asymmetries that risk diluting brand associations. This danger to
brand equity derives from consumers attributing a potentially negative
experience with one brand ally to the other. As such, brand alliances can
undermine a brand’s positioning when consumers blame the wrong brand
for their dissatisfaction. Hillyer and Tikoo (1995) hypothesized that a
halo effect may result in favorable or unfavorable attitudes transferred
from one brand to another in an alliance, although they did not empiri-
cally examine these possibilities.
More recently, several empirical studies addressing brand alliances
have been published with most documenting its positive effects. For
example, recent research has claimed that brand alliances:

• allow consumers to assume that high-quality products will only

partner with other high-quality products (Rao & Ruekert, 1994)
• may contribute to the development of favorable attitudes toward the
brand combination (Simonin & Ruth, 1995)

490 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

 • may trigger the transfer of consumer affect from a high-quality
brand to a low-quality brand (Levin, Davis, & Levin, 1996)
• may have more effect on less familiar brands than on more famil-
iar brands (Simonin & Ruth,1998)
• may improve the image of one or the other partners and may sig-
nal greater product quality (Park, Jun, & Shocker, 1996)
• may positively influence consumers’ quality perceptions of unob-
servable product attributes of a partner brand (Rao et al., 1999).

Despite these positive predictions, Janiszewski and van Osselaer (2000)

found that pairing two brands could produce both positive and negative
effects on the participating brands. Confirming previous research (e.g.,
Park, Jun, & Shocker, 1996; Simonin & Ruth,1998), Janiszewski and van
Osselaer (2000) found that although consumers expected higher quality
from a brand alliance versus a single-branded product, those who expe-
rienced a high-quality brand alliance (i.e., branded brownies with high-
quality branded chocolate chips) placed less value on the branding part-
ner (i.e., branded chocolate chips) when it was subsequently paired with
another high-quality brand (i.e., branded muffins). On the other hand,
when consumers first tasted the branded product containing a non-
branded ingredient (i.e., branded brownies with low-quality chocolate-chip
ingredient) and, subsequently, tasted branded muffins with the low-qual-
ity chocolate-chip ingredient added, they valued the ingredient brand
more. Thus, Janiszewski and van Osselaer (2000) concluded that a brand
alliance may or may not be beneficial to the partnering brands, depend-
ing on when consumers are first exposed to the individual brand versus
the alliance. In their experiments, consumers placed more value on a
low-equity nonbranded ingredient, versus a high-equity branded partner,
after first learning the product’s value. It seems that association strength
may be influenced by the order of exposure to the product cues because
of a larger disparity between the predicted and experienced outcome in
the early stages of consumer learning.
These studies each take a different perspective on brand alliance while
examining its various forms and effects. The present research focuses
explicitly on the interactions of brand equity and brand alliance, the dif-
ferential effects of brand alliance on products with various types of attrib-
utes, and the impact of product trial.

The Role of Associative Learning in Developing Brand Equity

Brand equity as defined by Aaker (1991) is “. . . a set of brand assets and
liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or sub-
tract from the value provided by a product or service” (p. 15). The notion
that the brand is somehow linked to a set of consumer perceptions indi-

BRAND ALLIANCE 491

cates the presence of associative-learning mechanisms in developing
brand equity.
Associative learning refers to instances when animals or humans make
connections between various events that take place in their environment
(Shimp, 1991). Both instrumental learning and classical conditioning are
examples of associative learning because in both cases individuals make
connections between events (Shimp, 1991). In instrumental learning the
connection may include a reward, whereas in classical conditioning the
connection is temporal in nature. These theories can be used to explain
brand-equity effects. Specifically, in instrumental learning, consumers may
develop positive affect toward a particular brand because of positive past
experiences with the brand, which lead to specific outcomes. Alternatively,
the brand may have been paired with a positive cue that elicited a posi-
tive response in the absence of a direct reward as in classical conditioning.
More recently, van Osselaer and Alba (2000) made a direct connection
between learning and brand equity, solidifying the notion that certain cues
predict product quality for consumers and may even inhibit learning of
attribute information. They suggest that parallel associative updating
results in consumer associations that are additive in nature and depend-
ent on the respective strengths of the associations. That is, consumers will
predict higher quality for a product if the consumer perceives both the
brand name (e.g., Advil) and a predictive product attribute (e.g., contains
ibuprofen) to be of high quality, versus only one of the two attributes.
Brand-equity evaluations will only be updated when there is a discrep-
ancy in the strength of prior versus new information. Similarly, van Osse-
laer and Janiszewski (2001) link the associative-learning framework with
brand alliances, suggesting that associative models may explain how brand
names affect brand-equity evaluations, product extensions, and brand
alliances. Their discussion of the human associative memory (HAM) model
explains brand alliances as affecting brand equity by providing cues that
will activate concept nodes depending on when and how often an outcome
occurs. Cues will be processed independently, resulting in a backward-
looking judgment. Conversely, adaptive-learning models lead to blocking
effects in which consumers stop processing after a cue predicts an out-
come. According to van Osselaer and Janeszewski (2001), adaptive learn-
ing is dependent upon motivations to learn outcomes, whereas HAM learn-
ing always occurs but may be inhibited by adaptive learning when it is
present. In the case of brand alliances, consumers may learn associations
through either HAM or adaptive learning depending on the circumstances.
The present research provides additional support for using the associa-
tive-learning framework to explain brand-equity effects.

Economics of Information Theory

Economics of information theory describes how consumers engage in
information-seeking behavior prior to product trial (Stigler, 1961). Three

492 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

types of product attributes (i.e., search, experience, and credence, here-
after referred to as SEC) can affect consumers’ choices. Park, Jun, and
Shocker (1996), Rao and Ruekert (1994), and Rao et al. (1999) inde-
pendently suggested linkages between brand alliances and economics of
information theory. Rao and Ruekert (1994) argued that brand alliances
can serve as a quality signal when an individual brand is unable to suc-
cessfully signal quality by itself. The credibility of this type of signaling
is enhanced when consumers perceive the partner brand to be vulnera-
ble to consumer sanctions, including not repurchasing the product, neg-
ative word of mouth about the product, or organized boycotts (Rao et al.,
1999). Further, Park et al. (1996) suggested that evaluations might be dif-
ferent when the consumer actually experiences the product.
According to economics of information theory, consumers can verify
search attributes prior to purchase through direct inspection of readily
available sources (Nelson, 1970, 1974). For example, product ingredients
such as the fat or sodium content of Lay’s potato chips are search attrib-
utes, because they can be readily evaluated prior to trial by examining
the outside of the package. Experience attributes can only be evaluated
after the consumer has tried the product (Nelson, 1970, 1974). Thus, the
taste of Lay’s potato chips is an experience attribute. Credence attributes
are difficult for consumers to verify even after use, due to lack of consumer
expertise (Darby & Karni, 1973). The extent to which Lay’s potato chips’
packaging is biodegradable is an example of a credence attribute.
In his seminal work, Stigler (1961) posited that consumers would
gather information up to the point where the cost of doing so exceeds
the value of further information. Building on Stigler’s work, Nelson (1970,
1974) proposed that consumers seek information about both price and
quality when purchasing goods, but that information about quality is
more difficult and more expensive to obtain. Conversely, the consumer
may more effectively evaluate some goods by purchasing them for con-
sumption (Nelson, 1970). However, these goods must be relatively inex-
pensive and easy to acquire to allow the consumer to decide which brand
is preferred based on experience. According to Nelson (1970), “. . . the
consumer has a simple alternative to search; he can use experience, that
is, he can determine the quality of brands by purchasing brands and
then using them” (p. 327).
The search/experience framework has been used to understand how
consumers respond to information about products. Nelson (1974) hypoth-
esized that consumers were more skeptical of experience claims because
these claims can only be verified after trial and were least skeptical of
claims for search attributes because these attributes are easily verified
prior to purchase (Smith 1990). Darby and Karni (1973) suggested that
consumers may be unable to verify credence claims because they lack
technical expertise or because it would be very costly to do so even after
product consumption (Smith, 1990). Smith’s (1990) study supported the
search/experience framework, including the Darby and Karni (1973) cre-

BRAND ALLIANCE 493

dence enhancement. Furthermore, Brucks, Zeithaml, and Naylor (2000)
found that consumers are more likely to use marketing signals (such as
a brand name) when judging quality dimensions on the credence versus
the search end of the continuum in their study of price and brand name
as quality indicators for consumer durable goods.
The SEC framework may help to explain the role that brand names
play in consumer purchase decisions. Teas and Grapentine (1993) pro-
posed that brand information can affect the level of effort put forth by the
consumer to obtain search attribute information. A national brand,
because it signals well-known brand attributes, can be an indicator of
search attributes that could simplify the consumer’s purchase decision
by reducing the need to acquire additional information. Consumers use
brand names to forecast product performance or as an indicator of an
experience attribute. Therefore, brand names play an important role in
determining whether or not the product should be in the consumer’s con-
sideration set. The brand name can also be used to predict future satis-
faction if the initial experience with the product was satisfactory, or
future dissatisfaction if the initial experience with the product was unsat-
isfactory. Finally, consumers can use brand name as a source of infor-
mation about a credence attribute during formation of the consideration
set or as a risk reducer in the purchase decision. The brand name may
offer the consumer peace of mind about product performance, which can
carry over to postpurchase evaluations.
Thus, this research proposes that the SEC framework also highlights
differences in the effectiveness of brand alliances depending on the type
of product attribute (search, experience, or credence) most central to the
consumer’s decision and most closely tied to the alliance. This research
considers four critical questions. First, what effect does the brand alliance
have on consumers’ brand-equity evaluations of the partnering brands?
Second, how does the particular alliance affect consumers’ evaluations
of search, experience, and credence product attributes? Next, how does
product trial moderate these evaluations? Finally, how does brand equity
influence the quality of the brand alliance?

HYPOTHESES

Brand-Equity Effects on Brand Alliance Partners

Two brands whose associations interact to form a new brand combina-
tion comprise a brand alliance. Hillyer and Tikoo (1995) suggested that
strong brand associations can affect the credibility of brands in an alliance
and that consumers assume that high-equity brands will likely partner
with other high-equity brands, increasing the value of the combination
and the two individual brands as well. Further, two brand names may pro-
vide additional information to consumers regarding the attributes of the

494 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

product. As a result, brand alliances that combine two high-equity brands
will benefit from increased perceived value because the combination
adds additional information. Similarly, consumers may see two low-equity
brands as more valuable simply by their association. In the case of high-
equity brands pairing with low-equity brands, the power of the high-
equity brand will result in favorable feelings toward the low-equity brand.
As in classical conditioning, when stimuli that instill positive affect are
paired with neutral (unfamiliar) brands, the neutral brand comes to elicit
positive affect as well. This process may be at work when a low-equity
(unfamiliar) brand is paired with a high-equity brand (positive stimulus)
leading to a positive feeling toward the brand alliance. For the reasons
described above, it is expected that the mere act of participating in a
brand alliance will have a positive impact on both of the involved brands,
irrespective of each brand’s equity.

H1: Two high-equity brands paired together will each have higher
brand-equity ratings than prior to the pairing.

H2: Both high-equity brands and low-equity brands, when paired with
each other, will have higher brand-equity ratings than prior to the
pairing.

H3: Two low-equity brands paired together will each have higher brand-
equity ratings than prior to the pairing.

Brand Alliance Effects on SEC Attribute Performance

Given a lack of any other cues, consumers are more likely to draw infer-
ences about a product’s attribute performance based on its brand name
(Shapiro, 1983). Rao and Ruekert (1994) further suggested that brand
names signal quality and that one brand name on a product can give a
certain signal of quality that can be enhanced by a second high-equity
brand name on that product. In the case of search attributes, consumers
are least skeptical of brand claims because they can readily verify those
claims prior to purchase (Ford, Smith, & Swasy, 1990). Therefore, the
perception of search attribute performance will not be a function of brand
equity of the alliance partners.
A signal of product quality, such as brand name, is not necessary for
the consumer to be able to make an informed decision regarding search
attributes. However, experience and credence attributes, which cannot be
verified until after product trial or not at all, will be perceived more pos-
itively when a high-equity brand name is associated with a product and
to a greater degree when two high-equity brand names are featured
(Bloom & Pailin, 1995; Rao & Ruekert, 1994). Because consumers are
consistently more skeptical of experience and credence claims than search

BRAND ALLIANCE 495

claims (Ford et al., 1990), brand-name signals may play an important
role in consumers’ evaluations.
Rao and Ruekert (1994) claimed that brand alliances could provide
additional information to the consumer that would enhance the prod-
uct’s quality, especially when that quality is not readily observable.
Heiman and Muller (1996) suggested that consumers perceive lower risk
in purchasing such a product due to the enhanced quality signaled by the
brand pairing. Because not all attributes may be readily observed or
experienced by consumers, brand alliances may be effective if favorable
beliefs about such experience and credence attributes are formed and
persist on the basis of brand name (Park, Jun, & Shocker, 1996). This
study examines the differences in SEC attribute evaluations when con-
sumers evaluate four variations of high-equity and low-equity brand
pairings. As such, it is predicted that the particular brand alliance will
influence consumer evaluations of the product’s SEC attributes as follows:

H4: Consumers’ evaluations of search attribute performance will be

the same for high-equity brands paired with high-equity brands,
high-equity brands paired with low-equity brands, and low-equity
brands paired with low-equity brands.

H5: Consumers’ evaluations of experience attribute performance will

be highest for high-equity brand combinations, followed by mixed
high- and low-equity brand combinations and lowest for the low-
equity brand combinations prior to product trial.

H6: Consumers’ evaluations of credence attribute performance will be

highest for high-equity brand combinations, followed by mixed
high- and low-equity brand combinations and lowest for the low-
equity brand combinations prior to product trial.

Product Trial’s Moderating Role on SEC Attribute

Performance
Product trial is a critical piece of information that helps consumers to
develop brand beliefs and attitudes; however, consumers may process tri-
als for different types of products differently (Kempf, 1999). When con-
sumers evaluate brands, product trial provides evidence with respect to
experience claims, but not credence claims (Wright & Lynch, 1995).
Hoch and Ha (1986) suggested that ads are hypotheses that can be
tested by consumers through product search and experience. Consumers
want proof via product experience before accepting the claims of some
ads. In this regard, brand alliances may elicit the same response from
consumers as advertising inasmuch as consumers may hypothesize high
product quality due to the pairing of brands, but wish to test this hypoth-
esis by seeking additional information through search and/or experi-

496 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

ence. Teas and Grapentine (1993) suggested that product usage is the
mechanism that links brand name to the product’s experience attributes.
When experience with the product is positive, consumers may use brand
name(s) as an indicator of future satisfactory performance. More specif-
ically, consumers who have a positive usage experience with a product
will obtain positive purchase feedback that, if consistent with the prod-
uct’s claims, ultimately will enhance the value of the brand signal (Erdam
& Swait, 1998).
Nevertheless, brand names are more important in signaling quality
when product trial is not possible or when product trial does not add
information such as in the case of search and credence attribute evalu-
ation. Therefore, this study predicts that a positive product trial will
affect consumer evaluations of experience attributes only and hypothe-
sizes the following:

H7: Search attribute ratings after trial will not change versus search
attribute ratings before trial for any brand combination.

H8: Product trial will moderate consumers’ performance evaluations

of the low-equity/low-equity brand alliance on experience attrib-
ute performance ratings. The low-equity/low-equity brand experi-
ence attribute performance ratings will increase after trial, whereas
all high-equity brand combinations will remain stable.

H9: Credence attribute ratings after trial will not change versus cre-
dence attribute ratings before trial for any brand combination.

Brand-Equity Effects on Brand Alliance

Two brand names in a brand alliance may provide additional infor-
mation to the consumer about the presence of attributes that can act
to make the jointly branded product more attractive (Rao & Ruekert,
1994) and may contribute to the development of favorable attitudes
toward the brand combination (Simonin & Ruth, 1995). Hillyer and
Tikoo (1995) addressed this issue by proposing that strong brand asso-
ciations of one brand can lend credibility to the other brand by acting
as an augmenting cue in consumer evaluations. Conversely, a low-
equity brand may serve as a discounting cue, which may cause the con-
sumer to be less willing to accept the claims of the high-equity brand.
One brand can undermine the credibility of the other and lower con-
sumer evaluations. Recall that Janiszewski and van Osselaer (2000)
found that a brand alliance may or may not be beneficial to the part-
nering brands, depending on when consumers are first exposed to the
individual brand versus the alliance. Association strength may be influ-
enced by the order of exposure.

BRAND ALLIANCE 497

 Thus, this research proposes that two high-equity brands when paired
together will produce a brand alliance with a high brand-equity rating,
whereas two low-equity brands paired together will produce a brand
alliance with a brand-equity rating that is lower in comparison. Brand
alliances comprised of mixed-equity partners (i.e., a combination of one
high-equity and one low-equity partner) will demonstrate brand-equity
ratings that fall in between:

H10: Brand-equity ratings of the brand alliances will fall in order from
highest to lowest as follows: high equity/high equity, high equity/low
equity, low equity/high equity, and low equity/low equity.

METHOD

The study was a 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 split plot factorial design consisting of two

between-subject factors (high/low brand equity of brand partner 1 and
high/low brand equity of brand partner 2) and one within-subject factor
(time of dependent variable measure—before and after product trial).

Pretests
The researchers tested a number of product combinations (e.g., pop-
corn and butter, toaster pastries and fruit filling, facial tissue and
cold cream) to determine which combinations subjects perceived as
most compatible. Ultimately, paper towels with an antibacterial ingre-
dient were chosen because subjects perceived the two product cate-
gories as highly compatible, the product was one that was familiar to
student subjects, and the product could be easily tested in a labora-
tory environment.
Through pretests, the researchers selected high- and low-equity
brands in both the paper towel and disinfectant categories. Subjects
evaluated the brand equity of six real and two fictitious brand names
via the Yoo and Donthu (1997) brand-equity scale (see Table 1). On a
7-point scale (where a rating of 1 was low and 7 was high), Bounty
paper towels earned the highest mean rating, and Spirit earned the
lowest (Bounty = 5.01, Brawny = 4.60, Hi-Dri = 4.03, and Spirit = 3.05).
Likewise, Mr. Clean scored highest in the disinfectant category, and
Defense scored lowest (Mr. Clean = 4.96, Lysol = 4.67, X-14 = 3.19, and
Defense = 3.01). On the basis of this pretest, four different paper
towel/disinfectant brand alliances were created for this experiment:
Bounty/Mr. Clean (high equity/high equity), Bounty/Defense (high
equity/low equity), Spirit/Mr. Clean (low equity/high equity), and
Spirit/Defense (low equity/low equity).
Subjects also verified that they perceived a particular attribute as
uniquely search, experience, or credence, and determined whether or

498 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

Table 1. Items in the Customer-Based Brand-Equity Scale.

Perceived quality
X is of high quality.
The likely quality of X is extremely high.
The likelihood that X would be functional is very high.
The likelihood that X is reliable is very high.
X must be of very good quality.
X appears to be of very poor quality. (r)

Brand loyalty
I consider myself to be loyal to X.
X would be my first choice.
I will not buy other brands if X is available at the store.

Brand awareness
I know what X looks like.
I can recognize X among other competing brands.
I am aware of X.

Brand associations
Some characteristics of X come to my mind quickly.
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X.
I have difficulty in imagining X in my mind. (r)

Overall brand equity

It makes sense to buy X instead of any other brand, even if they are the same.
Even if another brand has same features as X, I would prefer to buy X.
If there is another brand as good as X, I prefer to buy X.
If another brand is not different from X in any way, it seems smarter to purchase X.

not that attribute was important to them. The researchers developed a

list of 11 attributes for paper towels with a disinfectant ingredient,
selecting each attribute based on it representing an SEC attribute and
the belief that the attribute would be important to a consumer in choos-
ing a product. Pretest subjects evaluated whether each attribute would
be (a) easy to verify before purchase (search), (b) easy to verify only
after use (experience), or (c) difficult to verify even after use (credence).
Subjects also rated how important on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all
important to me and 7 = extremely important to me) each attribute was.
The researchers selected the following three attributes for inclusion in
the main study based on a combination of high importance and appro-
priate SEC classification—size of roll (search), absorbency (experience),
and germ-killing ability (credence).
In another pretest, subjects tried the product to confirm a positive
product trial. Prototypes of appropriate packaging for the four brand
alliances were then created. The final pretest exposed subjects to several
versions of the package prototype to ensure that the evaluation of the
brand was not unduly influenced by the package design.

BRAND ALLIANCE 499

Procedure
A total of 134 students were randomly assigned to one of four experi-
mental conditions: Bounty/Mr. Clean (n ⫽ 33), Bounty/Defense (n ⫽ 33),
Spirit/Mr. Clean (n ⫽ 36), and Spirit/Defense (n ⫽ 32). For control pur-
poses, a separate set of subjects simply evaluated the individual brands
on the brand-equity scale. In each treatment condition, subjects exam-
ined a package prototype of the brand and then evaluated the related SEC
attributes. As a manipulation check, subjects first indicated whether
they thought that each attribute would be (a) easy to verify before pur-
chase, (b) easy to verify only after use, or (c) difficult to verify even after
use. Subjects consistently classified the SEC attributes into the intended
categories (Table 2).
Next, subjects evaluated each attribute on the extent to which they
believed the attribute described the brand, consistent with Fishbein’s
attribute belief measures (Fishbein, 1967). The three attributes evaluated
were: roll contains 64 two-ply sheets (search); paper towels are absorbent
(experience); and kills germs on contact (credence). Subjects evaluated
each attribute on a three-item, 7-point scale as follows: 1 ⫽ extremely
likely and 7 ⫽ extremely unlikely; 1 ⫽ extremely probable and 7 ⫽ extremely
improbable; and 1 ⫽ extremely certain and 7 ⫽ extremely uncertain. Mean
scores were calculated and measures for internal consistency evaluated
using Cronbach’s alpha. In each case, the SEC measures showed high
internal consistency (average coefficient alpha ⫽ 0.91).
After completing a mind-clearing task that involved reading an arti-
cle and answering questions about grocery shopping on the Internet,
subjects tried product samples. The researchers passed rolls of paper
towels and several water spray bottles among subjects and instructed
them to remove several sheets of paper towel and to use the water spray
bottles in their trial of the product. Although subjects were told they
were using the brand depicted in the package prototype, in fact, all sub-
jects tested Bounty paper towels. All subjects in all treatment conditions
used the same actual product so that any observed effects would be due
only to the influence of the brand name.
Finally, subjects completed the questionnaire by evaluating the prod-
uct they had just tried on a scale from one to ten (1 ⫽ don’t like at all

Table 2. SEC Attribute Classification Manipulation Check.

Before Trial After Trial

% Identifying As: % Identifying As:

Attribute S E C S E C
Roll contains 64 two-ply sheets (S) 70 20 10 70 18 12
Paper towels are absorbent (E) 6 94 0 18 79 3
Kills germs on contact (C) 17 12 71 7 12 81
Note. The bold type represent the appropriate classifications for the search, experience, and credence
claims.

500 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

and 10 ⫽ like very much) and then responded to the same SEC evalua-
tions following the product trial. As a manipulation check, the product-
evaluation question ensured that subjects perceived the product trial as
positive. Indeed, subjects across all conditions perceived the trial as pos-
itive. Subjects were also asked to explain in their own words the pur-
pose of this research. None of the subjects recognized the actual purpose
of this research, including that the paper towels used in the trial did not
contain an antibacterial ingredient.

RESULTS

Hypotheses 1 through 3 posited that simply pairing two brands, regard-

less of their equity level, would positively affect the subsequent brand-
equity rating of each. Results supported all three hypotheses. The control
group, which was not exposed to the package prototypes depicting the
brand alliances, evaluated each brand’s mean brand-equity rating as fol-
lows: Bounty (4.21), Mr. Clean (4.08), Spirit (3.35), and Defense (3.53).
Regardless of whether the brand was subsequently paired with a high- or
low-equity brand, the mean rating of each increased significantly. Table
3 illustrates the mean brand-equity ratings of the various pairings.
It was predicted that, prior to product trial, the evaluation of search
attribute performance (H4) would be the same for all brand alliances, but
that experience (H5) and credence (H6) attribute performance would
vary by branding pair. The brands showed mean ratings on the search
attribute (“Roll contains 64 two-ply sheets”) of Bounty/Mr. Clean (5.99),
Bounty/Defense (6.25), Spirit/Mr. Clean (6.04), Spirit/Defense (5.91) (Table
4). Supporting H4, a 2 ⫻ 2 ANOVA demonstrated no significant main or
interaction effects of the branding partners on search attribute per-
formance evaluations.

Table 3. Comparison of Mean Brand-Equity Ratings

Control Group versus After Exposure to the Pairing.

Brand Control Mean Mean when

Paired With:

Bounty 4.21 4.89 (Mr. Clean)

4.75 (Defense)
Mr. Clean 4.08 4.96 (Bounty)
5.21 (Spirit)
Spirit 3.34 4.27 (Mr. Clean)
4.22 (Defense)
Defense 3.53 4.21 (Bounty)
4.04 (Spirit)
Note. All paired means are significantly different from control means at
p ≤ .01.

BRAND ALLIANCE 501

 Table 4. Mean Attribute Ratings by Branding Combination and
Trial Condition.

Before Trial After Trial

Co-brand N Mean SD Mean SD
Search Attributes
Bounty/Mr. Clean 33 5.99 1.03 6.04 1.07
Bounty/Defense 33 6.25 0.92 6.28 0.73
Spirit/Mr. Clean 36 6.04 1.11 6.12 1.04
Spirit/Defense 32 5.91 0.97 5.98 0.83

Experience Attributes
Bounty/Mr. Clean 33 5.40 1.01 5.80 1.31
Bounty/Defense 33 5.39 0.96 6.45 0.68
Spirit/Mr. Clean 36 5.07 0.99 5.71 1.18
Spirit/Defense 32 5.15 0.88 5.95 0.99

Credence Attributes
Bounty/Mr. Clean 33 4.56 0.94 4.49 1.08
Bounty/Defense 33 4.29 0.92 4.53 1.23
Spirit/Mr. Clean 36 4.90 1.09 4.77 1.25
Spirit/Defense 32 4.44 1.11 4.33 1.17

The mean experience attribute ratings (H5) (“Paper towels are

absorbent”) across branding pairs were as follows: Bounty/Mr. Clean
(5.40), Bounty/Defense (5.39), Spirit/Mr. Clean (5.07), Spirit/Defense
(5.15) (Table 4). A 2 ⫻ 2 ANOVA showed a marginally significant main
effect of paper towel brand equity (F ⫽ 2.91, p ≤ .10) for experience attrib-
ute performance such that the Bounty brand alliances were rated higher
than the Spirit brand alliances. No significant main or interaction effects
were detected for the disinfectant brands. These results indicate that
evaluations of experience attributes varied depending on whether the
paper towel brands were high or low equity, but did not vary with the
brand-equity level of the disinfectant brands. This finding is consistent
with the experience attribute being evaluated, paper towel absorbency.
It is the paper towel brands that most influence these evaluations. Thus,
some evidence supports H5.
H6 examined credence attributes. Mean ratings on credence attrib-
ute performance (“Kills germs on contact”) were as follows: Bounty/Mr.
Clean (4.56), Bounty/Defense (4.29), Spirit/Mr. Clean (4.90), and
Spirit/Defense (4.44) (Table 4). A 2 ⫻ 2 ANOVA showed a statistically
significant main effect of disinfectant brand equity (F ⫽ 4.25, p ≤ .05). Cre-
dence attribute performance for the brand was higher when both paper
towel brands were paired with the high-equity Mr. Clean disinfectant
versus the low-equity Defense disinfectant. This result can be explained
by the nature of the credence attribute, “Kills germs on contact.” Clearly,
the disinfectant ingredient would be seen as the partner brand that
may/may not kill germs.

502 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

 Brand alliances offered the consumer additional pretrial assurance
regarding claims for the paper towel/disinfectant brands that can only
be evaluated after product trial (experience) or that are difficult to ver-
ify even after product trial (credence). For both the experience and cre-
dence attributes, analysis showed significant main effects for the part-
ner brand that is uniquely responsible for the brand’s performance on that
attribute. Specifically, brand alliances with the high-equity Bounty paper
towel brand rated higher on the experience attribute (i.e., “Paper towels
are absorbent”) than did the brands comprised of the low-equity Spirit
paper towel brand. Similarly, brand alliances with the high-equity dis-
infectant brand of Mr. Clean rated higher on the credence attribute (i.e.,
“Kills germs on contact”) than did the brands consisting of the low-equity
Defense disinfectant brand.
The next set of hypotheses dealt with the SEC attribute performance
evaluations following product trial. H7 posited that search attribute
performance ratings after trial would not change versus search attrib-
ute performance ratings before trial. To illustrate, the researchers cal-
culated mean differences by subtracting the before-trial mean from the
after-trial mean for each brand pair. For example, the mean search
attribute rating for Bounty/Mr. Clean before trial was 5.99 and after
trial was 6.04 (Table 4). Subtracting the before-trial rating (5.99) from
the after-trial rating (6.04) reveals a mean difference of ⫹0.05. As such,
the differences between the before-trial and after-trial mean search
attribute performance ratings were as follows: Bounty/Mr. Clean (⫹0.05),
Bounty/Defense (⫹0.03), Spirit/Mr. Clean (⫹0.08), Spirit/Defense (⫹0.07).
A 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 repeated-measures ANOVA demonstrated no significant
main or interaction effects for search attribute performance ratings,
thus supporting H7.
Similarly, H9 posited no changes before and after product trial for cre-
dence attribute performance. The differences between the before-trial
and after-trial mean credence attribute performance ratings (Table 4)
were as follows: Bounty/Mr. Clean (–0.07), Bounty/Defense (⫹0.24),
Spirit/Mr. Clean (–0.13), Spirit/Defense (–0.11). This hypothesis was con-
firmed in a 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 repeated-measures ANOVA with no significant main
or interaction effects.
As predicted in H8, product trial moderated experience attribute per-
formance ratings. The mean differences between experience attribute
performance before and after trial (Table 4) were: Bounty/Mr. Clean
(⫹0.40), Bounty/Defense (⫹1.06), Spirit/Mr. Clean (⫹0.64), Spirit/Defense
(⫹0.80). Analysis of the main and interaction effects of the paper towel
and disinfectant brands on experience attribute performance showed a
significant time-by-disinfectant brand-equity interaction (F ⫽ 4.68, p ≤
.05). That is, product trial moderated experience attribute performance
evaluations whereby the paper towel/disinfectant brands improved more
after trial with the low-equity Defense brand than with the high-equity
Mr. Clean brand.

BRAND ALLIANCE 503

 Finally, H10 predicted that consumers would evaluate brand alliances
positively and that brand-equity evaluations of the alliances would vary
in magnitude based on the exact composition. Specifically, brand alliances
comprised of two high-equity brands would achieve the highest brand-
equity evaluations, followed by alliances comprised of a mixed pairing of
one high-equity and one low-equity brand, with alliances comprised of two
low-equity brands earning the lowest brand-equity evaluations. As pre-
dicted, the brand-equity evaluations of the alliances fell in the hypoth-
esized order (Table 5) with the Bounty/Mr. Clean (high equity/high equity)
pairing showing the highest overall brand-equity rating (4.87) fol-
lowed in order by Bounty/Defense (high equity/low equity) (mean ⫽
4.69), Spirit/Mr. Clean (low equity/high equity) (mean ⫽ 4.65), and
Spirit/Defense (low equity/low equity) (mean ⫽ 4.28). A one-way ANOVA
showed a significant difference in this relationship (F ⫽ 7.17 and p ≤
.001); however, t tests indicated that only the Spirit/Defense combina-
tion was significantly different from the other means, despite the fact
that mean ratings fell in the hypothesized order.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This study examined consumer associations with brand names in brand-

alliance pairs and found that a high-equity brand paired with another high-
equity brand resulted in more positive evaluations for the partnering brands
versus prior to their pairing. Similarly, when two low-equity brands or two
mixed-equity brands were paired, brand evaluations following the pairings
were stronger than individual evaluations prior to the pairing. The mere act
of pairing brands with one another increases consumers’ positive percep-
tions about their brand equity. Interestingly, a positive effect occurs regard-
less of whether the brand partner is initially perceived as high or low in cus-
tomer-based brand equity. As indicated by previous research, the act of
pairing may suggest less risk and more credibility to consumers. Further-
more, the act of pairing brands not only positively affects consumers’ per-
ceptions of the individual partner brands, but also positively affects their
perceptions of the brand alliance.

Table 5. Mean Brand-Equity Ratings of

Brand Alliances.

Brand Alliance Mean

Bounty/Mr. Clean 4.87

Bounty/Defense 4.69
Spirit/Mr. Clean 4.65
Spirit/Defense 4.28*
* Only the Spirit/Defense mean is significantly different from
the other means, where F = 7.17(3,130) and p ⬍ .001 in a one-way
ANOVA.

504 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

 The study also examined the possibility that the positive effect of high
customer-based brand equity would differentially affect consumers’ per-
ceptions of a brand alliance’s search, experience, and credence attrib-
utes. Although brand alliances may provide information to consumers
about expected outcomes, this study predicted that experience attrib-
utes would be most affected by alliances inasmuch as pairing brands
leads consumers to predict certain outcomes. Prior to product trial, high-
equity combinations are expected to yield more positive attribute per-
formance, but when positive trial occurs the evaluations of the brand
alliances are tempered. Analysis showed that, in the case of search claims
that can be easily verified prior to purchase, signals for product quality
(i.e., high-equity brand names) did not influence consumer evaluations.
It seems that brand names particularly play a role when claims are dif-
ficult to evaluate prior to purchase.
With regard to such claims, the research found that brand alliances can
provide consumers information that enhances a product’s attribute per-
ception even when such performance is not readily observable. Prior to
product trial, consumers evaluated the high-equity Bounty brand alliances
higher on the experience attribute (absorbency) than the low-equity Spirit
brand alliances. The disinfectant brand partners had no effect on these
evaluations. This observation may be explained by the halo effect associ-
ated with a well-known, positively perceived brand name (i.e., Bounty ver-
sus Spirit) and by the probability that consumers recognized that the paper
towel, not the disinfectant ingredient, predicts absorbency.
The specific brand combinations in an alliance offer unique advantages
to the dual-branded product. Though generally the lead brand signals qual-
ity, the brand partner may play a role in verifying certain product attrib-
utes. The study found differences in the credence attributes that were clearly
a function of the brand in the pair that contributes most to the performance
on the attribute being evaluated (“Kills germs on contact”). Consumers
evaluated the two paper towel combinations containing the low-equity dis-
infectant brand, Defense, lower than the high-equity Mr. Clean pairs. It is
the disinfectant component, not the paper towel component, that would
“Kill germs on contact.” The significant main effect of disinfectant in the cre-
dence attribute evaluations supports this explanation.
Consistent with predictions, search attributes can be easily verified
prior to trial across all brand-equity combinations, and product trial did not
alter consumers’ evaluations of verified product claims. Product trial also
did not alter credence evaluations, which suggests that, even though con-
sumers like the product after trial, a positive product trial does not influ-
ence their evaluation of an attribute that is difficult to verify even after trial.
Only when experience attributes were involved did product trial moder-
ate. Experience attribute (absorbency) performance evaluations improved
more after trial for the low-equity Defense combinations than for the high-
equity Mr. Clean combinations. This observation is likely due to the per-
formance evidence generated by a positive product trial.

BRAND ALLIANCE 505

 The act of pairing with a high-equity brand positively affects consumers’
perceptions of product claims that can only be verified following product
trial (experience attributes) and, to some degree, credence attributes that
might not be verifiable even after trial. A positive product trial further
enhances these positive effects for experience attributes, but not for cre-
dence attributes. On the contrary, consumers do not use high-equity brand-
ing partners as a cue to make a search attribute more believable, even
after a positive product trial. Additionally, consumers appear to be able to
distinguish between the branding partners and make determinations
about which partner is primarily responsible for the product’s perform-
ance. This finding is particularly relevant when the branding partner
clearly enhances the product’s performance on an important attribute.
Furthermore, the study suggests that brand alliances positively affect con-
sumer evaluations of individual brands that comprise the alliance in addi-
tion to evaluations of the resultant co-branded product.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Bloom, P. N., & Pailin, J. E., Jr. (1995). Using information situations to guide mar-
keting strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12, 19–27.
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indi-
cators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 28, 359–374.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand pref-
erence, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24, 25–40.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of
fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67–88.
Erdam, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Jour-
nal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 131–157.
Farquhar, P. H. (1994). Strategic challenges for branding. Marketing Manage-
ment, 3, 8–15.
Farquhar, P. H., & Ijiri, Y. (1993). A dialogue on momentum accounting for brand
management. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 77–92.
Fishbein, M. (1967). A behavior theory approach to the relationship between
beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In Martin Fish-
bein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 389–400). New
York: Wiley.
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1990). Consumer skepticism of adver-
tising claims: Testing hypotheses from economics of information. Journal of
Consumer Research, 16, 433–441.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing research:
A review of new developments. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 3–19.
Grossman, R. P., & Till, B. D. (1998). The persistence of classically conditioned
brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 27, 23–31.
Heiman, A., & Muller, E. (1996). Using demonstration to increase new product
acceptance: Controlling demonstration time. Journal of Marketing Research,
33, 422–430.

506 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK

Hillyer, C., & Tikoo, S. (1995). Effect of cobranding on consumer product eval-
uations. Advances in Consumer Research, 22,123–127.
Hoch, S. J., & Ha, Y. W. (1986). Consumer learning: Advertising and the ambi-
guity of product experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 221–233.
Holden, S. J. S., & Vanjuele, M. (1999). Know the name, forget the exposure:
Brand familiarity versus memory of exposure context. Psychology & Mar-
keting, 16, 479–496.
Huang, M. H., & Yu, S. (1999). Are consumers inherently or situationally brand
loyal? A set intercorrelation account for conscious brand loyalty and non-
conscious inertia. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 523–544.
Janiszewski, C., & van Osselaer, S. (2000). A connectionist model of brand-
quality associations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 331–350.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-
based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kempf, D. S. (1999). Attitude formation from product trial: Distinct roles of cog-
nition and affect for hedonic and functional products. Psychology & Mar-
keting, 16, 35–50.
Kim, J., Allen, C. T., & Kardes, F. R. (1996). An investigation of the media-
tional mechanisms underlying attitudinal conditioning. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, August, 318–328.
Kim, J., Lim, J. S, & Bhargava, M. (1998). The role of affect in attitude for-
mation: A classical conditioning approach. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 26, 143–152.
Levin, A. M., Davis, J. C., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Theoretical and empirical link-
ages between consumers’ responses to different branding strategies. In K.
Corfman & J. Lynch (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 23, pp.
296–300).
Levin, I. P., & Levin, A. M. (2000). Modeling the role of brand alliances in the
assimilation of product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9,
43–52.
MacLachlan, D. L., & Mulhern, M. G. (1991). Measuring brand equity with
conjoint analysis. Paper presented at Sawtooth Conference, Sun Valley,
Idaho.
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political
Economy, 78, 311–329.
Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy,
83, 729–754.
Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite branding alliances:
An investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing
Research, 33, 453–466.
Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R. R., & Oliva, T. A. (1993). Brand equity and the
extendibility of brand names. International Journal of Research in Mar-
keting, 10, 61–75.
Rao, A. R., Qu, L., & Ruekert, R. W. (1999). Signaling unobservable product qual-
ity through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 258–268.
Rao, A. R., & Ruekert, R. W. (1994, Fall). Brand alliances as signals of product
quality. Sloan Management Review, pp. 87–97.
Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputa-
tions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 659–670.

BRAND ALLIANCE 507

Shimp, T. A. (1991). Neo-Pavlovian conditioning and its implications for con-
sumer theory and research. In: T. S. Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.),
Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 162–187). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice Hall.
Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1990). The measurement and determinants of
brand equity: A financial approach. Working Paper. Graduate School of Busi-
ness, University of Chicago.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1995). Bundling as a strategy for new product intro-
duction: Effects on consumers’ reservation prices for the bundle, the new
product, and its tie-in. Journal of Business Research, 33, 219–230.
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it
keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand
attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30–42.
Smith, D. B. (1990). The economics of information: An empirical approach to Nel-
son’s search-experience framework. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
9, 111–128.
Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy,
69, 213–225.
Stuart, E. W., Shimp, T. A., & Engle, R. W. (1987). Classical conditioning of con-
sumer attitudes: Four experiments in an advertising context. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 14, 334–351.
Swait, J., Erdem, T., Louviere, J., & Dubelaar, C. (1993). The equalization price:
A measure of consumer-perceived brand equity. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 10, 23–45.
Teas, R. K., & Grapentine, T. H. (1993). Demystifying brand equity. Marketing
research: A magazine of management and applications, pp. 24–29.
Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2000). Stimulus generalization in classical condition-
ing: An initial investigation and extension. Psychology & Marketing, 17,
55–72.
van Osselaer, S., & Alba, J. W. (2000). Consumer learning and brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 1–16.
van Osselaer, S., & Janiszewski, C. (2001). Two ways of learning brand associ-
ations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 202–223.
Wright, A. A., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1995). Communication effects of advertising
versus direct experience when both search and experience attributes are
present. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 708–718.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (1997). Developing and validating a consumer-based over-
all brand equity scale for Americans and Koreans: An extension of Aaker’s
and Keller’s conceptualizations. American Marketing Association Summer
Educators’ Conference, Chicago IL.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Brian D. Till, Cook
School of Business, 3674 Lindell Boulevard, Saint Louis University, St. Louis,
MO 63108 (tillbd@slu.edu).

508 WASHBURN, TILL, AND PRILUCK