Line Extension Asymmetry: Higher Quality Line Extensions Help, Lower Quality Extensions Do Only a Little Harm

Timothy B. Heath, Devon DelVecchio, Michael S. Mccarthy
{"title":"Line Extension Asymmetry: Higher Quality Line Extensions Help, Lower Quality Extensions Do Only a Little Harm","authors":"Timothy B. Heath, Devon DelVecchio, Michael S. Mccarthy","doi":"10.2478/GFKMIR-2014-0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \"Managers often extend brands to different quality levels. Adding lower priced variants is a particularly popular option for fighting the growing number of retailer brands. Such a move may increase sales, but it also risks diluting brand image. This study examines such line extensions by testing middle-quality brands that offer higher or lower quality line extensions. According to the results, the adverse effects of brands’ lower quality versions seem to be overestimated. Higher quality line extensions improved overall brand perception and evaluation far more than lower quality extensions damaged them. This asymmetry prevailed in multiple product classes and for various dimensions of brand evaluation such as brand attitude, brand expertise or brand innovation. In general, consumers seem to prefer broader product lines. Even if lower quality extensions reduced brand prestige, there was hardly any effect in the overall evaluation. The negative quality association was tempered by increased perceived brand innovation and positive variety effects. However, lower quality extensions are not harmless in every case. Managers are well advised to consider all branding options and to analyze possible effects, not only on the brand but also on the individual product. \"","PeriodicalId":30678,"journal":{"name":"GfK Marketing Intelligence Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"31 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GfK Marketing Intelligence Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/GFKMIR-2014-0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract "Managers often extend brands to different quality levels. Adding lower priced variants is a particularly popular option for fighting the growing number of retailer brands. Such a move may increase sales, but it also risks diluting brand image. This study examines such line extensions by testing middle-quality brands that offer higher or lower quality line extensions. According to the results, the adverse effects of brands’ lower quality versions seem to be overestimated. Higher quality line extensions improved overall brand perception and evaluation far more than lower quality extensions damaged them. This asymmetry prevailed in multiple product classes and for various dimensions of brand evaluation such as brand attitude, brand expertise or brand innovation. In general, consumers seem to prefer broader product lines. Even if lower quality extensions reduced brand prestige, there was hardly any effect in the overall evaluation. The negative quality association was tempered by increased perceived brand innovation and positive variety effects. However, lower quality extensions are not harmless in every case. Managers are well advised to consider all branding options and to analyze possible effects, not only on the brand but also on the individual product. "
线路延伸不对称:高质量的线路延伸有帮助,低质量的线路延伸只会造成一点伤害
“管理者经常将品牌扩展到不同的质量水平。为了对抗数量不断增长的零售品牌,增加低价产品是一个特别受欢迎的选择。这样的举动可能会增加销量,但也有冲淡品牌形象的风险。本研究通过测试提供更高或更低质量线扩展的中等质量品牌来检验这种线扩展。根据研究结果,品牌低质量版本的负面影响似乎被高估了。高质量的产品线扩展提高了整体品牌的认知和评价,而低质量的产品线扩展对品牌的影响要大得多。这种不对称在多个产品类别和品牌评估的各个维度(如品牌态度、品牌专业知识或品牌创新)中普遍存在。总的来说,消费者似乎更喜欢更广泛的产品线。即使较低的质量延伸降低了品牌声誉,但对整体评价几乎没有任何影响。负的质量关联被增加的感知品牌创新和积极的品种效应所缓和。然而,低质量的扩展并非在所有情况下都是无害的。管理者应该考虑所有的品牌选择,并分析可能产生的影响,不仅是对品牌的影响,也包括对单个产品的影响。”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信