KHADIM ALI SHAH BUKHARI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI

“Effect of Brand Extension on Sales of “Bakeri Biscuits”: (A product of LU Continental Biscuits Private Limited)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TOTHE DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, KASBIT

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) WITH DISTINCTION

SUBMITTED BY: MAJID BASHIR ID: 4750

COPYRIGHT 2011 MAJID BASHIR ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Page 1 of 170

CERTIFICATE
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management Science Khadim Ali Shah Bukhari Institute of Technology (KASBIT)

I am pleased to certify that Mr. Majid Bashir S/O Bashir Ahmad Khan has satisfactorily carrier out a research work, under my supervision on that topic of “Effect of Brand Extension on Sales of Bakeri Biscuits: (A product of LU Continental Biscuits Private Limited)".

I further certify that his distinctive original research and his thesis is worthy of presentation to the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Management Science, Khadim Ali Shah Bukhari Institute of Technology (KASBIT) for the degree of MBA.

Dr. Gobind Herani Research Analyst

Page 2 of 170

PREFACE
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this research. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Mr. Shaikh Asim Athar Quarishy, who’s help, stimulating suggestions and encouragement helped me in all the time of research for and writing of this report.

My former colleagues from the class who supported me in my research work. I want to thank them for all their help, support interest and valuable hints

Page 3 of 170

So openly and warmly welcomed me to use previous observations and take in-depth interviews and discussions about the work. I am very thankful to the helpful staff and all the faculty of KASBIT management. First of all. and explained the meaning of different concepts and how to think when it comes to problem discussions and theoretical discussions. it also provided me an opportunity to remove any flaws and weaknesses. One of the most important tasks in every good study is its critical evaluation and feedback which was performed by my supervisor Mr. who indirectly participated in this study by encouraging and supporting me. made my tasks very interesting and challenging for me. My sincere thanks go to my family members.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I want to show my sincere gratitude to all those who made this study possible. Shaikh Asim Athar Quraishy. All this. I am very thankful to my supervisor for investing his precious time to discuss and criticize this study in depth. Page 4 of 170 .

(vii) To identify the effects on Brand Extension on its variety. Literature review determines that brand extension increases the opportunities for the brands to gain more market share and it would also increases sales volume of the same organization. The study determined brand extension’s affects on the sales of new brands itself as well as on the mother brand too. (iii) To study the effect of brand extension on increasing consumer buying behavior of FMCG Products. For getting responses for the study. (vi) To study the effect of brand extension on the mother brand. It has been observed that consumers are happy with available range of products as it fulfills their need and demand. (iv) To find how the consumption pattern of the consumers after brand extension on a FMCG Product. The purpose of this study was to review current literature and analyze previous studies to evaluate whether or not brand extension has any impact on overall sales of other brands and mother brand of an organization. date. LU can increase its sales by bring the ticky packaging of Bakeri all flavors to target the school going children and increase its sales. The studies performed are (i) To determine the impact of brand name itself on FMCG Product (Biscuit). Page 5 of 170 . LU decision of extended Bakeri brands was very successful and its line extension with respect to different taste like coconut. classic etc are further steps to satisfied their loyal customers. The research shows that there is direct relationship between brand extension and mother brand sales. a closed ended questionnaire was administered to on brand extension impact on its own sales. (viii) At last to study the brand extension on brand name of the same FMCG itself. as he/she was familiar with the brands.ABSTRACT The study was conducted to analyze the effects of brand extension on the sale of “Bakeri Biscuits: A product of LU continental Biscuits Private Limited”. (ii) To study the effect of brand extension on FMCG product sales especially biscuits. It is recommended that brand extension make consumer life easy to choose without any hesitation. (v) To determine the effect of new advertisement of brand extension and consumer attention towards specific variety of biscuit. To analyze the significant impact on the relationship between brand extension and mother brand sales.

........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Components of a Brand ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 HYPOTHESES: .............................6 1...................................................................................................... 4 ABSTRACT................................................ 11 1............................................................................................................2......... 2 PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Meaningful: .............................2 2......... 21 Black and white: ...........................................2..................................................3 2.............................................. 20 BRAND SLOGAN: ..............3 1....... 10 Benefits to the Customers ............... 9 Company History .2..........6 2........ 9 1...................... 9 ORGANIZATION: .................. 21 BRAND NAME:... 21 Balance: ......................... 19 Protectable:. 9 Benefits to the Organization ............................................................4 2..3 1............................................................................................................................................................... 21 Simplicity: .................. 22 BRAND LAYOUT AND PRODUCT PACKAGING: ...........................................................................3....................................2.........1 2...................................3......................................................... 19 Adaptable ......... 9 Corporate Overview ............................................. 10 Benefits to the Retailer/Wholesalers...........3.......................................................................................................2...2 1......... 9 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: ............2........ 18 Memorable: ...................................2 WHAT IS A BRAND? ..............................................1..............1 2............................................................................................... 16 2...5 BRAND LOGO: ...................................................2..............................................5 2.................................................................4.............................................................................................1 1................................................1 1............................................................................................3..............................................................2 2...........1 1.......................................................... 22 Page 6 of 170 ..............................................................................3.............2 ..................................................................................1 1..............................4 2..........1 2........................................ 16 CHAPTER ............... 10 OBJECTIVES: ..3...... 19 Likeable: ........................2 1.....3 2..... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................2 PROJECT TITLE: .........Table of Contents CERTIFICATE .............................................................. 16 LITERATURE REVIEW: ..............................................................4 2........3 2........7 SIGNIFICANCE:....................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Resizing: ........... 19 Transferable: .......................................................... 5 CHAPTER -1 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 2... 20 Company reflection:............................................................................................................3......5 1.................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS: ............1 2..............................................5 2.....................2.............................................

..10 2.............. 73 FMCG INDUSTRY AND BRAND EXTENSION: .................................................................... 90 Free taster: .......17 2................ 37 BRAND PERSONALITY: ............26 2........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14.............................. 52 Rationales behind Brand Extensions .......................................................... 92 Page 7 of 170 ...............................6 Cause: ...........................................................21 2.................................... 54 Successful Brand Extension ...................3 2................................8 2.........3 2.16....4 2....................................................24 2.. 43 BRAND EXTENSION: ...............................20 2....................................................16..................................................9 2........ 91 2.............. 23 BRAND EQUITY: ......................27................. 62 2............................................. 26 BRAND EQUITY AND BRAND LOYALTY: ...........13 2................................................. 91 Piggy-backing: ......................... 90 Money-off vouchers:.........................14..........................................................................................................22 2.............................................................16 BRAND-SPECIFIC ASSOCIATIONS:......................................... 52 Key Reasons of Brand Extension: ...........................................2 2.........11 2..... 36 CORPORATE BRANDS: ........25 2......... 84 BRAND ASSOCIATION AND VARIETY SEEKING BEHAVIOR: ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 BRAND AWARENESS: .........16.......................1 2.........................................14 BRAND IDENTITY: ................... 40 Top of mind: .......................................7 2...................................... 30 BRAND EQUITY’S LIFE AND BRAND DILUTION: ............................5 2.........................................................................................................18 2......2 2................................23 2.. 77 BRAND LOYALTY AND CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: .......... 80 BRAND EXTENSION EFFECTS ON CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: ........................................... 40 2.................................................. 32 BRAND DUE DILIGENCE: ................................ 40 Brand recognition: ..............................14.................15 2............... 91 Gift: .....................................1 2................ 81 BRAND ACCESSIBILITY AND DIAGNOSTICITY: .......................6 2................................................................1 2............ 33 CUSTOMER BASED BRAND EQUITY:...............................................2.......................... 44 Brand Extension Process .................... 72 CONSUMER EVALUATIONS OF BRAND EXTENSIONS: .................................4 2.............................................................................................................................3 2................16............................. 40 Brand recall: ................. 90 Two-for-one price: ...27............................19 2......................................................... 71 GENERALIZABILITY ACROSS SUCCESS MEASURES:.................27......................2 2..................27.......5 2....... 68 RESEARCH RESULTS BEYOND THE LAB INTO CONDITIONS WITH REAL EXTENSIONS: 70 SCOPE OR GENERALIZABILITY OF BRAND EXTENSION: ............................27............................................................. 91 Lottery: ....27 RELEVANCE OF BRAND EXTENSION SUCCESS FACTORS: .....27..................................... 87 BRAND SWITCHERS: .....................12 2..........16.................. 60 Pros and Cons regarding Brand Extension: ................

........................................ 96 CHAPTER – 4....................... 121 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMPTION PATTERN (TASTE): ............................................................................................29 DIFFERENT INFLUENCES OF PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE AND BRAND KNOWLEDGE: ......................................................................Consequence:.......................2 CONCLUSION:.......................... 99 HYPOTHESIS OF COMPETITOR’S KNOWHOW: .....................................9 4............................................................................................................................................10 4..........3 METHODOLOGY: ............... 114 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO TASTE: ....... 92 2......... 149 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ...................... 136 5...........................................28 2....................... 96 Simple Random Sampling is used to get responses from the LU Continental Biscuits especially consumers of Bekri Biscuits........................................................................................................................................................... 150 Page 8 of 170 ..... 126 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND EXTENSION’S EFFECTS: .......................1 4........... 136 RECOMMENDATIONS: .............................2 METHODOLOGY: .........................11 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND FAMILIARITY: ......6 4........ 136 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ......................................... 106 HYPOTHESIS OF PRODUCT AVAILABILITY:................................................................5 4.......1 5...................................... 96 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND TASTE: .....................................................................................................3 4..................................................................................................7 4.....................................2 4................................................................ 96 4......................................................................... 131 CHAPTER – 5... 96 Statistical Analysis and Evaluation ...... 142 QUESTIONNAIRE ....... 96 3.................................. 110 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO FLAVOR: .................. 101 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND ATTRACTION: ................................................................................... 118 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMPTION PATTERN (BUYING DECISION): .................................................................................................................................. 92 DIFFERENCES IN FIT PERCEPTION IN BRAND EXTENSION EVALUATIONS: .......................................4 4.................................................. 94 3..............

5% and 49.1 PROJECT TITLE: Effect of Brand Extension on Sales of “Bakeri Biscuits”: (A product of LU Continental Biscuits Private Limited) 1. Prince and Tiger.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The main purpose of this research is to analyze the impact of brand extension of LU (Bakeri) Biscuits on the sale of main brand LU.2.2. In the year 2007 Danone sold their biscuits category to Kraft Foods of USA. 1. We have an array of products which are pre-eminent in the branded biscuit business both in Pakistan and abroad.5% respectively for more than two decades CBL is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of the brand LU.2 ORGANIZATION: 1.2 Company History Page 9 of 170 . Today the company has a joint venture with Kraft Foods with a shareholding of 50. the French food giants. 1.1 Corporate Overview Continental Biscuits Limited (CBL) was founded in 1984 following a Joint Venture between the family of Hasan Ali Khan and the Group Danone.CHAPTER -1 1. Candi. Our unrivalled portfolio of brands has been meeting consumer needs for well over two decades and includes such favorites as TUC.

Tiger and Candi. cream variants. These brands have an array of products that falls into the category of plain biscuits. the global manufacturers of the LU range.2 Benefits to the Customers Page 10 of 170 . under its power brands of TUC.Incorporated in 1984. What is the behavior and or liking and disliking of their target. who signed a joint venture agreement with Generale Biscuits. the success story of LU in Pakistan began with the initiative of Hasan Ali Khan (the founder of Continental Biscuits).TUC. With global merger of Generale Biscuit and the Danone-Group. The first undertaking was to set up a factory and establish distribution centers in the country with the ultimate objective of commencing operations and marketing our products in Pakistan.3 SIGNIFICANCE: 1. The company first introduced its' innovative brands . CBL thus started its' operations in the country since September 1986 with an initial strength of 200 employees. crackers and ingredients based.1 Benefits to the Organization By the analysis of this research we will recommend to organization LU that how they can promote their product after their extension. 1. which was subsequently acquired by the Danone Group.3. The company at present has an outstanding portfolio. 1. Prince and Candi which proved to be an instant success. Expansive investments were made including the import of technology and professional expertise from abroad.3. Prince. more comprehensive range of products and technical know-how became available to CBL.

2. To identify the effects on Brand Extension on it Variety.This is research is good way for the customer to express their views and opinion about the LU (Bakeri) Biscuits and its different tastes and flavors.5 OBJECTIVES: 1. To Determine the impact of Brand Name on FMCG Product (Biscuit). 3. 7. 4. 1. Customer can see recommend the main organize (LU) to give attention to their favorite brand. To study the effect of Brand Extension on FMCG product Sales especially biscuit. To determine the effect of advertisement on Brand Extension and consumer attention towards specific variety. 1.3 Benefits to the Retailer/Wholesalers This research will also be beneficial for the retailer/ wholesaler in the research conducted area where they can order as per their demand and liking of the gender. To study the Brand Extension on Brand Name of the same FMCG Product. 6. 1. 8. To find the consumption pattern of the consumer after Brand Extension on a FMCG Product. 5. To study the effect of brand extension on the mother brand.6 HYPOTHESES: Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Familiarity HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Familiarity Page 11 of 170 . To study the effect of Brand Extension on consumer buying behavior of FMCG Products.4. Their shelves will not be occupied by the unnecessary items.

HA: There is An Association between Area of residence and Competitors’ knowhow. HA: There is An Association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow. HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Attraction. HA: There is An Association between Gender and Brand Taste. Ho: There is No Association between Qualification and Competitors’ knowhow. HA: There is An Association between Gender and Brand Attraction. Ho: There is No Association between Area of residence and Competitors’ knowhow. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Brand Taste. HA: There is An Association between Qualification and Competitors’ knowhow.Ho: There is No Association between Qualification and Brand Familiarity HA: There is An Association between Qualification and Brand Familiarity Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Taste. Page 12 of 170 . HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Taste. Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Attraction. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Brand Attraction. Ho: There is No Association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.

Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor. Page 13 of 170 . Ho: There is No Association between Area and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. Ho: There is No Association between Age and Product Availability. HA: There is An Association between Area and Product Availability. Ho: There is No Association between Area and Product Availability. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. HA: There is An Association between Profession and Product Availability. HA: There is An Association between Age and Product Availability.Ho: There is No Association between Profession and Brand Attraction. HA: There is An Association between Area and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. HA: There is An Association between Profession and Brand Attraction. Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. Ho: There is No Association between Profession and Product Availability.

Page 14 of 170 . HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).Ho: There is No Association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to Taste. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to Taste. HA: There is An Association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.

Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brands of LU HA: Respondent agrees that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have difference from the existing brands of LU Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU. Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). Page 15 of 170 . HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). HA: Respondent agrees that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste).Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste). Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste). Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).

Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product. HA: Respondent agrees agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.

1.7

LIMITATIONS:
1. Due to allocated time of a thesis researcher have to work within two months time. 2. Specific Area (Defence view, Near Iqra University) 3. Research will conduct interview to 100 customers (50 boys and 50 girls) 4. Research outcomes will only indicate the effect of brand extensions in Rural Area of Pakistan.

CHAPTER - 2
LITERATURE REVIEW:
BRAND AND BRAND EXTENSION

Page 16 of 170

2.1

WHAT IS A BRAND?
Kotler and Armstrong, 2007; Jalees, 2008) has defined brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, design or a combination of these attributes used by the firms for identifying their products and to differentiate the competitor’s brands. Another important aspect of brand is that it helps consumers in identifying the manufacturers.

According to (American Marketing Association, 2007; Jalees, 2008) a brand is: "A name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition."

(Kotler and Keller, 2006; Jalees, 2008) define a brand as “a product or service that adds dimensions that differentiate it in some way from other products and services designed to satisfy the same need”. The brand is seen in this context as an identifier.

(Ambler and Styles, 1996; Sayama, 2006) argue that a brand is more than just a product, and that it is a combination of all elements of the marketing mix. In line with (Ambler’s, 1992; Sayama, 2006) holistic view that defines a brand as “the promise of the bundles of attributes that someone buys and that provides satisfaction; all elements of the brand are taken into consideration; and these include the marketing mix and all the brand’s product lines.

(Kotler and Keller, 2006; Sayama, 2006) define a brand as “a product or service that adds dimensions that differentiate it in some way from other products and services designed to satisfy the same need”. The brand is seen in this context as an identifier.

Page 17 of 170

“A name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, that is intended to identify the goods and services of one business or group of businesses and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Bennett, 1995; Rubini, 2010).

2.1.1 Components of a Brand
Essentially a brand can convey up to six levels of meaning as per the study of “The Indian Institute of Planning and Management, New Delhi (Leverage of Mother Brand and Brand Extension, 1995)

2.1.1.1 Attributes: A brand first brings to mind certain attributes. Kellogg’s suggest high quality, nutritional value, value for money etc.

2.1.1.2 Benefits: A brand is more than a set of attributes since customers
are not buying attributes. They are buying benefits. Attributes need to be

translated into functional and / or emotional attributes. The attributes of nutritional value for Kellogg’s translate into the functional benefit of a healthy meal.

2.1.1.3 Values: The brand also says something about the producer’s values.
Kellogg’s stands for best quality concern for customers.

2.1.1.4 Culture: The brand may represent a certain culture. Kellogg’s stand
for American culture, which is synonymous with organized, efficient and high quality.

2.1.1.5 Personality: The brand can also project a certain culture Kellogg’s
Chocos brand relates to kids and suggests a fun loving personality.

Page 18 of 170

easy to pronounce and spell.2 Meaningful: Nike in Greek means “victory”. for example.2. that is much more memorable an easy to pronounce than Booji.2.2 BRAND NAME: The very first important feature for a brand is the brand name.1. 2. 2010).6 User: The brand suggests the kind of consumer who uses the product Kellogg’s is targeted towards growing children and young adults and essentially towards woman who buy the product.4 Transferable: it refers to the peculiarity of the name to well represent new products or to introduce them to new markets. Rubini. 2. for example.2.2.1. Puma. 2. 2. Rubini. 2010) detected that there are six main criteria to follow for choosing a brand name.2.2. Think Lotto. 2006. (Kotler.1 Memorable: the name has to be short. or Feiyue. is a name so universal and catchy that can serve for multipurpose branding. how it looks and how it sounds.5 Adaptable: whereas Nike has created a “brand-in-brand” by Page 19 of 170 .3 Likeable: it relates to the aesthetics of the name. The name of the brand has to be easy to recognized and recall in any situation and language. a very strong and meaningful name for a leader company in sport industry (Parker Jones. 2009. 2. a brand name has to be: 2.

Rubini. but for the other two. A logo must be distinctive and unique. 2010). the brand logo plays a crucial role in a company success as it is the visual representation of the corporate identity (De Pelsmacker et al. Adidas Performance and Adidas Style. 2005. 2. The original logo was then used only for the product-line Adidas Originals. 2010) Page 20 of 170 . leaving the same brand name for all of them. Try to think how often hankies are replaced by the word Kleenex. Adidas characteristic feature.. Rubini. (Williams.6 Protectable: it does not refer to the legal aspects of trademarks. Adidas subdivided its brand in three product-lines.3 BRAND LOGO: It was 1971 when for $35 Carolyn Davidson designed one of the most successful logos of all time for the once-so-called Blue Ribbon Sports Inc.introducing the line AJ (Air Jordan). Moreover. or the introduction in common jargon of the verb “to google” instead of “to browse”. they have created new logos exploiting the concept of the three stripes. the Greek Goddess of Victory. 2001. Then in 1995 the logo was registered as trademark and it has contributed to worldwide success of the company. The logo was inspired by the wings of the statue of the Nike. products from diverse product-lines are wrapped in different layout colors packaging. 2. but the actual possibility that a brand becomes synonymous of a product (or service). (Logo Blog 2010). but adding the product-line name as a suffix. As the brand name.2.

2.3 Black and white: a company logo should work also in black and white and it has to be recognizable because the shape and not the colors.3. font size.1 Company reflection: a logo should reflect the company business. 2. Also. border line. a logo must be recognizable if its shape is mirrored. 2.2 Simplicity: an efficient logo is simple.4 Resizing: a logo is efficient when it is understandable when resized or inverted.e. A company should be able to resize its logo.3. and still the logo must be clear.3. not be inspired or even similar to the one of its competitors.tells us that there are several rules to follow during the design of a logo. A logo that cannot be distinguished whereas painted with different tones is a failure.3. 2.5 Balance: with balance is meant the process to design a logo where everything works in harmony and there is not a single aspect of the logo (i. and so on) that suffocates the others Page 21 of 170 . colors. five are the most important: 2. for example in order to print it on business cards.3. it is important to avoid logos with many details.

5 BRAND LAYOUT AND PRODUCT PACKAGING: In addition to names. slogans should be important for the customer. Therefore. Nike is complimented by its mission of “bringing inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world” (Logo Blog 2010). A slogan also has the function of a brief explanation. 2010). Briefly. Rubini. To do that. There is no need to read the brand name to recognize the product. or definition. Rubini. 2009. call immediately to our mind a particular brand. it has to be conceived as part of long-term strategy or. 2006. Moreover. to remember but also to distinguish among the others. the slogan should summarize the company‟s identity (De Pelsmackeret al. for example. Al.4 BRAND SLOGAN: If the “swoosh” has become one of the most recognized symbols in the world and it can be described as “simple. of “what the brand is and what makes it special” (Kotler et. Rubini. packaging can be considered as part of Page 22 of 170 . 2001. Rubini. According to (Blynthe. or basically any bottle containing famous liquors or perfumes. timeless. 2010. through its “Just Do It!” slogan. company must avoid slogans too common or familiar too already existing ones. shapes and colors. or the combinations of those. The slogan has to be easy to catch. fluid and fast”. 2010). logos and slogans. for example. 2010). 15 2.Nike logo history (Logo Blog 2010). there are other integrated components that arouse emotions and evoke the uniqueness of a brand. 2. in other words. Particular layouts. Let‟s picture the particular and unique shape of the bottle of Coca Cola.

These associations represent what the brand stands for and imply a promise to customers from the organization members (Aaker. we can assert that brands are meant fundamentally to differentiate goods (or services) produced by a firm from the ones of the competitors. The consumer will once more trust the brand that has respected all his/her expectation (or even more) and he/she will not take the risk to purchase a different product. To resume what was already mentioned before. 2003) considers that brand identity is something that exists in the minds and hearts of the consumers when they hear the name of the brand. In fact. Successful brands have understood that packaging is not only meant for contain and protect the product. From the consumer point of view. he/she will easily choose the same brand for further purchases.6 BRAND IDENTITY: Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain. 1999. trustworthiness. Page 23 of 170 . Järlhem.the product. Rubini. 2003. if a customer is fully satisfied with a certain product. He further adds that it is the identity of the brand which provides the real strength to the business. 2. brands must be extremely distinguishable. but it can also market it. starting from the selection of the colors used. For that reason. The brand in his/her head transmits quality. satisfaction to expectation. strong and reliable brand means tranquility. 2010). Mihailescu. (McClendon.

“A richer brand identity is a more accurate reflection of the brand. would be the pilot test interview with the consumer is the best possible method to avoid a trial and error way of branding. Järlhem. Mihailescu. He supposes that the particular set of brand elements is blended in a unique way to establish how the brand will be perceived in the market place. It is the visual link between the company and the consumer. We believe that one way of finding out what the elements the extended brand would need in order to mediate with the market. 2003). According to (Kapferer.word taglines or an identity limited to attributes will simply not be accurate” (Aaker. line or service. Taking into consideration that the brand Page 24 of 170 . we can say that brand identity represents the public image of a product. it is critical for each business to understand that the attributes of a brand represent the indispensable elements. Järlhem. 2001. 2000. Just as aperson cannot be described in one or two words. we believe. 2003). Mihailescu. brand associations and brand personality. Brand identity includes brand names. Järlhem. (Aaker. Not all brand managers are aware of this. the marketers who might tailor some elements to match it with the core brand personality propose the strategic brand personality in reality. Three.After studying the related literature. 2000. 2003) considers that the identity of a brand represents what the brand stands for. neither can a brand. Mihailescu. logos. In contrast. Brand identity is identified as a brand’s DNA configuration. positioning.

knowledge and the most important: it takes time. it must comprise and reflect the values and cultures of the entire organization. on which the relationship between the company and the customer is based on. yet both are often extremely helpful strategically as well as tactically (Aaker. And lastly. customer concern should dominate the strategy of the business. It is a consequence of trust. Mihailescu. a smart player in the market cannot afford to lose the trust of a customer. Järlhem. he emphasizes in his picture that “the extended identity provides a home for constructs that help the brand move beyond attributes.Therefore. The direct result of good communication between a company and a customer is the brand loyalty. 2005). 2003). In particular. That is why many companies are investing significant amounts of money into both products and brand management.identity is inspirational. The market for these assets exists. and therefore their value can be easily assessed. This communication is not one-way. It takes money. Company which owns the brand “enjoys” the benefits not available to companies which do not own it. Consequently. brand personality and symbols normally fail to make the cut when a terse brand position is developed. Jokanovid. Trust building requires longterm concentration. acquires a good communication tool. Losing the trust costs a lot more. net present value of all future net earnings from the brand (Yates. a brand becomes a company's most important asset. One of them is that a company. 2000. But what is the value Page 25 of 170 . In addition. This means that enterprises are good “communicators” only if they are good listeners of what customers have to say. 1999. All other assets within the company have some value for the company as well. through brand. Moreover. patience. successful brands are the outcome of good communication.

These tests are normally performed early in the development process. 2004 ). Dahlberg. 1998. (According to Keller. suggest two approaches to the definition and measurement of brand equity. not just sales. a financial evaluation and the consumer-based approach. having a better understanding of needs. market share and short-term profits. since due diligence is a critical step towards reaching a correct investment decision. and preferences of consumers to create marketing programs that complete and even go beyond consumer expectations. can provide a firm with a strong competitive advantage. Dahlberg. Firstly. 2. The brand equity concept can cause confusion. When brand equity is tested it is usually performed by consumer tests such as concept and/or product tests to investigate brand equity related criteria. brand equity tests provide managers with an indication of consumer acceptance and a quantitative trial potential. as the distinction is not always clear.of the brand. and linking associations. image. the brand manager’s task in the process is to maximize profits and brand equity. In addition. Page 26 of 170 . The financial evaluation focus on the monetary value of the brand the consumer-based approach focus on the brand itself meaning how the consumer values the brand. Kulluvaara.7 BRAND EQUITY: (Ambler and Styles. Tornberg. Tornberg. creating a brand with high equity by building awareness. 2004). strong brands will also rise above other brands. 1997. wants. Furthermore. Kulluvaara. Brand equity is essentially described as the store of profits to be realized at a later date. and how can it be determined? This question is becoming more important when we come to a due-diligence process during the mergers and acquisitions.

name awareness. Jalees. Jalees. 2008). 1988. a powerful brand means high brand equity that helps in achieving ‘higher brand loyalty. Nevertheless. 2008) are of the opinion that brand equity could be measured from two perspectives. perceived brand quality and positive associations. demands a need for a more practical experience and comparative research to judge and validate the usefulness of brand evaluation methods (Farquhar. therefore. The role of brands is now far beyond product differentiation or competing for Page 27 of 170 . 2008). 1990. The financial evaluation approach is related to the monetary value of the brand. Jalees. perceived quality. (Kotler and Armstrong. it should be carefully preserved by adopting strategies that would help in maintaining or improving brand awareness. 1997. The brand equity concept can also cause confusion. 1996. Jalees. Importance of brand equity. and the consumer-based approach focuses on the brand itself that is how much value the consumers give to the brand. 2008). Brand is an important equity. Brand equity is also considered as an accumulated profit that could be realized at a future date. 2008) were of the opinion that measuring brand equity is a tedious job. One is “financial evaluation approach” and the other is “consumer-based approach”. Jalees. because of the difficulty in measuring it. resulting in a profit to be realized at a future date (Wood 2000. Some of the major benefits of brand equity are brand awareness and consumer loyalty which helps in reducing marketing costs.Brand equity is a relationship between customers and brands. The recent merger and acquisition trend has also increased the importance of measuring brand equity (Tauber. (Ambler and Styles. and strong brand associations’.

and extensions could positively influence brand's equity. Jalees. Consumers tend to choose those brands that have strong brand equity. Strong brands are a major source of differentiation and extending the same towards a specific product category is easier. Research shows a two way relationship between brand equity and extension. and preferences of consumers than the brands that are not competitive. 2008). and is vulnerable to competitors. Investment and brand equity both have a limited life. since last one decade. They are accumulated annuities which the firm can acquire from its balance sheet.market share. 1995. Brand equity cycle is comprised of growth. and linking associations’ (Keller. A brand's equity could influence the success of extensions. Firms could have a strong competitive edge over competitors. Jalees. Brand equity. has remained popular for attracting new market segments (Pitta & Katsanis. 2008). Thus stronger brands would help in creating effective marketing programs that could go beyond consumer expectations. A stronger brand would always have a better understanding of needs. Organizational actions have a direct bearing on the brand equity. image. if they could create brand equity ‘through building awareness. Jalees. 2008). Successful brand allows firms to demand high prices and are a source of barrier which makes it difficult for consumers to switch to other brands. This phenomenon of brand equity has coincided with the newly emerged but equally popular phenomenon of brand extension (Ambler & Styles 1997. Page 28 of 170 . wants. Brand position of a firm is strongly dependent on the positive image of brands. The result is that highly valued brand extensions are more successful. 1998. reinforcement or decay.

2008). Jalees. Jalees. It has been found that one of the strongest motivating factors for inducing trial purchase is established brand name. 2008). (Keller. Some of the brand equity definitions are based on strategic marketing perspective and others on financial theory perspective (Kapoor. and brand awareness achieved by advertising (Aaker. The studies have suggested that the customers are more loyal to stronger brands than weaker Page 29 of 170 . 2008). The marketing cost at introduction stage is generally higher as the awareness is low. (Pitta & Katsanis . Firms with strong “brand equity” have two advantages at the introduction stage of new brand. and it would also support a higher price.Strong brand equity also helps in reducing the introduction cost of new brands. 2008). Keller. packaging. 2005. Aaker's definition is: "Brand equity is a set of assets / liabilities associated with a brand such as name awareness. and associations that are linked to the brand that add/subtract value to the product or service being offered" (Aaker. predictors’ variables such as “familiarity with the brand name”. 1993. Jalees. The firm could use above definitions of brand equity for developing long term growth-strategy. Jalees.1995. Jalees. 1990. Jalees. perceived quality. could be attributed as customer-based brand equity: "The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”. therefore. 2008). Jalees. 1993. resulting in increased profitability (Aaker. 2008) definition of brand equity is based on customers' perceptions of the brand. loyal customers. 2008). For example. 1990. and “level of promotion” may influence “trial purchase” more strongly as compared to determinants such as distribution. 1996. Marketing costs at this stage will decline considerably. Retaining customers is more cost efficient than attracting new customers.

we talk about its equity. as the brand equity is fundamentally related to intangible values. Jalees. 2010). 1992. it is quite impossible to determinate logically the assessment of Nike as a brand. But what is brand equity and how to determinate it? Whereas it is possible to quantify the total value of Nike as a corporation. 2008). When we talk about brand value. 2009. Rubini. 2. as it is determinate by the sum of the market values of its assets (liabilities plus owner‟s equity).brands. retention of loyal customer is easier than non-loyal customer (Aaker.179 million (Inter brand. 2010) Nike in 2009 occupied the 26th place in the global brand ranking chart and its brand value was worth $13. Thus. Rubini.8 BRAND EQUITY AND BRAND LOYALTY: “Brand equity is a set of assets linked to a brand´s name and symbol the adds to the value provided by a product to a firm and/or that firm´s customer” (Aaker 1996. Page 30 of 170 .

In terms of mere profit. 1995. 28 Brand loyalty is probably the most significant element in indicating the worth of brand equity. when a customer has been engaged purely emotionally. 2010. But also if we utilize as example a niche brand. This aspect is called Price Premium. However. they spot out by having the highest and strongest loyalties. brand loyalty is a more sophisticated and emotional process than a simple payment. as Walsh. and that are more favorable to price increases. the connection within him/her and the brand become so intimate that transcends material satisfaction. Rubini. brand loyalty is absolutely crucial for the survival of the brand itself. brand loyalty can be translated as the willingness of customers to pay higher prices for the same type of product. (Davis. If we think about market leaders as Nike and Adidas. 2010) has noted that loyal customers can even pay around 20 – 25 per cent higher prices compared to competing brands product. Brand loyalty is a measurement of how often a customer is disposed to purchase a product (or to utilize a service) from the same brand when buying from the same Page 31 of 170 . Rubini. 2010). in this case.Brand Equity Model According to Brandt and Johnson (Nworah.

According to (Pitta and Katsanis. Jokanovid. 2005) brand equity is a subject of growth and reinforcement. We all agree that loyalty consists in the repeated purchase of a product of the same brand. The attitudinal loyalty is when the customer keeps buying the same brand despite increasing price. availability. he/she refuses to purchase different brands where the favorite is not available. The attitudinal loyal customer renounces the purchase rather than “betray” his/her favorite brand. A behavioral loyalty occurs when the purchase is unconscious and mechanical. Therefore. eventually. the assignment of the brand manager is to recognize the brand’s “top form” and to undertake all the necessary actions to keep it there as long as possible. This process can come from either a conscious or unconscious decision. for example. 2. dictated by habits. The decision of buying continuously a determinate brand is pure causality. 1995. and assault by competitors. One of the intentioned actions of a manager which can cause the brand to decay is both successful and Page 32 of 170 . Brand loyalty can be seen as a behavior or as an attitude. or decay. The same refers to the brand associated equity. or it can be harmed by intentioned actions of a management. The brand loyalty stops in case one element changes and the customer buys a different product. and especially. products and their brands have their life cycles which can more or less overlap. and so on. price.9 BRAND EQUITY’S LIFE AND BRAND DILUTION: Companies. This means that brand will have both its high point and its “top form” and will enter the process of decay.product (or service) class.

Jokanovid. emerging for certain types of brand extensions in just a few situations. Jokanovid. In contrast..e. 1127 (Mermin.Federal Dilution Trade Act. through decreasing the positive perception consumers have about the family brand (Loken and John. Many private equity deals and merger and acquisition transactions account for brand equity. 2005). repeated number of brand extensions and unsuccessful brand extensions) can cause total “extinction” of the brand equity. the risk of brand name dilution appears to be greater for brand extensions that are perceived to be moderately different from the parent brand. 2.10 BRAND DUE DILIGENCE: Companies’ value depends largely on the brand value. 74). 1993. 1990. The second reason for decay of brands and the associated brand equity can be repeated cycles of successful brand extensions. The term “dilution” refers to the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services. 217). Moreover. 2005 p. Findings provide the first indication that brand extensions can dilute brand names. regardless of the presence or absence of: (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties. 1993. and (2) likelihood of confusion. 2005 p. Jokanovid. 2000. Jokanovid. regardless of its success at one point in time (Gibson. 2005). First. Jokanovid. 1995. Decay occurs since extensions are causing the dilution of the parent brand (Loken and John. Combination of the two above mentioned factors (i. sec. brand extensions perceived to be clearly different from originator carry a moderate degree of risk (Loken and John. B1). 1993. data suggest that dilution is a complex phenomenon. The main reason is Page 33 of 170 .unsuccessful brand extensions. mistake or deception” . 2005 p.

II. Market review and the risk analysis of a business in order to examine the business environment of the company. By using this tool companies are able to identify what the brand's operating environment. needs to be sure that the price is close to the real value of the brand. The demand for this tool is very high since the number of private equity and merger and acquisition deals is increasing. which were completed. show that wrong valuation of a brand can be harmful and expensive for both parties in the transaction. One of the tools. to determine the platform for brand's success in the future. licensing. That is why consulting firms. Page 34 of 170 . In this way. is Brand Due Diligence (TM Haigh. Jokanovid. industry profile is created in order to see how it is affected by natural. Jokanovid. Dealer. any brand extension. as well as investment decision. 2002. social. Many equity deals. 2005). which need to be enhanced in order to assure the success of a brand in the future. selling or sharing impacts the brand analysis. 2002. political. on the other end. brand managers also set a monitoring tool. Brand Due Diligence process is a five-step approach (Haigh. Undertaking of comprehensive legal and risk analysis aimed to determine whether all brands are registered and properly protected. face an extremely demanding assignment. and to determine factors. which are becoming the prerequisite for good valuation. which had been developing tools for brand valuation. and it will provide a high rate of return. Phases of the process are as follows: I. In this way. 2005). In addition.that investors must make sure that their investment is adequate.

It is also extremely important to identify the business cycle of both the business and the market. The purpose of this stage is to identify the areas of competitive advantage and disadvantages of the brand. After qualifying and quantifying all these factors. the response to environmental changes. pricing strategy. An analyst has to take into account all relevant factors. Then the market strategy of the competitors needs to be examined. Furthermore.economical and other factors. V. There are several different areas to be examined: product distribution channels. and to determine the stage of the market development. the contingency plans for product or service malfunctioning and environmental problems. The final report should encompass the drives of brand loyalty and alternative scenarios for growth. If the brand is the leader in the market. one is able to evaluate the success of the current brand management. Unless brand management is strong and comprehensive. the analyst needs to map a market scene and to identify the followers and challengers. and whether its strategy is understood. Page 35 of 170 . Competitor review and risk analysis. Porter’s five forces model can be a useful tool. Brand image and risk analysis includes: customer target profile. III. the brand equity will be devalued. analysis is used to identify whether other companies and the market believe that a company is a leader. IV. innovations. brand strength. Branded business review and risk analysis.

11 CUSTOMER BASED BRAND EQUITY: According to (Keller. (3) Extraction of the right brand responses. This characteristic of a product is its intrinsic facet. imagery. judgment. The other building element. or the ability to satisfy customers’ needs. are depth and breadth of brand awareness (Keller. Keller introduces six building blocks which are part of the Customer Based Brand Equity pyramid. Consumer is aware of the brand existence if he/she is able to recall and to recognize the brand. feelings and resonance. 2001. Brand meaning needs favorable. is developed from the extrinsic property of a product itself and it is connected to the possibility that the product will satisfy customer's psychological and social needs. Page 36 of 170 . those building blocks are: salience. brand imagery. 2001.2. Jokanovid. 2001. and (4) Building of appropriate brand relationships with customers. Brand performance as one of the building blocks refers to the basic purpose of the product itself. Jokanovid. The next step is the brand meaning which is divided into brand's performance and brand imagery. functionality. Jokanovid. 2005). strong and unique associations (Keller. 2005) companies can develop strong brands only if the brand development process includes the following steps: (1) Establishment of proper brand identity. according to Keller. The main criteria for brand identity. Establishment of brand identity is based on the brand salience which refers to brand awareness. (2) Creation of the appropriate brand meaning. 2005). performance.

12 CORPORATE BRANDS: Brand literature separates the following types of brands: a corporate brand. Jokanovid. 2005) when brands are managed separately and independently. having the corporate brand. Jokanovid. instead of number of individual product brands. 2005). brand relationship is defined as the relationship between the customer and brand. and it is related to personal identification of the customer with the brand. 2005). Therefore. 2001. both existing ones and those that are new to the market (Siburian. Jokanovid. Jokanovid.The third step. is more rational from the company’s point of view. overall resources allocation among brands may be less than optimal. Page 37 of 170 . Brand judgment is the combination of brand imagery and brand performance in the minds of the consumers. The positive image of a strong company usually extends to credibility of the products sold under the company’s brand. Brand resonance as a building block of brand relationship is defined as the depth of the psychological bond between the customer and the brand which results in loyalty. Lastly. Corporate brand is defined at the level of the company. i. Criteria are the intense and active loyalty (Keller. Brand responses lead to the positive and accessible reactions of consumers. 2005). 2001. brand responses step is defined as the way customers respond to a brand. 1996. Responses are divided into brand feelings and brand judgments. or at an ad hoc basis. 2004.e. a portfolio of product brands and a product brand. or in other words cohesive brand portfolio. Brand feelings are customers’ emotional reactions to the social currency brand evokes (Keller. 2. According to (Aaker.

The corporate brands. Heritage helps the brand reappear even after the crises. and the products along with their brands have regular life cycle. The main prerequisite for successful corporate branding strategies is that corporate brand has to provide the sincerity which will assure potential buyer that the product will satisfy her/his needs on physical. Corporate brand can Page 38 of 170 . Nevertheless. 2005). The first difference is in the longevity. number and credibility of the organizational associations are larger in case of corporate associations. Corporate brand is permanently tied to both organizations and other brands of the company: product brands. the power. The main distinction between the product brand and its “umbrella” (corporate) brand(s) is that once the product brand is established. In this sense. The main differences between the corporate brand and the product brand will be summarized in the following section. product brands along with products might appear and disappear. which are much “deeper” than the roots of the product brand. At the same time. 2004.Corporate brand is defined primarily by organizational associations (Aaker. it begins its life in the eyes of customers independent of the organization which created it. It is extremely important to notice that organizational associations are equally important for both product and corporate brands. on the other hand. That is why the corporate brands can be identified as “endorsers” before the product brand in question “begin to have a life on their own”. Jokanovid. “Heritage” of the corporate brand is the basis for its success and “everlasting life”. 2005). Jokanovid. have roots. emotional and all other levels. corporate brand has to provide the valued relationship with the respected company (Aaker. 2004.

2. Mihailescu. a combination of successful organizational heritage and injection of the energy of the new brand is the right solution to the problem (Aaker. which can be useful to many brands. 2003) said. (Aaker. And. In these cases. Corporate brands with a long successful history can be perceived as reliable. as (Hawkins et al. Second. 2002. see. Mihailescu. 2004. As a formal definition of brand personality.” He adds that “a brand without personality has trouble gaining awareness and developing a relationship with customers. "while (Larson. 1997. Mihailescu. a brand personality can help suggest brand-customer relationships such as friend. taste or touch a certain product belonging to a specific brand name. brand personality stimulates consideration of constructs such as energy and youthfulness. “First. a personality can make the brand interesting and memorable. each consumer will purchase the respective product with the personalities that match the most of his/her personalities.13 BRAND PERSONALITY: Looking at the day-to-day life and the reasons that lie behind our choices. which can be different than the one of the product brand. we can see that each product has different personalities from the car we drive to the beer we drink. 2003) believes that brand personality is the first reaction people have to a brand when they hear. This means that everything has its distinct personalities that appear to us differently in different situations. Järlhem. 2003) considers that brand personality is "the set of human characteristics associated with a brand. Järlhem. Third. Järlhem. high quality but at the same time as deja vu: boring and outdated. In detail how brand personality can create differentiation on the market. Jokanovid. 2005). party Page 39 of 170 .provide a message. 2001.

companion or advisor.” He concludes that “with the personality metaphor in place, relationship development becomes clearer and more motivating.” (Aaker, 1997; Järlhem, Mihailescu, 2003).

2.14 BRAND AWARENESS:
Brand awareness is defined as a rudimentary level of brand knowledge involving, at the least, recognition of the brand name. Awareness represents the lowest end of a continuum of brand knowledge that ranges from simple recognition of the brand name to a highly developed cognitive structure based on detailed information. Recognition is taken here to be the process of perceiving a brand. The distinction between awareness and recognition is a subtle one; the former denoting a

state of knowledge possessed by the consumer and the latter a cognitive process resulting from awareness (Hoyer & Brown, 1990; Khalid, Ahmad, 2002). Brand awareness has a direct impact on the purchase decision of the consumer. According to (Aaker, 1991; Khalid, Ahmad, 2002), there are three levels of brand awareness:

2.14.1

Brand recognition:

It is the ability of consumers to

identify a certain brand amongst other i.e.―aided recall. Aided recall is a situation whereby a person is asked to identify a recognized brand name from a list of brands from the same product class.

2.14.2

Brand recall: This is a situation whereby a consumer is

expected to name a brand in a product class. It is also referred to as ―unaided recall as they are not given any clue from the product class.

2.14.3Top of mind:

This is referred to as the first brand that a

consumer can recall amongst a given class of product or service.

Page 40 of 170

The brand awareness is not the simple acknowledgment of a brand. More the brand is well known, than more consumers are inclined to buy its products. In this sense, the awareness is not just concerning the fact that a brand exists; it includes knowing and recognizing its image and product range. And as we saw brand awareness is the fundamental first step to achieve any brand loyalty.

The first stage of brand awareness is its recognition. The recognition does not involve necessarily the place and the reason a person remembers a brand; it also does not concern the brand merchandise or product range. The recognition of a brand happens especially thanks to the logo. Other efficient tools are layouts and packaging. The concept of brand recognition is strictly linked to brand associations.

The opposite process of brand recognition is called brand recall (or top-of-mind awareness). This situation recurs spontaneously when people think about a certain product, or situation. For example, soft drink equals Coca Cola, or fast food chain equals McDonalds, and so on. However, brand recognition is more efficient as brand recall process does not assurance that people who can recall a brand can at the same time distinguish the very same brand during shopping (De Pelsmacker et al. 2001; Rubini, 2010).

When a brand is the combination of a name and an image, a successful brand is what the consumer believes the closest match to own needs (or desires) through uniqueness (De Chernatony & McDonald, 1998; Rubini, 2010).

Page 41 of 170

The purchase of a product is both mental and physical activity (Sheth & Mittal, 2004; Rubini, 2010). These activities are called behaviors, and their result is a combination of variety determinate by the relation within the type of customer and his/her role.

Concerning the type distinction, a customer is household or business one, and the difference stands in purely money-spending capacity. On the contrary, a customer ‟s role can be buyer, payer and user. The buyer is who mentally decide which product to buy and physically purchase it. The payer is merely who support the purchase, or in other words, the source of the money. At last, the user is the final receiver and who benefits from the product (or the service). All the three roles might coincide, or even just two, and match in the same person. However, in purchasing circumstances, quite often buyer, payer and user are three different people. There are four combinations of roles: I. User is neither a payer nor buyer: A child (user) wears sneakers bought by his/her mother (buyer) who paid them with the husband‟s (payer) credit card. II. User is a payer, but not a buyer: A husband (user and payer) gives his credit card to the wife (buyer) so she can buy him a pair of sneakers. III. User is a buyer, but not a payer: A child (user and buyer) goes to a store and buy his/her favorite pair of sneakers with the father‟s (payer) credit card. IV. User is both buyer and payer: A person (user, buyer and payer) buys himself a pair of sneakers with his/her own credit card.

(Kotler, 2007; Rubini, 2010) has also introduced in the process two other characters:

Page 42 of 170

the initiator and the influencer. The initiator is basically the one who first suggested the idea of a purchase. This could be a mother that sees that her child needs new shoes. The influencer, on the other hand, is who affects the buying decision, or just persuade the purchase; in this case, the influencer can be a friend who has recently bought a brand new pair of sneakers.

2.15 BRAND-SPECIFIC ASSOCIATIONS:
A brand-specific association is defined as an attribute or benefit that differentiates a brand from competing brands (MacInnis & Nakamoto, 1990; Phang, 2004). This means that a brand can be associated with a salient attribute, but this association is per se not strongly associated with competing brands or the product class as a whole (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Phang, 2004).

Since the brand association varies depending on the benefits that are sought within a particular product category, a consumer’ evaluation of a brand extension needs not correspond to evaluation of that brand in its original category.

Three conclusions can be drawn from (Broniarczyk and Alba’, 1994; Phang, 2004) research:

(1)A perceived lack of fit between the product category of the parent brand and the proposed extension category can be overcome if key parent brand associations are salient and relevant in the extension category;

(2) Brand-specific associations allow for brand extensions to unrelated product categories. Brand-specific associations moderate the role of product

Page 43 of 170

category similarity in brand extension judgments; a brand extension is more preferred in an unrelated category that valued its association than in a similar category that does not value its associations; and

(3) The boundaries for the appropriateness of a certain brand extension were determined by knowledge about the incumbent brand.

2.16 BRAND EXTENSION:
Some of the commonly used definitions of brand extensions are as follows:

Using an established name of one product class for entering into another product class. (Aaker, 1991; Jalees, 2008).

Using a successful brand name for launching a new or modified product or line is known as brand extension strategy (Kotler, 1991; Jalees, 2008).

An expansion strategy in which firms use already established and successful brand name for introducing a new or modified product (Kotler & Armstrong, 1990; Jalees, 2008).

Using an established brand name for introducing a new product into product category which is new to the company is known as franchise strategy (Hartman & Price & Duncan, 1990; Jalees, 2008).

Brand extensions allow consumers to draw conclusions and form expectations about the potential performance of a new product (i.e. the brand extension) based on their

Page 44 of 170

existing knowledge about the brand (Keller, 2003; Phang, 2004). Provided that a strong brand name is present, the perceived risk by consumers is substantially reduced when familiarity and knowledge about the parent brand is present (Keller, 2003; Aaker & Keller, 1990; Phang, 2004). Benefits of introducing new products also include different ways of achieving operational efficiencies. A favorable parent brand reduces costs associated with gaining distribution since retailers are more positive to stock and promote a brand extension. Another benefit relates to marketing communications: since brand awareness already exists, promotional activities (including introductory and follow-up advertising and other marketing programs) of a brand extension can be less intensive and thus less costly than those of a totally new brand and product (Keller, 2003; Kapferer, 1997; Phang, 2004). Other efficiencies includes avoiding costly development of brand names, logos, symbols, packages, characters, slogans, etc. (Keller, 2003; Phang, 2004).

(An AC Nielsen’s, 2006; Seyama, 2006) tracking study of new listings in the South African Retail sector indicated that 10 500 new FMCG items were launched in 2005. More than 90% of the launches were extensions, and the balance was made up of new brands. A chronological analysis of the US FMCG market shows that popularity of extensions has been growing with the increasing number of new launches. For the period 1977 to 1984, new launches in the USA numbered 120 to 175 annually; and 60% of these were extensions (Aaker, 1990; Seyama, 2006). In 1991, 16 000 new launches were recorded; and 90% of these were extensions (Rangaswamy, Burke and Oliva, 1993; Seyama, 2006). In 2005, 30000 new launches were listed in the retail sector; and over 90% of them were extensions (ACNielsen’s, 2005; Seyama, 2006).

Page 45 of 170

including horizontal extension. distance extension. 1990. Horizontal extension again could be extended into two categories. One is line extension and other is franchise extension. 2008) states that horizontal brand could be further divided into two categories which are line extension and franchise extensions. and according to them the focus of these brand categories is different. 2004 and Taylor. and A-Class models). 2006).There are many well-documented cases of extensions based on the academic writings of the last 20 years mainly (Aaker. and dandruff hairs. Using an existing brand name and same product class for entering a new market segment comes in the category of line extension. Dove (classic case of a wellunderstood and single-minded brand. This strategy is generally more successful for extensions in the same category as the core product. 2008). Jalees. (Aaker and Keller. Jalees. oily hair. etc. 1995. Other examples of line extensions are shampoos for different segments such as dry hair. Seyama. with well-structured extensions) and Mercedez Benz (with extension of the brand into semi-luxury market through C-. Examples of line extensions are Pepsi and Diet Pepsi. and vertical extension (Pitta and Katsanis. There are several ways for “accomplishing” brand extensions. When a firm uses the existing brand name for extending into a new product in the “same product class or to a product category new to the company” it is considered as horizontal extension. Franchise extension on the other hand is a strategy of using current brand name for Page 46 of 170 . The cases include Disney (arguably the first recorded case of most successful brand extensions). 2004. Virgin (notably through extensions into unrelated categories across a wide spectrum from music to beverages and gyms).

Jalees. 2008).entering a product category that is new to the company (Tauber. Jalees. 2008) If a newly launched product has a strong association with a strong brand then customers would have the comfort of believing that the firm will support its offering. While using umbrella branding that is using the same brand name for several products the firm must ensure that the quality perception of the core products has also been transferred to all the extensions (Erdem. Jalees. Jalees. Extending to unrelated product category is known as “Distance extension”. Firms when launches “related brands” in the same product category with significant difference in price and quality levels they are considered as vertical extension. 2008). 2003. 1981. 1995. (Pita & Katsanism. Extensions are significant in creating awareness of the strong brands especially to the segment that are not purchasing the product. If the new product is of higher quality level with higher pricing it will be called up-scaling. Jalees. 2008). 2003. 2008) The vertical extension has two directions. Distancing is a deliberate effort to increase the perception distance of the core brand and extension product (Kamal. the market is becoming more competitive and therefore more firms are deriving benefits from strong brand equity by brand extension strategies. The cost of “new launch” is increasing. In this case overall quality association of core brand is necessary for success (Pita & Katsanism. 1998. 1995. 1990. Jalees. If the core brand is extended into related or similar category it is considered as “close extension”. On the other hand if the extended brand quality is low and is also of lower pricing it will be known as down scaling (Kamal. 2008). firms Page 47 of 170 . Jalees. 2008). In view of the high costs associated at introduction stage. (Aaker.

The rationale for this strategy is that consumer perception of the positive image (equity) tends to carry over to the extension and hence would be beneficial to new launch (Nkwocha. 2008). basically a tobacco company has successfully ventured into businesses such as record company. 1996. Jalees. and shampoo (Kotler & Armstrong. airline. changing form or color of the product. jeans and cola by using brand extension strategy (Hart & Murphy. These line-extensions are commonly used in dairy products.leverage the equity of established brand name to introduce products in a totally different product category (brand extension). financial services. A brand that has strong awareness can easily be launched in new product category. or changing ingredients or package sizes. 2008). as the level of recognition and acceptance for such product is higher it comes in the category of line extension. If the brand is of high quality. launching a new or modified product in a new category but using successful brand name would be brand-extension (Kotler & Armstrong. but there is a conceptual difference in the definitions of the two. Jalees. observed that although brand extension and line extensions are used interchangeably by some of the authors. Jalees. 1998. 2008). 1996. (Ambler and Styles. 2000. 2008). and if a company has relevant expertise then the Page 48 of 170 . Virgin. vodka. Jalees. However. and if there is resemblance (fit) between the new product category and brand. 1997. When a company launches an existing product and brand name in the same product category with the same name by adding new flavor. 2008). Jalees.

1999. then the degree of acceptance would be higher (Nijssen. 2008).” (Nilson. What they deliberate on is timing (when) and place of brand extension (where) (Keller. experience and common sense. Jalees. 2008). Jalees. The firm must understand the managerial process involved in Page 49 of 170 . 2008). Jalees. Despite this problem. 1993. Jalees. 1995. 2008). Whether a brand could be extended or not is very difficult. Jalees. This resulted in extensive usage of this extension strategy (Pitta & Katsanis. 1996. 2008). therefore. If the customers’ perception is positive toward the suitability. Jalees. Early 1990’s recession forced the firms to follow cost saving strategies so that they could be more competitive. The firms do not deliberate on whether to adopt brand extension strategy or not. Jalees.chances of successful brand extension would be bright (Ambler & Styles. the acceptance of the new brand will be higher for those brands that have strong associations with the brand as compared to reasonably familiar or weak brand (Nijssen. 2008). 2008). One of the problems in brand extensions is that customers might think that the company already offers this product and is not new in the new product form. it could be attributed as a branding strategy (Sharp. 1998. Consumers while evaluating the brand extensions tend to assess its suitability in the relevant product category and the brand’s original category. 1999. If the customers do not find any suitability between original brand category and brand extension category then the brand extension would adversely affect the brand equity of the company (Kim & Lavack. 2008). brand extension is getting extensive coverage in the academic and trade journals and is extensively used as growth strategy. Jalees. 1998. Since last one decade. 1997. such decisions must be made on “combination of market research. therefore.

2010). product in the same market (brand extension) or new. product in a new market (brand stretching). better known as a sunglasses company. Rubini. What made everything possible was not the hybrid shape of the sneakers (a sort of mix between casual and hiking shoes). Rubini. In 2000 Oakley‟s net sales was $363. as it is recognized that strong brand names work on other product in terms of sales (Kotler 2009. 2008).brand extensions and study the factors that contribute to the success of brand extensions (Ambler & Styles. of the brand image) to launch new. its image The success of Oakley‟s brand extension by introducing sneakers as new product of their merchandise range is yet well linked with the concepts of awareness and Page 50 of 170 . 2010). 1997. or modified.5 million and increasing by 41 per cent (Tufts University. Jalees. Oakley introduced their sneakers in the global market in the middle of the 90‟s. but was the well reputation of the brand. or modified. and they have been a huge and profitable success. it is basically the utilization of the existing brand name(but more precisely. When Adidas started to produce deodorants and after-shaves. we take the case sneakers launched by Oakley. 2006. To describe it theoretically. For a more specific and practical example of the “extension/stretching concept”. marketers were well aware of the success of those products. In this case Adidas extended its production outside the strictly sport sphere.

because of its attractive advantages. Ma. Herr. more research has already focused on brand extensions from different aspects. In order to help marketing practitioners make more successful brand extension decisions and judgments. Ma. and enhances the success probability of newproduct introductions with immediate brand name recognition and transferences of positive attitudes toward the familiar brands to the extensions (Farquhar. 2005). it can also be a risky strategy. 2003. 2005). Oakley was a famous. Positioning concerns customers‟ mind. 2005).. 1993. 2002. In addition. Page 51 of 170 . Muroma & Saari. Ma. However. & Fazio. 1990. or a place intended as a physical location. Ma. or even a successful extension. An unsuccessful extension. and is expected to contribute to the brand extension literature by studying this single aspect of the brand extension evaluation process. and the fact that they started to sell other products than glasses did not matter for existing customers as they were before well-aware of Oakley and they trusted the company in the launch of new products as those were sunglasses. This thesis study investigates the relationship between consumer knowledge and fit perceptions in brand extension evaluations. It provides a cheap way to enter a new market with the decreased costs of gaining distribution and the increased efficiencies of promotional expenditures (Grimeet al. 2003. 2005). the strategy of brand extensions is a way to capitalize the equity of brands by providing a new source of revenue (Hem & Iversen. Brand extension has become a popular new product strategy. Loken & John.positioning explained before. could cause damage to the original brand (Keller & Sood. 1996. Positioning does not concern the market share. recognized and well-reputed brand already by selling sunglasses.

Business analysis (financial) 5. Since the failure rate is high when launching a new brand.1 Brand Extension Process According to (Ambler and Styles.16. Idea generation 2. Idea screening 3.2 Key Reasons of Brand Extension: Page 52 of 170 . Therefore it is significant to understand the managerial process involved in the extension. the understanding of what makes a brand extension successful and how the extensions come to market is important. as brand extensions has become a popular growth strategy. Dahlberg. Dahlberg. 2004) An eight-stage framework shown below can be a guide in the new product development process: (Brassington & Pettitt. finding ways to improve the development process and thus increase the chance of success is important. Concept development and testing 4.2. Kulluvaara. Test marketing 7. 2000. Developing brand extensions is seen as a type of new product development. Tornberg. (Ambler & Styles. Tornberg. Tornberg. 2004) 1. Product development (includes branding decisions) 6. Monitoring and evaluating 2. 1997. Dahlberg. Kulluvaara.16. 2004). 1997. Commercialization 8. Kulluvaara.

This is because they (extensions) can leverage off an already existing brand franchise’s high levels of awareness and goodwill. 2006): Extensions are perceived by managers as a low-cost. 1990. Dacin & Smith. 1996. Extensions can satisfy consumers’ desires by providing a wide variety of goods under a single brand. Seyama. Research International (2004) MicroTest found three key reasons for preference by companies to launch extensions. The innovations are not distinctive enough to be able to stand on their own. The products themselves are not good enough. 1994. and extensions are often used as a short-term competitive weapon to increase a brand’s control over limited shelf space. Thus it makes sense to launch them as extensions.The following are the key reasons why managers prefer extensions (Aaker & Keller. (Quelch and Kenny. There is not enough marketing budget for effective launch and continued support of stand-alone new brand. There is growing competition and associated shorter product life cycles. Hem. 2006) argue that costs of wanton line extensions Page 53 of 170 . 1997. low-risk way to meet the needs of various consumer segments. and it is hoped that the strength of the mother brand will aide in overcoming the shortfall. Seyama. Ambler & Styles. 2001. Chernatony & Iversen. Nijssen. 1994.

Brand extension is a way to achieve growth in a cost controlled world. (Taylor. 2006) also points out that extension failure rate may increase due to companies that are overextending their brands. 2. Tornberg. 2004) add that extensions are attractive as the strength of an established brand name may also bring new customers to the brand and create a previously non-existing segment. Seyama. 2004). Kulluvaara. Kulluvaara.16. A new product with the same brand name can penetrate a much larger and spreadable market than a new brand. Kulluvaara. 2001. 2001. (Kim and Lavack. according to (Kapferer. Dahlberg.3 Rationales behind Brand Extensions Brand extensions are. 2001. and that retailers are running out of shelf space. Dahlberg. Tornberg. The rationale behind this lies in the opportunity to capture a growing segment by promoting the positive values associated with the core brand. 2004). 1996. According to (Kapferer. that line extensions rarely expand category demand. which appear distinctively compelling in that segment.are dangerously high. 2006) prediction of 70% failure rate in the next 2-3 years. thus increasing market coverage. 2004). one of the most discussed topics of brand management as it is the most radical of the innovations offered by new-style brand management when it comes to the planning of capitalizing on the value around one single name and create a megabrand. expansion of scope and market adaptability. Dahlberg. 2004. Dahlberg. and this is supported by (ACNielsen’s. Kulluvaara. Seyama. (Kapferer. Tornberg. Page 54 of 170 . 2006. growth is the first reason for extending a brand after all other options involving the core product have been explored. Tornberg. Extending a brand is now an indispensable part of a brand’s life as it represents growth.

Phang. extensions can clarify the brand meaning to consumers and define the boundaries of the domain in which it competes (Keller. The company started out as one product. 2004) (Ambler and Styles. Dahlberg. Consistent with this view are the findings of (Morrin.). or a combination of these. (Randall. The brand was built up by the music products and was extended to include airline services. 2000. 2004) find evidence of beneficial spillover effects of advertising of a child brand. Dahlberg. Phang. 2004). 2003. 1999. for example a brand extension. 1997. a brand extension can enhance the parent brand image (ibid. Kulluvaara. 2003. 2003. Virgin is one company that has used the reputation of their existing brand in new markets. which propose that consumer exposure to brand extensions will increase parent brand awareness in terms of recognition and recall. A third benefit involves brand revitalization—a new or rejuvenated product can be a mean to renew interest and improve attitude towards the parent brand (Keller. Similarly. Kulluvaara. 1997. (Balachander and Ghose. Kapferer. Firstly. Tornberg. a publisher and retailer of popular music. Phang. Phang. by improving the favorability of an existing brand association. cola production and a financial service. The personality of the brand is described as the brand of the people or the small firms that challenges the larger firms who are ripping of people.Brand extensions also have positive spillover effects on the parent brand. Tornberg. adding a new brand association. 2004). 2004). on choice of a parent brand. 2004) propose that a brand extension can be launched as a result of a consumer trend or need that may Page 55 of 170 . Second.

daydreams and thereby try to fulfill these by extending the brand with a new product or product category is a way to keep customers satisfied and loyal to the brand. One of the major advantages of brand extension is that the reputation and image may silently transmit from parent’s brand to the extended brand. Brand extensions provide a minimal cost of branding.be discovered by conducting a market research. Kulluvaara. The parent brand and the brand extension advertisements not only complement each other but the quality of the core brand leads to higher level of acceptance and increase the Page 56 of 170 . by finding out consumers’ wishes. Tornberg. Tornberg. such as economical advantages might also be rationales behind extensions. 1992. thus reducing the risk of failure (Aaker. Dahlberg. 1992. Kulluvaara. desires. 1995. One such example is that of Heinz. 2004) According to (Randall. 2004) further argues that. Kulluvaara. New products draw immediate advantage by entering from a strong positioning that the established brand name provides. 2004). Dahlberg. since name research will not be needed. Tornberg. (Weilbacher. Kulluvaara. nor will extensive advertising costs for new brand name awareness and preference be necessary. Dahlberg. whereas the launch of a new product under the name of an established brand will cost a fraction of that. Other factors. attitudes. 2000. the introduction of a new brand is estimated to cost up to US $1 billion. Tornberg. needs. 2004). The firm after acquiring “Weight Watcher” launched low calories food and got instant recognition and positive brand association. Introduction of a new product with an established brand name can dramatically reduce the investment required and improve the likelihood of its success compared to a new bran launch. (Aaker. Dahlberg.

Tornberg. Dahlberg. Kulluvaara. The rationale behind this is that the usage of a brand across more products lowers the communication investments per sales unit. 1998. Dahlberg. Thus. The sales potential for the new product is. as most of the core brands also possess well-defined brand image. 1989. Kulluvaara. argued by (Buday. 1997. 1989. 2000. Jalees. 2008) Brands with strong reputation can capitalize its name and success by extending it in other categories. 2004) states that the major appeal in extending a brand lies in the economies of scale. 2008). 1995. which sets limits on the amount of money available for advertising and other fixed marketing expenses. The responsiveness of awareness to media spending is higher for brand extensions due to the consumers’ Page 57 of 170 . (Ambler and Styles. 2008) were of the opinion that a core brand's associations with the extended brands are complex and well defined. In agreement with (Buday. 2008) also observed that the degree of acceptance between core and extended brand would be higher if there is a strong association between the two in terms of quality. 1997. Nilson. thus one product will promote the other with the same brand. 2004) conclude that brand extensions decrease the cost to build up awareness by capitalizing on the core brand’s already known reputation. Kulluvaara. The absolute sales potential can be expressed as dollar sales or marginal contribution. (Ambler and Styles.awareness of the brand extension (Pitta& Katsanis 1995. brand extension is more efficient in making more use of the marketing dollars by allowing marketers to reduce budgets and earn a reasonable return on even small-volume products. Jalees. Tornberg. In addition. one of the major guidelines whether to extend a brand or not. Tornberg. 2004). Dahlberg. Jalees. (Pitta and Katsanis. Jalees. According to (Randall.

Dahlberg. according to (Ambler and Styles. The trial rate of a new product with a familiar brand name is higher than for a new brand to the extent that the parent name provides consumer reassurance over and above the merits of the product itself. Some markets are more profitable than others. Kulluvaara. The money to be made varies with the market. either because of the cost of production. it is undeniable that a wellmanaged brand extension generates revenues by selling more products or services. distribution or communication or differences in levels of price competition through the existence of distributor own-brands. Companies with strong brands can also seize the advantage to charge a premium price of about 17 per cent on products. Furthermore. Tornberg. 1989. 2004). and all products are not equally profitable. that the familiarity of an Page 58 of 170 . Tornberg. When it comes to the economical rationales behind brand extension. henceis a great motivator for companies to increase net profit. 1995 and Aaker and Keller. 1990. to allow it to penetrate other markets with a more advantageous profit and cost structure are recognized. Dahlberg. Tornberg. It is desirable to extend a brand if the advantages. (Kapferer. Tornberg. 2001. Furthermore. This is in agreement with the reasoning of (Pitta and Prevel Katsanis. 1997. another rationale for extending the brand is to lower the costs to achieve larger trial levels. Dahlberg. which can be applicable on new products derived from brand extensions (Buday. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. Kulluvaara. Kulluvaara. 2004) further argues that the reason to increase profitability should not be confused with reducing costs. 2004). The reverse is naturally true. 2004).familiarity with the already existing name.

Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. (Ambler and Styles. Tornberg. A brand with a high awareness and a good reputation has an advantage to capitalize on its success that is to maximize the value of a strong brand name by extending it (Randall. advantages to the extension can be provided when it comes to the cross fertilization which advertising of the core brand can bring. 1995. In addition. 1995. The parent brand also gains synergy through the heightened awareness that is generated in brand extension launches. Kulluvaara. 2004). Moreover. Kulluvaara. There is a higher acceptance of extensions from established brand associations such as quality. Dahlberg. Tornberg. 2004) state that the ideal is that a core brand’s associations can contribute a complex. brand extensions can provide positive customer based equity for the Page 59 of 170 . 2004). which increases the awareness of the brand extension. One example is when Heinz acquired Weight Watchers and introduced the Weight Watcher’s line of low calorie food and contributed to instant recognition and positive brand associations to the brand. According to (Pitta and Prevel Katsanis. 2000. and trial. yet well-defined image to an extension as a well established brand usually has a well-defined brand image. Tornberg. Dahlberg.1997. Dahlberg. Tornberg. Kulluvaara. (Pitta and Prevel Katsanis. a great benefit of brand extensions is the instant communication of salient image.established brand name reduces the risk and costs with a new product and enhances initial consumer reaction. 2004) add that there is a higher acceptance of extensions from established brands associations such as quality.

the introduction of a new brand is estimated to cost up to US $1 billion. Dahlberg. 2004). Kulluvaara. 2001. the brand positioning can be strengthened with an increased value of the brand. (Pitta & Prevel Katsanis. Kulluvaara. according to (Kapferer . in terms of enhanced brand image. Tornberg.16. 1995. up-to-date image and widens its appeal by launching new products with the same brand name.4 Successful Brand Extension According to (Randall. to maintain or increase the value of the brand in a constantly changing environment both within the company as well as outside the company. as the profile of the whole brand is lifted (Pitta Prevel & Katsanis. 2004) Also advertising battles based on product specifications can be avoided by competing on the basis of perceived quality and value of the brand. changes in the company’s top management may be a reason for implementing an extension policy. Tornberg. (Ambler & Styles. Kulluvaara. Tornberg. 2. 1995. 1997. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. Tornberg. 2004). Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. Furthermore. 2004). interest. The increased value and image of a brand result in making the whole brand stronger. A brand recaptures its market relevance.core brand and its original products. Dahlberg. 2004) The creation of a mega-brand also increases the bargaining power with distributors and generates greater interest from investors. Extension is particularly necessary for revitalizing longstanding brands or aging local brands to keep up with the market. Another rationale for companies to pursue a brand extension is. A new team can be the source of a different vision that contradicts the old view of the brand marked by the history and origin of the brand that are ever-present in the collective imagination. In cases. Tornberg. Dahlberg. 2000. A new product is a Page 60 of 170 .

1990. Kulluvaara. Kulluvaara. 1998. Kulluvaara. it is tempting for the management to collect the rewards of their investment by extending the brand into another product category. profitability. It has been proven to be important that brands need to satisfy consumers’ functional (quality and reliability) and representational (emotional and symbolic) needs (Grime et al. Tornberg. 2002. 2004). Dahlberg. 2000. Dahlberg. 2004) According to (Grime et al. Tornberg. Kulluvaara. for example by market share. 2004) It is possible to measure extension success in a number of ways. Tornberg. although there do seem to be certain common characteristics. Diamantopoulos & Smith. Dahlberg. 2004). According to (Randall. Dahlberg. Tornberg. 2004). Dahlberg. Dahlberg. 2002. Tornberg. Kulluvaara. Consumer evaluation of a brand extension is often described as a process by which the core brand associations transfer to the extension. Kulluvaara. Several factors of success for brand extensions such as the fit between the brand name and the extension category as well as brand equity associations have been identified (Sattler & Zatloukal. Kulluvaara. 2002. Page 61 of 170 . A key aspect contributing to the success of such strategies is to understand how consumer perceptions towards the brand in the current and new product category are changed by the extension. Dahlberg. (Aaker & Keller.considerable investment and does not come with a guarantee of success. 1998. Tornberg. or number of years the extension has survived on the market (Grime. If the new product is viewed as an investment. there is no single factor that by itself guarantees success. (Glynn & Brodie. 2004). Tornberg.

2006). as they are believed to be a key element in indicating extension and core brand success. brand extension seems to be a risky thing to rely on. When consumers are evaluating an extension they rely on if there is a fit between the core brand and the extension and a fit with the product category and the brand image. Mihailescu. 2004. 2006. Järlhem. Seyama. according to many authors. 1994. 2006) identified one key measure of a good brand extension as its ability to “bring something to the party”. Seyama. Further. 2006. Research (ACNielsen’s. 2003) consider. 1990. (Aaker. 2004. (Chen & Chen. Seyama. that the following criticizing ideas regarding brand extensions Page 62 of 170 . Thus. and (Kotler and Keller. Seyama. 2006) indicates that 7 out of 10 shoppers plan their purchases before going to a groceries store. (Aaker. and that 8 out of 10 shoppers will usually buy their favourite brand in the store. Seyama.2004). 2.16. low marketing costs and low risk. The key benefits of brand extensions are well documented in the Marketing literature by authorities such as (Quelch and Kenny.5 Pros and Cons regarding Brand Extension: However. 2006). 2006). consumer evaluations are considered to be important. 1990. Seyama. in a study performed in Taiwan. 2000. This amplifies the preference by companies for brand extensions as opposed to new brands. and this is driven by the time (and cost) it takes to establish each of the two options in the minds of consumers (Aaker. 2006) as being leverage of consumer knowledge and trust of existing brands. (Aaker and Keller. 2006). Seyama. enhancement of parent brand’s visibility and image. there are moderating variables affecting the relationship between fit and the evaluation of the extension and the core brand.

why do so many businesses use it as part of their core business strategy? We believe that being aware of the side effects of extensions and by taking into consideration the main factors that lead to a healthy. according to (Murphy. Last but not least. Moreover. Mihailescu. 2003). Mihailescu. is to understand the main values that the brand stands for and to develop a well-structured plan of action for the brand’s equity. 1990. if brand extension is such a bad thing. Page 63 of 170 . 1990. line extension is time consuming and for that reason it should be implemented gradually.can be found in the appropriate literature. Järlhem. an extension can create consumer confusion regarding the quality of the new created products. To make this happen these factors will be discussed. After viewing the pros and cons regarding brand extension. the author believes that only by understanding the personalities of the brand can it be decided which are the areas where such attributes can be used. The extended brand is perceived as cannibalizing the parent brand by eating into the total sales of the main brand. successful extension can benefit an organization. 2003). The key factor in brand extension. Nevertheless. remembering that in the end it will allow extension in areas which otherwise would be impossible to penetrate through creating a new brand (Murphy. the first question that comes into our minds is. brand extension is seen as a lazy version of a new brand. Moreover. Järlhem.

such on-going support is expensive. generally the consumer has little interest. 2003) considers that “the process of branding is one whereby a bond is created between the brand and the consumer and. Sustained advertising and promotional investment is therefore required to create this bond and reassure the consumer that the brand proposition will endure. 2003. Second. Mihailescu. First. Third. Järlhem. brand extensions can lead to problems of practical nature. and there might be problems with retailers being unwilling to shelf/store all the different extensions. Mihailescu. at least initially. 2004) mentioned several drawbacks of brand extensions. Phang. Similarly. 2004) suggest that “unsuccessful brand extensions can dilute brand names by diminishing the favorable attitudes that consumers have learned to associate with the family brand name”. 2003). (Loken and John. 1990. brand extensions may obscure the identification of the brand with its original categories. Phang. Järlhem. Mihailescu.” Page 64 of 170 . p. the image of the parent brand can be hurt irrespective of the success or failure of the extension. 1990. in the brand proposition.” When he speaks about expenses. 1990. reducing brand awareness (Morrin. According to (Murphy. for example a large number of extensions might confuse or frustrate customers.(Keller. Järlhem. 79. 2003) does not only mean the cost with creating a new brand concept but also the costs with advertising in order to launch the new brand on the market as well as to support it during its whole life cycle. (Murphy. 1993. highly risky and takes a long time. (Murphy. 1999) and/or diluting the brand meaning. This happens when the attributes of the extension are seen as inconsistent or conflicting with the corresponding attributes of the parent brand. “to develop new brands is extremely expensive.

2008) in similar research found that the possibility of dilution in brand extension cases increases when there are higher degrees of inconsistency between parent brand and extension brand. 2008) in this context found that the brand extension may carry typical attributes of the parent that may be dangerous to the extended brand. this standpoint can have as consequence the disintegration of brand identity and personality. 2003). 1990. By neglecting. (Loken and John. (Ries and Trout. Jalees. Jalees. this perception will also be transformed to the parent brands and hence they would believe that the attributes Page 65 of 170 .The maintenance of the brand’s visual identity is another important factor for the line extension that managers have to take into consideration. (Aaker and Keller. Mihailescu. 2008) endorsing the preceding opinions. Some of the very common risks associated with brand extensions are (1) a high number of brand extensions tend to adversely affect value associated with the brand. 1990. 2008). Jalees. Thus Aaker and Keller were surprised that the respondents’ thought that Crest Chewing Gum. Using equity of a brand to leverage into different product category may be profitable but it has its share of risk as well. 1993. 1996. Jalees. and (2) brand extension that fails to make an impact may dilute the equity of a reputable brand name (Mcarthy. the success to extended brand would be at the expense of parent brand. They found that when consumers’ perception towards brand extension is weak. a brand extension of Crest tooth paste would taste typically like toothpaste or may not be appealing. 1986. stated that even if the brand is used “congruously”. which can in turn seriously harm the value and power of the core brand (Murphy. Järlhem.

1994. if there is inconsistency between the parent and extended brand. and the old and strong perception that Levi’s products are casual living and are of rugged material (Aaker. and (2) for those extensions that have higher degree of “closeness” between parent brands from the consumers’ perspective (Sharp. Srivastava & Rueker. 1990.of the parent’s brand are weak as well. and (2) it is an exploitation strategy. The author of this report noted that almost a fifth of the failures captured in the book were extensions. (Matt Haig. 1993. 2008). 1986. Farquhar. Seyama. (Shocker. 2008). In this context. especially. Failure of extended brand hurts the core brand. 2003. The gravity of cannibalization would be higher for (1) those brand extensions that are more successful in new brand category. it would not only damage corporate associations but would have several other adverse impacts (Ries & Trout. a line of men suiting that was sold separately. the customer did not find any association between Levi tailored Classic. Reputed brand extensions at times fail. Jalees. 2008). in general and specially for increasing the prices (Aaker & Keller. making this category the Page 66 of 170 . 1990. This failure could generate the following adverse feelings for the parent brands: (1) customers may feel that the brand extension is not adding value to the product. Jalees. Loken & Roedder. 2008). Jalees. 1993. Jalees. 2008) Another risk associated with brand extension is the cannibalization effect. If brand extension is not executed properly. Jalees. 1990. 2006) analyzed the 100 biggest branding mistakes of all time in his book “Brand Failures”.

and Pond’s toothpaste. Virgin Cola. Miller Regular beer. 2004. Cosmopolitan yoghurt. and Some extensions are too similar to core brands. and possible failure that can hurt parent brand image (Keller. Haig’s conclusion was that extension failures were caused by Companies’ lack of understanding of what their brands stand for. (Taylor. The extension failures of well-known brands include Harley Davidson perfume. and these results in cannibalization. He asserts that big advertising budgets will not make up for the two mistakes mentioned above. 2003. The main disadvantages of brand extensions are confusion in the market place resulting from overextension of a brand (Quelch and Kenny. Bic underwear. 2006) argues that 1 in every 2 brand extensions fail because of overextensions that result from what he calls “ego-tripping”. but without brand extension’s compelling offering to consumers or sometimes misaligned value proposition that bears no resemblance to the mother brand. Seyama. Seyama. with the disastrous result that brands are extended into irrelevant categories or overstretched.largest of the 8 that were analyzed. and that is fulfillment of management need to leverage strength of a mother brand. 1994. 2006). 2006). Seyama. Page 67 of 170 . Heinz All Natural Cleaning Vinegar. and he cites Miller Regular’s $50 million marketing budget as an example.

The brand was subsequently extended to 50 SKU’s. At least 10 financial products were developed and they targeted a wide range of consumers from students to senior citizens on one hand. The positive effects of perceived fit and quality of the parent brand on consumers’ extension evaluations especially constitute one of the findings Page 68 of 170 . This has been attributed to cannibalization that occurs mainly when extensions are not clearly differentiated from mother brands.17 RELEVANCE OF BRAND EXTENSION SUCCESS FACTORS: Prior research provides valuable insights into the factors that influence brand extension success. Seyama. It was then decided to broaden the brand’s services with an objective to become the financial supermarket. 2. 2006). 2006) firmly believed that the power of a brand is inversely proportional to its scope. There is also compelling evidence that extensions add little incremental growth to their categories (ACNielsen’s. It also lost the top spot to Colgate and has never regained it since.(Ries and Ries. a Procter & Gamble brand. 2005. Seyama. Nijssen. 1999. was at one stage leading American toothpaste with 36% share of the market. Two of the many examples were given in their book “The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding” to make their point: Crest. American Express had 27% market share of America’s financial services in the late 80’s. and from private individuals to business individuals on the other hand. but market share declined to 25%. 1997. 10 years later American Express’s market share was sitting at 18%.

Völckner. also reveal the need to qualify the empirical generalizability of research results. 1994. 2005) established a non significant influence for this variable. 2005) limit their research to three factors. fit between parent and extension categories. Völckner. i. most of these studies investigate the main and interaction effects of a handful of success factors (including fit and parent brand quality). found a significant effect for the number of previous extensions of the parent brand. It is therefore ambiguous whether these variables play an important role in determining how consumers evaluate brand extensions relative to the strong effects of fit and parent brand quality. Sattler. these studies only analyze a small fraction of success factors at one time (usually two to four). However. 2001.e. Völckner. 1990. First. Sattler. 1994. 2005). Völckner. (Aaker and Keller. for example.. Sattler. Völckner. Sattler. Page 69 of 170 . 2005) or positioning of previous brand extensions (Dawar and Anderson. Völckner. as with the studies that investigate the effects of fit and parent brand quality. the quality of the parent brand. and the degree of difficulty in designing and making a product in the extension category (plus the interaction of quality with the fit variable). 2005). Sattler. It is therefore unclear whether the results of these studies generalize to conditions that involve a broad variety of success factors. Empirical studies that focus on other success factors. Second. whereas Smith and Park (1992. Dacin and Smith (1994. Sattler. such as the number of previous brand extensions (Dacin and Smith.most frequently cited and supported by various empirical studies. 2005) and various replications of their study (see Bottomley and Holden. prior studies provide mixed support for the significance of these factors. For example.

2005). 2005). Page 70 of 170 . and Lawson 1991. Milberg. Barone. Völckner. 2005). Sattler. Respondents in prior surveys rated the independent (i. perceived fit) diminishes as other diagnostic cues become available (Klink and Smith 2001.2.. such as Heineken popcorn or Timex bicycles).. Keller and Aaker 1992. for example measured as the perceived quality of the extension) on simple rating scales (see Aaker and Keller 1990.e. Prior studies typically provided the single cue of a brand name and extension product category as the stimulus to be evaluated.g. extensions already introduced on the market. Park.. Boush and Loken 1991. then consumers will evaluate a proposed extension based on available diagnostic cues such as perceived quality of the parent brand or perceived fit between parent brand and extension product. only limited extension attribute information is available to subjects when evaluating hypothetical extensions (Klink and Smith 2001. Bottomley and Doyle 1996. If extension attribute information is lacking. Broniarczyk and Alba 1994. i. Sattler. success of the extension.e. Bottomley and Holden 2001. extensions not introduced in the market. Dacin and Smith 1994. the impact of a single cue (e. Klink and Smith 2001.e. Völckner. Compared with consumers’ evaluations of real brand extensions.. Völckner. Lane 2000. and Rome 2000. However.. Miniard. success factors) and dependent variables (i.18 RESEARCH RESULTS BEYOND THE LAB INTO CONDITIONS WITH REAL EXTENSIONS: The majority of previous studies basically used consumer surveys to investigate consumer evaluations of hypothetical brand extensions (i. Sattler.e.

Völckner. Boush and Loken 1991. Sattler. brands and consumers. Völckner. for instance.g. Bottomley and Doyle 1996. We therefore conduct a latent class analysis to investigate the extent that main and interaction effects of identified success factors differ among consumer segments. Sattler.. Peterson (2001. Völckner. 2005). Milberg. and product categories. and Lawson 1991. Dacin and Smith 1994 (study 1). Peterson (2001. Völckner. Lane 2000. The important issue of consumer heterogeneity has not been analyzed in brand extension research. extension product categories or parent brands may also reduce the scope or generalizability of results. Völckner. Miniard. DeSarbo et al. 2005). 2005) found. Sattler.2. Neglecting consumer heterogeneity can cause misrepresentation of the real effects of certain success factors on consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions (e. Broniarczyk and Alba 1994 (study 1 and 2). Aaker and Keller 1990. 2005) can be generalized across different kinds of product categories. Sattler. For example. Sheinin and Schmitt 1994. it is uncertain whether the effects of fit and quality of the parent brand found in prior work (e.. Most previous research likewise used students as subjects (e. Barone.19 SCOPE OR GENERALIZABILITY OF BRAND EXTENSION: Differences among consumer segments. 2005) emphasized that replications of student based research must be done with non-student subjects Page 71 of 170 . Klink and Smith 2001. Sattler. Sunde and Brodie 1993. 1997. parent brands.g.g. and Rome 2000. Park.. that responses of college students tend to be more homogeneous than those of nonstudent subjects and that the effect sizes derived from students frequently differ from those of non-students. Yet researchers have thus far not focused much attention to generalizations across consumer segments. Bottomley and Doyle 1996. Using a meta-analysis in the general context of social science research. Bottomley and Holden 2001.

Fox. e.20 GENERALIZABILITY ACROSS SUCCESS MEASURES: Previous studies have focused primarily on understanding how consumers evaluate brand extensions. Smith and Park 1992. 1998. Lane and Jacobson.g. To the best of our knowledge. and Bhat. Finally.. quality of the parent brand) on consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions such as perceived quality of the extension. trial or repeat purchase rate. we seek to analyze the relationship between consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions (as measured by the perceived quality of the extension product) and the economic success of extension products.. 1994. Page 72 of 170 . no academic studies have systematically investigated the direct link between consumers’ evaluations of brand extension and the economic success of the extension (such as market share or trial and repeat purchase). Sattler. and Reddy 2001. Völckner. by market share. The financial implications of using brand extensions constitute a complementary research issue that has received relatively little attention. 2.. Swaminathan. Holak.e. Only very few studies investigate the influence of success factors on the economic extension success. for example.before attempting any generalizations. 2005). non-economic success) generalize to the economic success of these brand extensions as measured. We therefore derive our results from students and from non-students and analyze if there are differences in significance or effect sizes. It is therefore ambiguous whether findings based on consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions (i. Given this condition. Reddy.g. Most of them investigated the effects of certain success factors (e. 1995. on market share or market value (Kim and Sullivan. it is unclear if the effects of success factors can be generalized across different kinds of products and parent brands (at least within FMCG) or if there are substantial differences.

The strategy is used to challenge major players in an industry (Branson. Thamaraiselvan. can result from competition from the extensions (Buday 1991. If the company launches a high-quality product by exploiting existing weak brand. Failure of brand extensions may weaken brand equity. and Joiner 1998. Thamaraiselvan. the higher the risk that if a disaster occurs to one of them. 1991. Sivaram. Loken. The chances are high for companies to exploit its high prestige brands to stretch to more remote product categories than brands with inferior reputations (Park. 2003). Cannibalization. 2003).21 CONSUMER EVALUATIONS OF BRAND EXTENSIONS: These researches throw some excellent insights on the different factors affecting consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Thamaraiselvan. and Raj 1999. a decrease in sales in the original category. or positively associate with the original brand (Boush and Loken 1991. 1998. 2003). Thamaraiselvan. Milberg. The more products a company markets under one umbrella brand. and Bhat 1994. Opportunities to create a new brand are also foregone (Aaker. 1990. the effect will spill over to the rest (Sullivan. and Lawson. Keller and Aaker 1992. the brand equity of existing weak brand increases due the positive evaluation of the high quality extended product category (Jun. Sivaram. Thamaraiselvan. Thamaraiselvan. Sivaram. 1990. Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran 1998. Sullivan 1990. Thamaraiselvan. 2003). Sivaram. Sivaram. Page 73 of 170 . 2003). Sometimes the unsuccessful brand extensions create undesirable associations. 2003). Sivaram. Sivaram. Brand equity built in a certain product catgory can also be exploited by licensing the well-known brand name to third parties for use in a related class. 2003). Company can also exploit and overstretch its top quality brands. Thamaraiselvan. 2003). Reddy. Mazumdar. which put the company at a serious risk (Aaker 1990: Lane and Jacobson 1995. Holak. Sivaram. John.2.

. 2000. For example. 2005). Keller. they are more likely to transfer their positive attitudes toward the parent brand to the new extension product. 1996. the strength of this relationship may be moderated by other factors. when consumers have positive attitudes toward a parent brand. 2000. Bridges. one of the widely accepted findings from previous brand extension research is that the consumer perception of fit between a new extension and its parent brand is the most important factor in determining brand extension evaluations (Aaker & Keller. there is evidence showing that a positive consumer mood and brand advertising can improve a consumer’s perception of fit between the original brand and the extension. However. Muroma & Saari. It is generally agreed that when consumers perceive that the extension product is similar to or consistent with the original brand. one of the consumer characteristics. 2002. Ma. 1990. 2005). In other words. & Sood. Even though the consumer fit perception is the most essential and direct factor that influences the consumer’s evaluation of a brand extension. This affects the consumer’s attitude transfer between the original brand and its extension.Consumer evaluations of brand extensions have been investigated in a number of ways. Ma. may have an impact on consumer brand extension evaluations by moderating the effects of consumer perceived fit (Broniarczyk & Alba. Lane. Page 74 of 170 . Zhang & Sood. 2005). thereby increasing the consumer’s evaluation of the extension product (Barone et al. It has also been suggested in previous research that consumer knowledge. a higher level of fit between an extension and the parent brand perceived by consumers will lead to more positive evaluations of the extension by the consumers. Ma. 1994. 2000.

Some evidence of the influence of consumer knowledge on brand extension evaluations has already been found in some empirical research (Muthukrishnan & Weitz. 2003. ‘Generic product knowledge’ contains “general information about classes of product. some recent theoretical research shows that some confusion still remains about consumer knowledge in the brand extension evaluation literature. Consequently. 2003. Grime et al. 2005). 1982. the existence of different Page 75 of 170 . 1984. 2005) distinguishes consumer knowledge between ‘generic product knowledge’ and ‘individual product knowledge’. 2005). 1999. Roux & Boush. 1988. Ma. Ma. (Hastie. However. These studies also propose that consumer knowledge plays its role in brand extension evaluations through the impact on consumer fit perceptions between an extension and its parent brand (Czellar. 2005). Ma. Ma. product evaluations and decisionmaking (Johnson & Russo. some researchers in the brand extension area have suggested that high and low knowledge consumers may also react differently when evaluating a brand extension (Broniarczyk & Alba. 1996. p. Rao & Monroe. There is no consistent way to classify consumer knowledge into different types and levels in the literature. Ma. 2005). for example new product information learning. 72. 2002. 2002. and more empirical studies are needed to focus on this factor (Czellar.. High and low knowledge consumers react differently in a variety of consumer behaviors. Ma. 1987. 1994. Grime et al. consumer knowledge is a very important factor in consumer behaviour research (Alba & Hutchinson.. 1991. 2005). Selnes & Howell. Ma.One of the major consumer characteristics. Thus the focus of this study is to further investigate the effects of consumer knowledge on consumer fit perception between a new extension and its parent brand empirically. 2005). instances exemplifying the products.

Ma. The first six categories are about ‘general product knowledge’. is the same as ‘individual product knowledge’. durability. as suggested by (Brucks. which is named purchasing and decisionmaking procedure. personal product usage (memories of usage experiences). Ma. whereas ‘individual product knowledge’ is specific knowledge about a particular product.types of products. In summary. and purchasing and decision making procedure (knowledge of the purchasing process). Later. it is the procedure knowledge (Brucks. of each product”. brand facts (overall evaluation of a brand). specific attribute evaluations (knowledge of specific criteria used to evaluate an attribute). 1986. this eight-category typology of consumer knowledge is a further classification of ‘generic product knowledge’ and individual product knowledge’. Ma. etc. ‘generic product knowledge’ is general knowledge about the product category. ‘individual product knowledge’ includes “information such as prices. 1986.” On the other hand. general product usage (knowledge of how the product can be used). taste. general attribute evaluation (knowledge of the overall evaluation for an attribute). However. 2005). 1986. Page 76 of 170 . product attributes (knowledge of which attributes are available for evaluating a brand). 2005) proposed an eight-category typology of consumer knowledge which included terminology (knowledge of the meanings of terms used within a domain). and the seventh category. and information about the attributes or dimensions that are relevant and important in making decisions concerning the products. This one is the knowledge of rules for taking action. colour. features. 2005). (Brucks. the brand facts. The only one that cannot be grouped into either ‘generic product knowledge’ or ‘individual product knowledge’ is the last category.

Thamaraiselvan. Thamaraiselvan. 1986. when the measurement of knowledge is discussed. 1990. Ma. There are also other ways to classify consumer knowledge. generally there are two classifications with which they both agree: knowledge of general product and knowledge of particular brand. Sivaram. 2005). (Brucks. Thamaraiselvan. 2005) proposed two different typologies of consumer knowledge. in a data collection method (Flynn & Goldsmith. Page 77 of 170 . Only one study addressed the importance of brand extensions in the services sector (Ruyter and Wetzels. 2005) classify it into subjective and objective knowledge. 2003). Mitchell and Dacin. Ma. Kanwar. Sivaram. 2003).22 FMCG INDUSTRY AND BRAND EXTENSION: The following strong research insights can be observed from the brand extensions literature. 2000. Thus the review of this kind of knowledge classification will be presented in a later CHAPTER. & Olson. For example. This method of knowledge classification usually relates to how to measure consumer knowledge. 2003) included McDonald’s as a service brand but they did not make any analytical distinctions between FMCG and services. Ma. 1990. 1982 and Brucks. Grund. Sivaram.Although (Hastie. 1994. 1996. Only one study compared brand extension judgements between FMCG and durable goods (Broniarczyk and Alba. particularly the knowledge of product category. 2. 1999. 1985. Most number of brand extensions research involved with fast moving consumer goods and durable goods except on one study (Aaker and Keller.

Boush and Loken. deregulation and privatization caused many companies (TATA. Brands serve as cues for triggering image perceptions based on expressive values associated with the company name. 1996. Miniard. Service providers attempt to acquire customer trust on the basis of solidity of their reputation in the market in which they have traditionally been active. insurance sectors and transport and spurred a number of corporate service brand extensions. 1990.. Dacin and Smith. particularly service providers active in a myriad of other markets. 1994. 2001. such as telecommunications. such as credibility. Therefore. Klink and Smith. Bottomley and Holden. 2003).The majority of the previous studies basically used consumer surveys to investigate consumer evaluations of hypothetical brand extensions (i. This seems particularly important when services are extended to markets in which the service provider has no proven expertise. Thamaraiselvan. LIC. Barone. For instance. Reliance. 1991.e. Most previous research used students as subjects. Sivaram. Page 78 of 170 . lane. 1991. Milberg and Lawson. 2000. 1994. 1992. 2001. quality and eventually customer patronage intentions. corporate service brands may be used to reduce perceived risk and to influence frequently unobservable extension evaluation criteria. and Rome. Keller and Aaker. this type of service extension is becoming a prevalent phenomenon. Broniarczyk and Alba. and SBI) to enter into service markets. extension not introduced in the market). Yet. Respondents in prior surveys rated the independent (success factors) and dependent variable (success of the extensions) on simple rating scales (Aaker and Keller. a research issue that has remained underexposed concerns the extension of services to unrelated markets by making use of the corporate brand. 2000. As services consist primarily of intangible properties. Bottomley and Doyle.

1999. In order to improve the success rate of brand extensions it is imperative to understand the parameters or factors affecting the brand extensions evaluations. 2001. which can result in substantial. Moreover. The success or failure of brand extensions is vastly dependent on how the customers evaluate the brand extensions (Klink and Smith. Swaminathan. reveal that there is a failure rate of around 80%. Moreover. Theoretical and managerial understanding of how a consumer evaluates the brand extensions is given substantial importance. 2003) in the field of FMCG brand extensions in European countries. brand extension strategies tasted success in the past. In India it is reported that more than 80% of new products additions are using brand extensions strategies. A good brand association reduces the chances of failure of new product launch. Companies are taking hard steps to improve the success rate of brand extensions. still brand extension success is uncertain. Thamaraiselvan. 1995. 2003). 2001. 2003). Thamaraiselvan. 2003).Brand extension strategies are used largely by companies because they believed that the brand extension strengthens the brand positioning improves the brand awareness and enhances the quality associations and increases the trial rate by reducing the perceived risk involved in the new product. 1998. Sivaram. Thamaraiselvan. Sivaram. A brand extension into same product and new product category enhances and improves their market share and brand equity in the long run (Lane Jacobson. According to a research carried out by (Ernest & Young and Nielsen. New products are getting relatively easy acceptance among the target audience. Fox and Reddy. Though. Thamaraiselvan. companies need to Page 79 of 170 . Sivaram. Sivaram. unsuccessful brand extensions can harm the parent brand. loses of brand equity (Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran.

Aaker and Joachimsthaler. 2006). however. Rust et al. (Chaudhuri and Holbrook. Preference for convenience. 2006 ). 2006). 2000. chance encounters and repertoire buying behavior are but some reasons for this. Rajagopal. To build and maintain consumer loyalty. through direct and interactive methods. Simultaneously. internet communications. 1996. (Jacoby and Chestnut. novelty. resistance among loyal consumers to competitors’ propositions (Dick and Basu. 2006). Baldinger & Robinson. 1999. 2006) have shown that brand loyalty is a key link affecting market share and relative price. 1992. 1991. 2006) Page 80 of 170 . Rajagopal. (Jacoby and Kyner. 1994. especially parity responses from competitors. Rajagopal. 1973. 2006).understand the significance of these factors and their relative importance to develop a right brand extensions strategy. 1973. and other innovative channels of distribution (Pearson 1996. 1996.g. 2. Rajagopal. Blackston. 1978. brand managers have to face more threats to their brands. 2000. Rajagopal. Rajagopal. Rajagopal. Thus.. Ambler. 2000. and higher profits (Reichheld. Rajagopal. brand loyalty is justifiably included in the approaches advocated by other researchers (e. Rajagopal. Brand loyalty can yield significant marketing advantages including reduced marketing costs. 2006) and (Oliver. 2006) argue it is unwise to infer loyalty solely from repetitive purchase patterns (behavioral loyalty). 2006). When operationalizing brand loyalty (Jacoby and Kyner. greater trade leverage (Aaker.23 BRAND LOYALTY AND CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: The brand management has developed to take advantage of new loyalty marketing vehicles. 2001. Rajagopal. brand managers are supplementing their mass-media advertising with more direct communications.

integrating them into their definition. Rajagopal. as well as whether they would consider using other products from the corporation and whether they would recommend the corporate brand to others (conative loyalty). 2006) the consumers were asked as how much they liked the corporate brand (affective loyalty). 2006). evaluative) processes. 2006). Rajagopal.. In line with previous research showing that in service markets attitudinal loyalty measures are more sensitive than behavioral loyalty measures. 1997.24 BRAND EXTENSION EFFECTS ON CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: Consumer decision making is largely associated with the brand extensions of familiar brands. A study on fashion brand extension addresses the need to examine consumer behavior associated with fashion brand extension and reveals that retailers may focus on brand or store image when extending brand from apparel to home furnishings and merchandise multiple product categories to increase sales across product categories (Forney et. . It has also been Page 81 of 170 . Following other researchers such as (Dall’Olmo Riley et al. 2006) argues consumers become loyal by progressing from a cognitive to an affective and finally to a co native phase. and is a function of psychological (decision-making. Rajagopal. 2001. 2005. another study explored to operationalize loyalty by questioning consumers about affective and conative loyalty (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett. Rajagopal. Rajagopal. behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. 2006). as the brand loyalty is “the biased (non-random) behavioral response (purchase) expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands.brought together the two “opposing” approaches to brand loyalty namely. 2. Readers interested in a more detailed review on operational and conceptual aspects of brand loyalty should consult (Odinet al. 2001.” (Oliver.al. 1999.

the evidence for the reciprocal effects of a brand extension on its parent brand is unclear.al. However. The results of the study revealed that the influence of the parent brand on the trial of the extension was positive and successful trials also helped the parent brand on a reciprocal basis. particularly among the non-loyal users and nonusers of the parent brand to accept the brand extensions. no adverse impact on brand personality of core brand as a result of introducing extensions were found during investigating empirically the impact of brand extensions on brand personality. 2006). comparable in strength with that between media weight and brand share. An experiment was conducted to Page 82 of 170 . 2006). The moderating effect of category positioning on the magnitude of the reciprocal effect of the brand extension on the parent brand has also been evidenced by the study (Chen and Liu. 2005. trustworthiness and brand extension. finds support for a significant association between the variables. using Aaker's scale to measure the latter. In a similar study. in an experimental study conducted in reference to extension fit (good/poor fit) for brand familiarity (Diamantopoulos et. Rajagopal.observed that a significant association exists between "company credibility" through brand's expertise. On the contrary. and greater than that delivered by the perceived quality level of the parent brand (Reast. 2005. the empirical research has focused on the impact of a parent brand on the trial of the extension and the reciprocal effect of a successful trial of new brand extensions positioned horizontally and vertically on the parent brand. Rajagopal. A study using 368 consumer responses to nine real low involvement UK product and service brands. 2004. Rajagopal. 2006).

2004. 2003.investigate the impact of an extension's quality. 2006). The only effect of brand dominance was that it enhanced parent brand attitude when the extension was a good fit (Zimmer and Bhat. 2006). The concept of brand capital has been discussed with empirical evidence that firms with a large stock of wellestablished brands have an advantage in introducing new products. 2006). results of this research are probably most useful to manufacturers attempting to leverage brand equity by introducing brand extensions which are supported at introduction with large ad spending (Taylor and Bearden. Brand extension similarity is proposed as a moderator of the effects of perceived ad spending on the perceived quality of brand extensions and on purchase intentions in one of the research contributions. Rajagopal. Rajagopal. The results of an empirical study conducted in this reference show that positive spending on advertising and communication inference effects were more likely to occur for similar than dissimilar extensions. though. It has been evidenced by a research study that extension quality and fit did not dilute parent brand attitude. an extension either left parent brand attitude unchanged or enhanced it moderately. possibly resulting in lower product evaluations. Consequently. 1998. One of the theories of brand extension as a mechanism for informational leverage in which a firm leverages off a good's reputation in one market to alleviate the problem of informational asymmetry encountered in other markets. It is observed that brand extension helps a multi-product monopolist introduce a new experience good with less price distortion (Jay. and parent brand dominance. results show that respondents were more likely to question the veracity of high ad spending levels for a dissimilar extension than a similar extension. Rajagopal. on parent brand evaluation. Additionally. Page 83 of 170 . its fit with the parent brand. in other words.

25 BRAND ACCESSIBILITY AND DIAGNOSTICITY: The accessibility-diagnosticity model explains that any factor that increases the accessibility of an input is also expected to increase the likelihood with which that input will be used for the judgment. dilution effects were found in the context of both close and far extensions. Rajagopal. 2006). The review of previous literature on brand extension effects indicates that dilution/enhancement effects generally emerge in the presence of highly accessible extension information (Lane and Page 84 of 170 .al. temporal proximity between information about brand extension and family brand evaluation is likely to result in a disproportionate influence of the activated or accessible cognition (i.Buyers select from among that subset of available brands of which they are aware. Therefore. but the distribution of these gains between firms and consumers is shown to be sensitive to the structure of the market. 2006) has discussed critical issues on brand and line extensions and integrated them into a conceptual framework. which shows that extension and core brand evaluations are affected by the consumer perceptions.e. Moderating factors that influence the relationship between fit and consumer evaluations of the extension and the core brand are also identified.. family brand evaluation) made shortly after its activation. The framework is subsequently used to develop concrete research propositions to guide further research in the area. extension information) on the judgment (i. It is possible for either the sellers or the buyers to be worse off in the better -informed environment (Ross. However.e. there are social surplus gains. in the brand extension context. 2.. (Grime et. Rajagopal. 2002. 1988. When this subset grows.

and the likelihood that some alternative and potentially more diagnostic inputs will be retrieved.. 1988. Rajagopal. beliefs. The responses thus created can have directive effects on answers to other questions that follow in the process of decision making. The results of the former study shows that brands with high familiarity and high quality reputations termed as called strong brands. making extension information highly accessible at the time when family brand evaluations were assessed. 2006) derived the accessibility-diagnosticity theory predicting that an earlier response will be used as a basis for another subsequent response. Loken and John. attitude. attitudes. Milberg et. and intentions measured by the customer also help in analyzing the interrelationship among the brand attributes. (Feldman and Lynch. the likelihood that it will be retrieved.Jacobson. Examined in his study the negative feedback effects. There are two studies conducted. al. subjects rated the family brand immediately after exposure to information about the extension. based on the framework of accessibility– diagnosticity and information integration with the focus to examine the protective effects of brand image against lower quality countries-of-origin in global manufacturing. 2006). if the former is accessible and if it is perceived to be more diagnostic than other accessible inputs. 1997. The framework of the theory conceptualizes the factors that determine both the perceived diagnosticity of a potential input. Rajagopal. Belief. 1997. However. which have much smaller perceived-quality discounting for lower quality countries-of-origin than brands with mediocre familiarity and mediocre quality reputations of weak Page 85 of 170 . or intention can be created by measurement if the measured constructs do not already exist in long-term memory. 1993.

explaining why the shielding effects of brand image occur (Jo et. al. this finding implies that as the shared associations between the family brand and the extension increase so does the diagnosticity of information about brand extension for making judgments about the family brand name. but only when involvement is low. Empirical results show that (1) involvement is a better predictor of confidence in internal reference prices than brand familiarity. 1987. 2006) argue that the greater the shared associations between two targets. In the context of brand extension. and (2) in forming internal reference price estimates.brands. (Skowronski and Carlston. This model is used to evaluate the role of brand familiarity and involvement on the formation and use of internal reference price standards. the more diagnostic information about one is for making judgments about the other. However. there exists the scope of future research in understanding the asymmetries in the impact of positive versus negative extension information on family brand evaluations. 2006). Page 86 of 170 . Rajagopal. shows similar shielding effects of brand image and the judgment-weight allocation of influencing factors therein strongly support the hypotheses of accessibility–diagnosticity and information integration. The latter study was conducted with a different set of brands and consumers from a different country. 2003. the offering price is discounted more for unfamiliar brands than familiar brands. The accessibility-diagnosticity model is proposed as a parsimonious theoretical framework that resolves some conflicts in prior research and provides a foundation for future research on internal reference prices. Rajagopal. That is. one may expect a positive relationship between extension category similarity and feedback effects.

flexibility.On the contrary when involvement is high. and all differ Page 87 of 170 . variety seeking.26 BRAND ASSOCIATION AND VARIETY SEEKING BEHAVIOR: There is limited research available in the domain of risk aversion. and feature for key brands on each purchase occasion. In the Context of brand extensions. Under such conditions. demographics. Rajagopal. It is also possible that the accessibility of the information may influence its perceived diagnosticity. etc. 1997. Consumers may perceive the extension information to be more diagnostic if it is highly accessible. 2. display. In such a situation. 2006). the effect of brand familiarity on reference price estimates disappears (Vaidyanathan. regardless of extension category. a highly accessible negative (positive) extension is expected to lead to a dilution (enhancement) effect regardless of product category as observed by past studies in this area (Loken and John. when it is highly accessible. extension information will be used in the brand evaluation based on its diagnosticity. In any case. extension information is likely to affect family brand evaluations. Milberg et al. information about the extension will be highly accessible when consumers are asked to report their evaluation of the family brand immediately after reading the extension information. 2000. 1993. at a later point in time. Rajagopal. The information about the extension will not be highly accessible or dominant when consumers report their evaluation of the family brand. Brand choice models implicitly assume that consumers incorporate all relevant marketing information such as price.. This is because highly accessible information about a new extension is likely to be sufficient for making a judgment about the family brand. convenience orientation. 2006). self-confidence.

Rajagopal. 1999.measurably and significantly between shopping modes. In a study the influence of product-category level attributes were examined and six influential factors. Rajagopal. 2005. purchase Page 88 of 170 . Though the practical and theoretical implications are largely pursued but there exists the paucity of conceptual models that attempt to identify channel characteristics or to link them to behavioral outcomes (Michaelidou et. Extensions that improved product quality were found to be unsuccessful. retailer power and variety seeking behavior all showed a negative influence on line extension success (Nijssen. The behavior of variety seeking among the consumers has been divided into derived or direct variations (McAlister and Pessemier. al. unexpectedness'. Rajagopal. line extensions are an important way to keep a brand alive and to realize incremental financial growth. The market-variable such as level of competition. 'change' and 'complexity' as they are pursued to gain inherent satisfaction. This type of behavior is thought to be explained by experiential or hedonic motives rather than by utilitarian aspects of consumption. which are involvement. 2006). The consumer behavior emerging out of external or internal forces that have no concern with a preference for change in and of itself may be referred as derived varied behavior while direct varied behavior has been defined in reference to 'novelty'. those involving new flavors and new packaging/sizes were most successful. 2006). In another study it has been discussed that among the range of strategies available to a company. Variety seeking has been observed in many consumer products and it has been identified as a key determinant factor in brand switching. Of all line extensions. 1982. 2006).

Page 89 of 170 . A study conducts an extensive simulation experiment to investigate the effects of data pruning and entity aggregation strategies on estimated price and promotion sensitivities (Andrews and Currim. as well as households with purchase histories not long enough to provide information on consumer behavior concepts such as loyalty.al. variety seeking and brand consideration. strength of preference and purchase history have been identified (Van Trijp et. The results show that data preparation strategies can result in significant bias in estimated parameters. Intrinsic variety seeking has been analyzed as an individual consumer’s trait affecting consumers’ varied behavior. Rajagopal. 2002. and they continue to do so today.frequency. In this paper. Rajagopal. hedonic feature.al. the authors explore the negative role of variety seeking on customer retention for services. very little is known about the impact of data preparation strategies on the results of modeling efforts. marketing scientists in academia and industry have employed consumer choice models calibrated using supermarket scanner data to assess the impact of price and promotion on consumer choice. This basic hypothesis is tested through structural equation modeling applied to an empirical study of food-service at three Universities. Over the past two decades. sizes. However. In most cases. scanner panel data is pruned prior to model estimation to eliminate less significant brands. Rajagopal. 2006). perceived brand difference. 2006). etc. product forms.. very little research has been done on the consumer service sector. 2006). The results support the hypothesis: variety seeking negatively affects customer retention and lessens the impact of the management efforts to improve service quality and customer satisfaction (Berné et. Despite the extensive usage of scanner panel data for choice modeling. 2001. 1996.

(Blythe. For this reason.27. Usually this techniques Page 90 of 170 . Sneakers market is not so different from clothing and casual wearing. he/she will easily switch to other brands when they will produce the right appealing sneakers.27.2. 2010) summarizes six main sales promotion techniques that on the whole they might also caused brand switching: 2. For example. the switcher is justified by the product itself. Rubini. or augments them with detailed features. as it can be determinate by the fact that a certain company produces a particular kind of shoes. 2. the loyalty to one brand might be only apparent. Adidas annot send you home a new pair of shoes.1 Free taster: For the launch of new product. Therefore. but they can send small sample of aftershaves for example. a certain person owns several shoes from the same brand.2 Money-off vouchers: company published in magazines (or send to customers‟ houses by post) money-off vouchers for having discount in the purchase of their preselected products.27 BRAND SWITCHERS: A brand switcher is a person who moved from buying from a brand to another for a particular reason and the causes of this behavior are several. but because he/she is charmed by the product. This technique is expensive but very effective. 2006. companies usually recurs to free samples either placed in stores or send home by post. in sneaker case.

lead to a short-term brand switching. 2.5 Lottery: in this case.27. A strong marketing campaign. extra laces.3 Two-for-one price: this form of promotion is to sell two identical products by the price of one. he/she gets also enamel or polish. works especially with children. For example. Most common are cash. 2. Happy Meal by McDonalds) In addition. 2. we can include once more the loyalty to the store. if a customer purchase shoes.27. but it consists in adding an extra product.27. the purchase of a certain product will give to the customer the possibility to participate to a lottery with different prices. If customers are loyal to a store.e.4 Piggy-backing: this method is similar of the two-for-one price. the fact that a store stop the sells to a certain brand might cause also brand switching as clients prefer to change brand that shop. when companies includes toys in their packaging (i. but this time different.27. But as it is aimed to price-sensitivity. however. this technique hardly produces a brand switching. This techniques. or the Page 91 of 170 . for either behavioral or attitudinal reasons. cars and vouchers for purchasing branded products. For example. holiday trips. this technique produces short-term brand switching. Another strong reason for brand switching is caused by advertising and brand communication.6 Gift: companies include free gifts in the packaging. as the switching ends when the campaign ends or the voucher is spent. as the customer is already oriented to the product and not to the extra item. 2. However.

in case of behavioral loyalty. 2. or as consequence.28 DIFFERENT INFLUENCES OF PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE AND BRAND KNOWLEDGE: In previous consumer research. he/she will stop to buy also other Nike products (i. of brand extension. replacing the old products. 2010) pointed out also another reason for brand switching can derive as cause.e.e. Miyazaki. shower soap. Cause: A customer buys Adidas deodorant and being completely satisfied with it. and Urbany. and the switch to another brand can be caused just because even one time a customer did not find a product from the usual brand on the shelf. and so on) To conclude. 2005) have studied the different effects of ‘brand knowledge’ and ‘product knowledge’. gym suit. as it was basically accidental. a customer favorite footballer plays with Adidas). Rubini. They found that these two constructs affect information search Page 92 of 170 . Luebbehusen. and as consequence. and therefore. the switching might be caused by the nature of the loyalty itself.adoption of the right testimonials (i. will definitely increase the awareness of a particular brand. shoes. and so on). he also starts to purchase other Adidas products (like aftershaves. with Adidas. the company can attract new customers. 1994. (Fiske. 2009. Ma. (Kotler. Consequence: A customer buys a Nike mp3 player and being extremely disappointed with the purchase. the old brands.

egos. brand knowledge may help consumers to detect the symbolic meaning consistency between the new extension product and the parent brand. This tends to be the functional aspects of the product.behaviour very differently. 1997. These two types of consumer knowledge were found to play different roles in brand evaluations. 2005) research. or interests more than the functional aspects of products. consumers with high product knowledge may more easily notice the product-related fit. they found that consumers who choose brands that give more value for the price are knowledgeable about the product category. in this study. whereas a non- Page 93 of 170 . As discussed earlier. Ma. Those consumers who choose famous and more expensive brands consider the consistency between the brand images and their personalities. while brand knowledge helps consumers to evaluate brands from a non-product-related facet. Consequently. the importance of two dimensions of fit varies between the functional brand and the prestige brand. The term of ‘more value’ in their study means the best balance between the product quality and price. These findings indicate that consumer product knowledge and brand knowledge play different roles in brand evaluations. The product-related fit is more important for a functional brand. product knowledge and brand knowledge are also considered as two separate variables in order to investigate their roles in brand extension evaluations separately. or similarities between the new extension product and the parent brand product. Thus. Since product knowledge helps consumers to evaluate from a product-related aspect. Product knowledge can help consumers to evaluate brands from a product-related aspect. product and brand knowledge may play different roles in brand extension evaluations. On the other hand. In (Bei and Heslin’s.

then subcategories.29 DIFFERENCES IN FIT PERCEPTION IN BRAND EXTENSION EVALUATIONS: Since high knowledge consumers are different from low knowledge consumers in terms of cognitive structures. then brands. consumers organize information about products hierarchically with the product category node at the highest level. and finally the attributes and other information associated with each brand. capabilities of analysis and inference. prestige). Firstly. the relationship between consumer knowledge and fit perceptions in brand extension evaluations is investigated by reviewing the literature in both the brand extension and consumer knowledge fields. two dimensions of fit (product-related vs. These two types of knowledge may have different effects on consumer fit perceptions in brand extension evaluations. In summary. the previous findings of the effects of knowledge on consumer behaviors indicate that consumer knowledge may have effects on brand extension evaluations. memories. Moreover. internal knowledge transfer. consumer knowledge is classified into two types: product and brand knowledge. In reviewing the literature about consumer knowledge. In reviewing the fit perceptions in brand extension evaluations. the importance of two kinds of consumer knowledge may also vary between the functional brand and prestige brand. nonproduct-related) are identified. Furthermore. Therefore. and similarity judgment. they may also have different ‘fit’ perceptions and brand extension evaluations due to the differences between their knowledge levels.product-related fit is more important for a prestige brand. it is suggested that these two dimensions of fit have different effects on the extensions of two types of brands (functional vs. The degree Page 94 of 170 . 2.

or even its original brand group. when evaluating a new extension product. CHAPTER . for novice consumers. Consumers who are lacking in knowledge have more difficulty with forming welldeveloped complex and hierarchical cognitive structures. (Sujan’s. Secondly. 2005) research on the effects of consumer knowledge on evaluation strategies indicates that expert consumers with more developed category knowledge in memory are more sensitive to the consistency and inconsistency between incoming information and category knowledge. This indicates that in brand extension evaluations. Ma. 1985. a novice consumer may only be able to categorize it into a very broad product category. 2003. However. With expansion strategies there is often a risk for negative outcome and brand extension is not an Page 95 of 170 .3 3. Ma. but not the subcategory. due to his/her limited cognitive structures. it is difficult to detect consistency and inconsistency as clearly as experts can. Thus.of expertise determines how well the information will be organized hierarchically (Cowley & Mitchell.1 PROBLEM: Any inconsistent attribute information about a new brand extension results in a modification of the corresponding belief about the corporate brand. expert consumers may perceive the ‘fit’ or ‘inconsistency’ between the extension and the original brand more correctly than novice consumers. 2005).

The Unit of Analysis is Group.3 METHODOLOGY: Population: All consumers of LU Continental Biscuits especially Bekri biscuits for last two years or more having age between 20 to 40 years. For this research Time Horizon is Cross-Sectional. There are some problems in taste and packaging of some newly extended brands. Sampling: Simple Random Sampling is used to get responses from the LU Continental Biscuits especially consumers of Bekri Biscuits. The greatest risk with brand extension is cannibalism of sales and deterioration of the corporate brand. LU in Pakistan has a good market value but still people don’t know about its new products and their taste.2 METHODOLOGY: The Purpose of research is ‘Descriptive’ in nature.1 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND FAMILIARITY: Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Familiarity HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Familiarity Page 96 of 170 .exception. CHAPTER – 4 Statistical Analysis and Evaluation 4. The study setting is NonContrived and the researcher performed Field experiment. 3. the type of investigation is Causal. 3. Further they mean that it will have greater probability to increase these risks when extensions are inconsistent with the brand image or that fail with regard to consumer expectations. The ‘Researcher Interference’ is moderate for this study. After the Brand Extension customer forget the mother brand and even in some cases they don’t recognize the brand name.

3 5 5.005 7.0 df 3 3 1 Asymp.0 21 21. (2-sided) .986 357 a.0 264 264.05 Analysis: Page 97 of 170 .560 a Total YES 248 242.0 66 66.4 7 5.061 .0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% Total Percent 100.364 7.0% 0 .Level of Significance: α = 0. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0. The minimum expected count is .6 59 60.5 328 328.023 .6 16 19.5 29 29.05 Calculation: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Brand Familiarity Qualification * Brand Familiarity 35 7 35 7 100.7 1 . Sig.023) < 0.0% N 35 7 35 7 100.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 357 357.4 5 1.0% Percent 100. 2 cells (25.0 6 6.49.0% Crosstab Brand Familiarity NO Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 9.0 16 21.

0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.05.0 357 357.1 4 2. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 4.516 .9 200 197.0 3 3.256 2.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Familiarity NO Qualification 0 Count Expected Count Graduation Count Expected Count Post graduation Count Expected Count Ms/ M Phil Count Expected Count Doctoral Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 0 .0 4 4.9 21 23.05 Page 98 of 170 . so research rejected the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.0 25 25.0 1 .08.0 1 1.0 112 112. The minimum expected count is .073 4 4 1 . So. it means that there is a strong association between age and the brand familiarity.1 15 17.5 9 9.091 3. Sig. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 YES 1 .7 328 328.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 215 215. 5 cells (50.023) is less than 0.396 .3 29 29.396) > 0.5 103 102.861 357 a. Ho: There is No Association between Qualification and Brand Familiarity HA: There is An Association between Qualification and Brand Familiarity Level of Significance: α = 0.At significance level of 95% the p value (0.

0% 100.4 YES 197 184.0% N 357 357 357 Total Percent 100.0 66 66.05.0% 100.05 Calculation: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Brand Taste Profession * Brand Taste Gender * Brand Taste 357 357 357 Percent 100. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0 13 6.0 Total Page 99 of 170 . it means that there is no association between Qualification and the brand familiarity.0% N 0 0 0 Missing Percent .0% 100.6 264 264.9 24 20.0% .1 42 46.Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Taste.396) is greater than 0. So.0% Crosstab Brand Taste NO Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 67 79.0 8 14.2 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND TASTE: Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Taste.0% . Level of Significance: α = 0. 4.0 21 21.0% 100.

05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0. Sig.8 108 108.0 Total Count Expected Count Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp. it means that there is a strong association between age and the brand taste.000) is less than 0.509 16.0 6 6.000) < 0.2 249 249. so research rejected the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis. 2 cells (25.001 . (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 17.05.1 35 YES 182 177.9 67 255 255. Level of Significance: α = 0. The minimum expected count is 1. HA: There is An Association between Gender and Brand Taste.0 357 357. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Brand Taste.0 102 Total Page 100 of 170 .50 And Above Count Expected Count 4 1.882 3 3 1 .82.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Taste NO Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count 73 77.000 .000 16.0%) have expected count less than 5. So.0 2 4.897 357 a.

176 1. Sig.294 .3 HYPOTHESIS OF COMPETITOR’S KNOWHOW: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Income * Competitor’s Knowhow Qualification * Competitor’s Knowhow 357 100.101 a.05. The minimum expected count is 30. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.309 .05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.353 .0% 0 .0 102. (1-sided) 1.1 249 249.0% Page 101 of 170 .291 . Computed only for a 2x2 table Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. So.0 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp.291) > 0.0% N 357 Total Percent 100.863 1 1 1 . it means that there is no association between Gender and the brand taste.291) is greater than 0.86. b. 0 cells (.0 357 357.0 71.Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 30.0% 357 Percent 100.9 108 108.0% N 0 Missing Percent . 4.291 b a Exact Sig. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 357 1.113 1 .0%) have expected count less than 5.116 . (2-sided) Exact Sig.0% 357 100.

6 75 76.05 Calculation: Crosstab Competitor’s Knowhow NO Income 10.3 35 35.0 53 53.000-30.185 Ho: There is No Association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.959 .000-20.0% 0 .2 13 12.0 152 152.000 Count Expected Count 21.000 Count Expected Count 41.7 116 116.303 .8 26 26.4 38 36.667 .0 Total Page 102 of 170 .000 & Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 47 49.3 241 241. HA: There is An Association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.302 3 3 1 . Level of Significance: α = 0.0% 357 100.000 Count Expected Count 31.7 18 17. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association .0 113 113.0 39 39.960 .0 YES 105 102. Sig.0% Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.Area * Competitor’s Knowhow 357 100.0 357 357.000-40.

Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.960) > 0.0%) have expected count less than 5. 0 cells (.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.N of Valid Cases 357 a.67. it means that there is no association between Income and the Competitors’ knowhow. The minimum expected count is 12. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.960) is greater than 0. So. Page 103 of 170 .05.

0 Total Expected Count 116.104 4.0 357.3 YES 1 . The minimum expected count is .1 215 215.191 . (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.120 4 4 1 .3 2 2.6 112 112.0 13 8.7 4 4.9 25 25. Page 104 of 170 .0 Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.0 37 36.1 12 16. Sig. Level of Significance: α = 0.4 75 75.05 Calculation: Crosstab Competitor’s Knowhow NO Qualification 0 Count Expected Count Graduation Count Expected Count Post Graduation Count Expected Count MS/ M PHIL Count Expected Count Doctoral Count Expected Count Total Count 116 241 357 2 1. HA: There is An Association between Qualification and Competitors’ knowhow.0 241.034 6.0%) have expected count less than 5.501 357 a. 4 cells (40.Ho: There is No Association between Qualification and Competitors’ knowhow.0 0 .0 64 69.9 151 145.190 .32.7 1 1.

C.E.0 16 13.6 61 61.05.4 46 44.0 Total Page 105 of 170 .0 357 357. it means that there is no association between Qualification and the Competitors’ knowhow.6 66 66.6 YES 26 28.3 36 36.0 10 10.190) is greater than 0.0 241 241.0 11 11.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 20 21.0 30 29.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.4 42 42.6 32 32.4 91 91.2 61 60. So.05 Calculation: Crosstab Competitor’s Knowhow NO Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P. Level of Significance: α = 0. HA: There is An Association between Area of residence and Competitors’ knowhow.E-Iqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 116 116.190) > 0.8 90 90. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.H.7 25 24.S Count Expected Count Gulshan . Ho: There is No Association between Area of residence and Competitors’ knowhow.4 22 21.0 29 29.

828 . it means that there is no association between Area of residence and the Competitors’ knowhow. (2-sided) .0% 0 .974 .0%) have expected count less than 5. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. 0 cells (. 4.0% N 357 Total Percent 100.40.842 a df 5 5 1 Asymp.0% N 0 Missing Percent .05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. Sig.05.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases . So. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0% Gender * Brand Attraction Profession * Brand Attraction 357 100.0% 357 100.0% 0 . The minimum expected count is 10.0% 357 100.487 357 a.975 .974) > 0.0% Page 106 of 170 .4 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND ATTRACTION: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Brand Attraction 357 Percent 100. 974) is greater than 0.0% 357 100.485 .

Page 107 of 170 .105) > 0.5 147 147. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.106 .47.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. 2 cells (25.253 6.6 2 2. 105) is greater than 0.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Attraction NO Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 106 108.0 357 357.0 21 21. it means that there is no association between age and the Brand Attraction.197 3 3 1 . So.0 264 264.102 .4 4 3.0%) have expected count less than 5.8 7 12.0 66 66. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.2 14 8. Level of Significance: α = 0. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6. Sig.7 25 27.0 YES 158 155.05.307 357 a.0 6 6.Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Attraction.5 210 210.110 1. The minimum expected count is 2. HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Attraction.3 41 38.

902 . Level of Significance: α = 0. Page 108 of 170 .0 46 42.0 255 255. Computed only for a 2x2 table Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Brand Attraction. So.202 .0%) have expected count less than 5.05.342 357 a.694 . Sig.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.904 1 .0 210 210.341 .0 147 147.907 1 1 1 .344 . HA: There is An Association between Gender and Brand Attraction.405 .0 YES 154 150.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Attraction NO Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 101 105. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases b . The minimum expected count is 42. (2-sided) Exact Sig.00. it means that there is no association between Gender and the Brand Attraction. b.341) is greater than 0. 0 cells (. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0 357 357.342 .05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.341) > 0.0 56 60.0 102 102.

Ho: There is No Association between Profession and Brand Attraction. HA: There is An Association between Profession and Brand Attraction.0 20 20.070 1.116 5 5 1 .271 4. 0 cells (.0 74 74.539 . Page 109 of 170 .4 11 11.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.0 10 8.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Attraction NO Profession Marketing Count Expected Count Banking Count Expected Count Engineering Count Expected Count Doctor Count Expected Count Teacher Count Expected Count Others Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 28 30.0 118 118.8 62 63. Level of Significance: α = 0.00.0 20 20.5 74 69.5 44 48.0 YES 46 43. The minimum expected count is 7.0%) have expected count less than 5.2 46 44.0 108 108.5 147 147. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 4.0 357 357.2 10 7.5 210 210.214 357 a.6 9 8. Sig.8 7 10.0 17 17.0 10 11.533 .

05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.05.533) > 0.0% 0 . Level of Significance: α = 0.0% 357 100. it means that there is no association between Profession and the Brand Attraction.0% Ho: There is No Association between Area and Product Availability.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.05 Page 110 of 170 . HA: There is An Association between Area and Product Availability. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0% 357 100.0% 357 Percent 100. 4.0% N 357 Total Percent 100. So.0% 0 .533) is greater than 0.5 HYPOTHESIS OF PRODUCT AVAILABILITY: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N AREA * Product Availability PROFESSION * Product Availability AGE * Product Availability 357 100.0% 357 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .

3 90 90.9 91 91.1 36 36.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 14 13.006 5 5 1 .4 32 32. Page 111 of 170 .516 3.7 62 60.58.422 357 a.E.1 58 60.0 12 10.6 20 21.9 22 24. Sig.2 66 66.Calculation Crosstab Product Availability NO Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.0 239 239. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 3.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Assmp.e-Iqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 118 118.9 YES 28 28.0 357 357.C.699 .0 33 30.692 . 0 cells (.0 17 21. The minimum expected count is 10.H.0 14 11.1 42 42.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .8 49 44.051 .0 28 29.

0 239 239. Ho: There is No Association between Profession and Product Availability.0 118 118. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.05.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.6 11 13. it means that there is no association between Area and the Product Availability.0 79 79.0 39 39.0 Total Page 112 of 170 .0 19 24.6 13 13.05 Calculation Crosstab Product Availability NO Profession Marketing Count Expected Count Banking Count Expected Count Engineering Count Expected Count Doctor Count Expected Count Teacher Count Expected Count Others Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 118 118.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. So.0 9 6.699) > 0.5 YES 55 49.4 17 17.0 357 357.7 75 72.0 33 35. Level of Significance: α = 0. HA: There is An Association between Profession and Product Availability.5 74 74.0 7 6.4 20 20.3 108 108.699) is greater than 0.6 6 11.4 20 20.0 11 5.

1 21 21. Level of Significance: α = 0. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.526 357 a.0 11 6.2 66 66.05 Calculation Crosstab Product Availability NO Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 118 118.0 Total Page 113 of 170 . 0 cells (.Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 74 87.62. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 11. So. HA: There is An Association between Age and Product Availability.049) is less than 0.061 .3 YES 190 176.0 2 2.0 31 21. it means that there is an association between Profession and the Product Availability.049) < 0.049 .0%) have expected count less than 5.0 357 357. so research Reject the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.0 239 239.8 35 44.468 10.0 4 4.0 6 6. Sig.9 10 14.7 264 264. Ho: There is No Association between Age and Product Availability.569 .05. The minimum expected count is 5.146 5 5 1 .

0% 357 100. Sig.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% 0 .0% 357 100.008 .0% N 357 Total Percent 100.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 12. So. The minimum expected count is 1.004 11.886 8.006 .0% 0 .006) is less than 0.98.006) < 0.Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.0%) have expected count less than 5.506 357 a.0% 357 100.0% Page 114 of 170 .0% 357 Percent 100. 4. it means that there is an association between Age and the Product Availability.05. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.332 3 3 1 . 2 cells (25.6 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO FLAVOR: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor Gender * Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor Area * Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor 357 100. so research Reject the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.

9 10 12.0 19 18.0 143 143. Level of Significance: α = 0.0 2 1.298 a df 9 9 1 Asymp.4 3 2.8 Plain 47 51.0 3 8.030 16.4 Coconut 112 105.9 26 26. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor.7 2 2.0 69 69.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor Classic AGE 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 102 102.0 77 75.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 19.5 11 4. The minimum expected count is .4 11 7.023 .Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. (2-sided) .054 .0 357 357.7 1 1. 6 cells (37.654 4.0 4 6.1 21 21.72.0 264 264.0 43 43. Page 115 of 170 . Sig.8 66 66.2 6 6.4 1 .7 Date 28 31.689 357 a.5%) have expected count less than 5.

0 cells (. So.9 11 12.109 .7 102 102.7 Plain 41 49.3 255 255.Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.0 357 357.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.112 357 a.0 43 43.1 37 40.048 a df 3 3 1 Asymp. The minimum expected count is 12.3 28 19.05. Level of Significance: α = 0. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.0 26 29.0 69 69.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor Classic Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 102 102. it means that there is an association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor. Sig.043 5.753 4.9 Coconut 106 102.023) is less than 0.29.1 Date 32 30.0 76 72.0%) have expected count less than 5. (2-sided) .05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 143 143. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor.023) < 0. Page 116 of 170 .124 . so research Reject the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.

0 43 43.1 42 42. HA: There is An Association between Area and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor.0 36 36. Ho: There is No Association between Area and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor. it means that there is No association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.0 41 36. Level of Significance: α = 0.0 Total Page 117 of 170 .8 18 17.9 24 26.05. so research Accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .5 13 11.8 Date 3 5.9 8 6.E-Iqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 102 102.1 12 12.3 10 7.C.0 4 10.6 91 91.4 90 90.0 7 9.0 30 25.1 Plain 11 8.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.8 66 66.3 17 14.4 9 7.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior (Flavor) Classic Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.105) is greater than 0.1 8 10.9 10 12.8 5 3.0 25 26. So.H.105) > 0.0 69 69.0 357 357.0 143 143.7 34 36.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 23 18.0 13 12.E.2 32 32.0 Coconut 15 16.0 12 17.4 5 4.

it means that there is No association between Area and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.0 % 0 .419 357 a.7 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO TASTE: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Perce nt Age * Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste Gender * Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste 357 357 100.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to Taste.518 16.0% 357 100. So.3%) have expected count less than 5.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 15. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0% N Missing Percent N Total Percent Ho: There is No Association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.414 . Sig. Level of Significance: α = 0. 2 cells (8. The minimum expected count is 3.05 Page 118 of 170 . (2-sided) .0 % 100.744 .0% 357 100.0% 0 .531 a df 15 15 1 Asymp.414) is greater than 0.334 . Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.85. 4.05.414) > 0.

05.04.3 16 17.6 Date 42 45. The minimum expected count is 1.0 Coconut 100 97.461) > 0.0 357 357.5 11 12.6 2 2.0 132 132.0 6 5.2 0 1.371 .461) is greater than 0. (2-sided) .6 66 66.8 5 3.Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior (Taste) Classic Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 8.8 69 70.05 Page 119 of 170 . 6 cells (37. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to Taste.0 68 68.753 .1 6 6.997 a.461 .4 15 11.0 62 62.318 9.0 df 9 9 1 357 Asymp.6 24 24. Sig.6 6 7.6 4 4. it means that there is No association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.742 a Total Plain 53 50.0 0 1. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. Level of Significance: α = 0. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. So.5%) have expected count less than 5. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.0 95 95.0 4 1.3 264 264.0 21 21.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.

7 22 19. Sig.3 Plain 46 48. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0%) have expected count less than 5.297) > 0.9 Coconut 89 94. The minimum expected count is 17.0 357 357.6 255 255.0 74 67.3 Date 46 44.692 a 3 3 1 .1 43 37.4 102 102. 0 cells (.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.71.297 . (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 3.7 16 17.761 1.Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior (Taste) Classic Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 95 95. Page 120 of 170 .297) is greater than 0. it means that there is No association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.0 21 27.288 .121 357 a. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.290 3. So.0 62 62.0 132 132.0 68 68.05.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Df Asymp.

9 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMPTION PATTERN (BUYING DECISION): Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Income * Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Area * Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Gender * Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) 357 100.0% 0 .0% N 357 Total Percent 100.0% 0 .05 Page 121 of 170 .0% 357 100. Level of Significance: α = 0.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% 357 100.0% Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0% 357 100.0% 357 100.0% 357 100.0% 0 .4.0% 357 Percent 100.

02.867) > 0.9 0 .2 4 6. Sig.7 264 264.0 5 3.0%) have expected count less than 5.9 Price 79 79.0 60 60.05.0 1 2.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.864 .0 107 107. 10 cells (50.8 1 1.5 6 7.1 Availability 41 44.0 6 6.2 66 66.3 0 . so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.1 25 25.0 1 .Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Ag e 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54.780 357 a.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp. The minimum expected count is .1 21 21. Page 122 of 170 .861 12 12 1 . So.9 3 1.3 6 3. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.8 12 11. it means that there is No association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).4 Taste 103 99.8 5 1 .867) is greater than 0.907 .0 135 135.0 8 10.0 21 19.0 40 39.0 1 1.0 357 357.0 0 .377 6. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.867 .

7 1 .144) > 0.000 Count Expected Count 41.9 22 20.5 Taste 59 57.7 0 .7 4 6.144 .000 Count Expected Count 21.000 & Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54. Sig.0 0 .0 12 15.162 a df 12 12 1 357 Asymp.1 39 39. 4 cells (20.172 .9 7 11.1 36 33.0 Price 52 45.585 16.0 18 17.6 Availability 24 25.429 .3 113 113.00030.05 Page 123 of 170 .0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 17.0 7 8. The minimum expected count is . (2-sided) .0 1 1.9 20 19.0 17 23. Level of Significance: α = 0.5 5 0 .00020.6 16 14. 0 357 357.1 53 53.0 135 135.0 60 60.0 107 107.Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).000 Count Expected Count 31.4 152 152.0 12 5.0 38 42.9 12 8.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Income 10. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.11. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).299 a.00040.0%) have expected count less than 5.

6 24 27.8 3 6.1 36 36.3 37 34.0 Total Page 124 of 170 .0 0 .3 15 15.0 4 5.4 0 .0 1 1.Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .0 9 6.6 0 .0 1 .0 4 4.1 42 42.4 14 12.144) is greater than 0.H.4 16 10.8 9 9.8 11 11.1 13 13.0 17 15.EIqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54.0 135 135. Ho: There is No Association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). So.4 Price 11 12.6 Availability 9 7.05.0 10 10.1 26 25.2 66 66.0 19 19.1 0 .0 107 107.0 60 60.3 91 91. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. HA: There is An Association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).8 28 27.E.1 32 34.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.9 5 0 .1 Taste 13 15. it means that there is No association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).3 90 90. Level of Significance: α = 0.0 11 13.C.0 16 13.6 5 5.0 357 357.1 32 32.

658 11. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.9 Taste 108 96.0 357 357. it means that there is No association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Level of Significance: α = 0.7 255 255. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0 42 38.4 5 1 .0 1 1.249 a df 20 20 1 Asymp.0 12 15.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 135 135. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.3 102 102. (2-sided) .0 60 60.05.3%) have expected count less than 5.993 .4 Availability 40 42.1 27 38.907) > 0. Sig.0 Total Page 125 of 170 .Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 12. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). 7 cells (23. So.6 0 .907 .05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54.196 357 a.6 20 17.09.907) is greater than 0.916 .0 107 107.6 Price 64 76.4 43 30. The minimum expected count is .

0% 357 100.0% 0 .006 .063 14. Sig.007 .0%) have expected count less than 5.0% 357 100. so research rejected the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.0% N 357 Total Percent 100.05.0% 357 100. The minimum expected count is . it means that there is a strong association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). 4. (2-sided) .0% 357 100.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.10 HYPOTHESIS OF CONSUMPTION PATTERN (TASTE): Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Consumption Pattern (Taste) Income * Consumption Pattern (Taste) Area * Consumption Pattern (Taste) GENDER * Consumption Pattern (Taste) 357 100. So.29.0% N 0 Missing Percent . 2 cells (20. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 14.0% 357 Percent 100.067 a df 4 4 1 Asymp.0% 0 .0% 357 100.446 357 a.281 3.007) is less than 0.007) < 0.0% 0 .0% Page 126 of 170 .

5 5 4.909 a df 9 9 1 Asymp.093 .8 9 7.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 50 And Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132.2 Hygiene 55 54.0 26 26.162 13.0 20 24.0 8 7. Page 127 of 170 .8 66 66.833 1.2 264 264.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 14. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).093) is greater than 0.6 Crispy 88 93.1 3 1.128 .0 103 97. The minimum expected count is .960 357 a.3 1 1. Level of Significance: α = 0. So.4 29 23. (2-sided) .4 6 6.2 2 .5 21 21.2 0 2.8%) have expected count less than 5.4 3 4.0 357 357.44.0 Bitter 18 19.0 73 73. Sig.0 126 126. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).3 12 13. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0 1 2.093) > 0. 7 cells (43.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.05. it means that there is No association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).

057 1.441 .358 357 a.1 152 152.1 Bitter 10 11.2 Crispy 53 53. The minimum expected count is 2.4 18 13.000 Count Expected Count 31.0 26 26.0 12 14.0 73 73. Level of Significance: α = 0.0 64 56.8 36 39.961 a df 9 9 1 Asymp.432 . Sig.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 8.9 29 23.0 39 41.6 Hygiene 25 31.Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).0 17 19.0 1 2.000 & Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132.6 19 18.000 Count Expected Count 21. (2-sided) . 2 cells (12.84.8 6 3.7 11 10.000-30.5%) have expected count less than 5.8 39 39.0 126 126.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Income 10.441) > 0. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).000-20.000 Count Expected Count 41.1 9 8.0 357 357.2 113 113.05 Page 128 of 170 . Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.8 8 8.000-40.244 9.9 53 53.

6 91 91.6 90 90.0 39 33.3 8 6.4 6 6.3 32 32.1 42 42.5 3 2.0 357 357.0 26 26. Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).6 3 2.8 11 11.05.0 Total Page 129 of 170 . So.C.441) is greater than 0.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .0 27 33.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.4 18 23. Level of Significance: α = 0.6 8 7.H. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).5 6 4.3 36 31.0 73 73.8 66 66.7 18 18.8 20 18.Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.5 Crispy 17 14.8 Hygiene 7 8.0 17 15.0 30 24.3 28 32.0 126 126.0 36 36.1 16 12.6 9 13.6 Bitter 1 3. it means that there is No association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).3 12 13. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0 10 11.E-Iqbal Count Expected count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132.4 7 6.E.

Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste).05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132.707) is greater than 0.707) > 0.0 33 37.707 .0 Total Page 130 of 170 .000 357 a.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 126 126. Level of Significance: α = 0.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 11.0 99 94.0 Hygiene 51 52. (2-sided) . it means that there is No association between Area and consumption pattern (Taste).4 102 102.7 38 36.0 73 73.7%) have expected count less than 5.0 26 26. The minimum expected count is 2. 4 cells (16. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste). Sig.0 22 20.9 9 7.631 a df 15 15 1 Asymp.6 255 255.05.33.3 Crispy 88 90.1 Bitter 17 18. So.994 12.257 .660 .0 357 357.

so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. 4.0%) have expected count less than 5.05 1.43.258 1.003974793 3 0.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. it means that there is No association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste).536 1. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.11 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND EXTENSION’S EFFECTS: Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brands of LU HA: Respondent agrees that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have difference from the existing brands of LU Level of Significance: α = 0.675) is greater than 0.281 357 a. 0 cells (.534 a df 3 3 1 Asymp.675 .674 .05 Calculation Z Test of Hypothesis for the Mean Data Null Hypothesis m= Level of Significance Population Standard Deviation Sample Size Sample Mean Intermediate Calculations Standard Error of the Mean Z Test Statistic Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value p-Value Do not reject the null hypothesis 0.644853627 1 Page 131 of 170 .05. (2-sided) .06139371 -7. So. The minimum expected count is 7.675) > 0.57 1. Sig.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 1.16 357 2.

Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU. it means Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brand of LU.01 1.01 Analysis: At significance level of 99% the p value (1) is greater than 0. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (1) is greater than 0. So. Level of Significance: α = 0. HA: Respondent agrees that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU.57 2.05 Page 132 of 170 .01.01 Calculation Data Null Hypothesis = Level of Significance Population Standard Deviation Sample Size Sample Mean Intermediate Calculations Standard Error of the Mean Z Test Statistic Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value p-Value Do not reject the null hypothesis 0. it means Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brand of LU.003974793 3 0. So.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0. Level of Significance: α = 0.06139371 -7.16 357 2.326347874 1 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0.05. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.

644854 0.Calculation Data Null Hypothesis = Level of Significance Population Standard Deviation Sample Size Sample Mean Intermediate Calculations Standard Error of the Mean Z Test Statistic Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value p-Value Do not reject the null hypothesis 1.01 Calculation Data Null Hypothesis = Level of Significance Population Standard Deviation Sample Size Sample Mean Intermediate Calculations Standard Error of the Mean Z Test Statistic Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value p-Value Do not reject the null hypothesis 0. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.72361 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. it means Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brand of LU.74 0. So.99) > 0. it means that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) did not sabotage the mother brand LU but it enhance the revenue for the mother brand. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.01.72361 3 0.05 1.999) is greater than 0.05. So.999999 3 0.999999 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.999) > 0. Page 133 of 170 .01 1.04 357 2. Level of Significance: α = 0.74 2.01 Analysis: At significance level of 99% the p value (0.055043 -4.04 357 2.326348 0.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.055043 -4.99) is greater than 0.

05 Calculation Data Null Hypothesis = Level of Significance Population Standard Deviation Sample Size Sample Mean Intermediate Calculations Standard Error of the Mean Z Test Statistic Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value p-Value Do not reject the null hypothesis 1.644854 1 0. Level of Significance: α = 0. In other words Brand Extension makes consumer life easy with a multiple choices. So.26 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0. Level of Significance: α = 0.12 357 2.059277 -12. it means that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.05. HA: Respondent agrees agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.01 Page 134 of 170 . so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.05 1.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (1) is greater than 0.4838 3 0.Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.

01 1.059277 -12.01 Analysis: At significance level of 99% the p value (1) is greater than 0. it means that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.Calculation Data Null Hypothesis = Level of Significance Population Standard Deviation Sample Size Sample Mean Intermediate Calculations Standard Error of the Mean Z Test Statistic Upper-Tail Test Upper Critical Value p-Value Do not reject the null hypothesis 0. So.12 357 2. In other words Brand Extension makes consumer life easy with a multiple choices Page 135 of 170 .326348 1 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0.01. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.4838 3 0.26 2.

As the consumer gaining experience day by day he/she easily familiar with the brand and always ask on repeatedly basis. But adults or aged consumers prefer to use the same brand again and again. Page 136 of 170 .1 CONCLUSION: After complete analysis and evaluation it has been observed that age and brand familiarity is related to each other. As the consumer gaining experience day by day he/she easily use the brand and always ask on repeatedly basis. But adults or aged consumers prefer to use the same brand again and again. After the analysis and evaluation it has been observed that qualification and brand familiarity has no association. There is a possibility that high qualified persons can be unaware of the brand. Old persons never tried to explore new ideas no matter how improve or beneficial to them. It depends upon their association of the brand. So company should be clear that their target audience in not only educated or higher educated people.CHAPTER – 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5. Old persons never tried to explore new ideas no matter how improve or beneficial to them. As a consumer there is no effect of individual qualification. But young one always wanted to explore new product/brand to increase their own experience. But young one always wanted to explore new product/brand to increase their own experience. After complete analysis and evaluation it has been observed that age and brand taste is related to each other.

Barkeri should focus on its segment with improvement in quality as taste. Here as Brand Manager one should focus on the product specification that their product should be distinguished among the other brands in the shelf of any wholesale market. Narrow down to one particular brand and improve its taste and packaging which can attract more customers. Just need’s satisfaction is primary objective they don’t care about the other brand in the market. Research gave us the statistics that qualification is one of the factors of general knowledge but it has no role in the choice of consumer at the time of shopping. No need to increase the brand portfolio for separate gender a separate product. It means it is now clear that that one taste can favorite among the two genders as well. As for the LU it is good that their brand Bakeri has no specific target segment with respect to their education.Research about the association of gender and brand taste gave a very interesting results that there is no association between gender and brand taste liking. Area of residence is very important for the segmentation of target market. Research analysis and evaluation tells that there is no role of area of residence in the general knowledge of other available brands in the market. Page 137 of 170 . Income is one the major factor of consumers spending but our research gave tremendous results about the income that it has no role in the general knowledge about the competitive products in the market. After the complete analysis and evaluation it has been observed that qualification has no role in the competitors’ knowhow in the consumers. Like posh area people may be unaware of the Bakeri product and on other hand people downtown area know well about the Bakeri and other available brands.

As the consumer gaining experience day by day he/she don’t want to make experience with product they are using for long time. Research denies the relationship of gender and brand attraction. Teacher can like Plain Bakeri while the Doctor can like Coconut or can be vice versa. According to research in confectionary’s market profession has no association with the brand attraction. Page 138 of 170 . Area of residence can increase the sale as there is some strong area of residence where rate of buying is very higher as compare to other area of same city. choice of taste made consumers life easy. means there is no specific product that we can say a separate for male consumer or there is no specific change in linking in brand choice among ladies. But teen always wanted to explore new product/brand to increase their experience. Brands are not limited to profession but profession has choice to choose any of their favorite brands.Analysis and evaluation of the research has been observed that age and brand attraction are not related to each other. After the analysis and evaluation researcher come to conclusion that the variables like area of residence and product availability has no association between them. Barki Biscuits that’s why has good line of taste for each segment of market. For example in Karachi city there are area where sale at wholesale market vary from one to other as we can see in Imtiaz super market at Bahadarabad and in the EBCO super market at the Forum (Clifton). Researcher evaluate that there is no specific brand for the doctors or for the teacher.

There is no specific consumer behavior for the ladies or for the gents. Manufacturers should keep in mind the product availability is very important for their sale. Teens are excited and eager to explore new variety and taste at every time of shopping. Their choice can be same and on Page 139 of 170 . The result of analysis of gender and consumer buying behavior are very interesting that there is no association between these two variables at all. Consumer buying behavior and the age of customer has very strong association between each others. That indicates that consumer who is a Banker need product at their tea time as they have very limited time for the break so they don’t wait. Loyalty is associated with the maturity of customers. Different age people show their association with the product specially the old age people need the right product at the right time.After the complete analysis and evaluation it has been observed that product availability and profession of consumer has very strong relationship. Same outcome are from the teens that their association’s analysis show very strong relation with the availability of product. Complete analysis and evaluation has been observed that age of customer has direct effect on the purchasing behavior of customer. mature customers are more loyal as compare to teen agers. Evaluation and analysis of two key variables age and product availability has strong relationship between each others. Both old age and teen are the more than 60 percent of the consumers of any FMCG product. Similarly is a case of teacher who has very minutes in the recession time so product availability is very important otherwise theses professional people will choose another available product for their need.

than teen agers who love to try new taste every time. Analysis and evaluation of research are that age has no relationship with the buying decision. they generally prefer the product with respect to their need or on the family demand. Researcher comes to conclusion after the complete analysis and evaluation that there is no association between area of residence and consumer buying behavior with respect of any particular flavor of the product. Research showed that age and consumer buying behavior with respect to taste has no association with each other. Most important is note down the need of gender not the buying behavior.same hand their choice can vary from each others. Male or female don’t have a specific choice during the purchasing time. One key reason of research conduct was to check the influence of age on the buying decision. Buying can from the any age segment. although consumer buy product either for his/ her personal use or for their family members. If they choose any taste to LU (Bakeri) that is because of their need. Analysis and evaluation of gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to taste are observed that they are not associated with each others. Similar types of conclusions are given in the age and taste because there is a segment of society that has maturity of age they don’t prefer to try new taste every day. no one can restrict their buying to any age factors. Page 140 of 170 . They are loyal customers of any particular product. There is no such need of flavor or preference from different areas consumers.

even though office clerk can purchase for personal use or for the family usage. his/ her loyalty and their need. After the complete analysis and evaluation of research it has been observed that there is no relationship between the area of residence of consumers and their buying decision. Research analysis and evaluation are conducted at significance level of 95% and 99% that brand extension of LU has enhanced the sale and increase the customers by giving them more varieties of taste and innovative packaging. Page 141 of 170 . In some societies male play more roles in the daily consumption. Buying decision is totally dependent on the choice of customer. Researcher one motive was to check the effects of brand extension on the mother brand that either it sabotages the reputation of parent brand or it enhances the sale of company.As income play vital role in purchasing power of customer but according to analysis and evaluation of research it has no relationship with buying decision of LU (Bakeri) product. Female sometimes play more important role in the purchase of family grocery items on monthly basis. So income is not the factor of buying decision. To check the consumption pattern of consumer it important to check first the most influencing factor in consumption and research analysis told that gender is one factor that strong relationship with buying decision in the consumption of consumer. It is not necessary that manager can eat Bakeri (Coconut). Area has no role in the choice of particular product of LU Biscuits. So gender is one factor that has influence in the consumption pattern of consumer’s decision making.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS: As age is one of the common factors for consumer to develop brand familiarity. manufacturer should consider each and every aspect before launch the same in the marketing for the old consumers. 5. the manufacturer should always consider developing brand extension as per different age of consumers. At the time of any change in the product. Manufacturer of Bakeri should be clear after this reach that their target market is not only highly educated person. that can be someone who is not graduate and can be school going teen or old person. Consumer is happy that LU makes their choice easy with giving them variety of Biscuits with different taste.Finally it was important to check the consumer is either happy and satisfied with brand extension of LU (Bakeri) biscuits or the evaluation of research are very satisfactory that consumers are happy and satisfied with the brand extension process. the manufacturer should always consider developing brand extension as per different age of consumers. but in the matter of choice of any biscuit from the market doesn’t depend upon their education. As we know that qualification play a very common role in information search. So. As age is one of the common factors for consumer to develop brand taste. Whenever a manufacturer introduce brand extension of their Page 142 of 170 . So. Whenever a manufacturer introduce brand extension of their brand so it is important to provide awareness among the old consumers to use the same. It depends upon their taste and other factors which play major role in the brand familiarity.

There is a perception that ladies and gents liking are not same. Right advertisement and good positioning of the Bakeri will more increase the sale and bring more revenue for the LU. Area of residence has major effect on the sale of product. Here we get the message that Bakeri Brand a new dimension for the consumer for the consumer. Continental Biscuit Company can improve their packaging. Brand Manager should be clearly focus on the improvement of taste. Research analysis and evaluation make it very clear that area has no role on the awareness of any brand. but research results tell us that there is no association between gender and their taste.brand so it is important to provide awareness among the old consumers to use the same. packaging and improve their brand awareness to increase their loyal customers satisfaction level. As qualification is one factor in maturity of consumer and play a major role in their selection. it is marketing campaign and proper advertisement which create the awareness about Page 143 of 170 . Research proves that qualification has no association between the competitor’s knowhow. taste and the marketing campaign to create a good knowledge about the product. Means it is not necessary that educated people has the awareness of the available brands in the same category. As income is one of the major factors of consumer’s spending but it is not necessary that well earning person’s has more knowhow about the available brands in the market. Taste of gents and ladies can one common favorite taste. At the time of any change in the product. manufacturer should consider each and every aspect before launch the same in the marketing for the old consumers.

But research clearly mentioned that that brand attraction has no effect on age. Area of residence is one of the major factors that have effects on the sale of any FMCG product. Same is in case of brand attraction and gender choice. Bakeri is in a good position that it has strong line extension with respect to taste that is one of the differences in the gender choice.any brand. When marketer evaluate the segmentation for them age of consumer is very important to know their right target. LU should focus on the densely populated area and make awareness campaign among those areas rather than to focus on posh area of the city. some choices are same but they have different directions in most of the case. In simple words brand are not bound to one profession but they target the mass market. There is no specific brand in the market that is dedicated to particular segment. LU (Bakeri) has great potential for the growth as it has variety of taste in the market. Experience people don’t like to change their taste on daily basis. Profession is one element of societal segmentation but there is strong association between profession of anyone and the brand attraction. Continental Biscuits should not narrow down their target market but narrow down the brand for further improvement in taste and quality. while on other hand teens can be attracted with new style of packaging and taste. So. As male and female has different line of their choices. Before the Brand extension in FMCG product marketer must do comprehensive research on the different age liking and disliking about the new upcoming product. Availability of product is very important to make loyal customer Page 144 of 170 .

There is a strong effect of availability of product to convert simple consumer into your loyal customers. Buying behavior of consumer is very important for the marketer and manufacturer to enhance the production of existing brand and for the new product as well. Manufacturer of LU (Bakeri) should make clear that availability of their Biscuit at the different tuck shops and cafeterias of different institutions. As we already discuss the effects of different professional people on the sale. In the Biscuit manufacturers product availability make clear difference in their sale. As discussed earlier that age of customer has a prominent effect on the sale and availability of product.please at the time of shopping. Even though if company is planning for any change in taste and variety then must do comprehensive survey. It is a marketer responsibility to insure that availability and placement at shelf at leading super stores and small retailer shops is properly done as per the need of customers. Age of consumer is main factor for the segmentation of target market. Aged consumer is more loyal customer as compare to young age customers who need to try new verity and taste. It is Page 145 of 170 . If a needy person want to buy Bakeri Biscuits and at the shelf he/she found empty place then loyal customer will not wait for the product placement. Area of residence and the qualification has some impact on the sale but age of the consumer has more impact of the sale. Consumer buying behavior is also one other factor which cannot be neglected at anyhow. For the manufacturer and marketer it is very important to know that which age segment has more attention in their existing product and for the upcoming product as well.

important to know that what is basic need of specific gender like what female wants and what male customers want in their product. They sometime reject the good product because of their close association with the old product. They need quality and same taste every time. Page 146 of 170 . According to research results Continental Biscuits should focus on the equal availability of their product to all the residence area without any discrimination among them in case of flavor or taste linking. Area of residence has effects on sale but there is no specific taste or flavor which we can specify for a particular area. Researcher recommends that marketer and manufacturer should be keen on need rather than the buying behavior of gender. Manufacturer of LU (Bakeri) should focus on their quality of product for the both ladies and gents. Research outcomes are totally shocking that gender has no specific choice in the purchase of LU (Bakeri) biscuits with respect to specific taste. As gender playing major role purchase the right product for their daily usage. Their purchase reflects that their basic need is fulfilled through it otherwise they don’t have particular taste for them. Important is the presence of LU (Bakeri) biscuits on the shelf of all small shops and super markets. Manufacturer should be clear while introduce new taste or bring any change in their old product that their loyal customers must be taken into confidence before any change. they don’t prefer to try new taste every time. They will buy as per their need and choice. As segmentation of target audience with respect to age gave us strong result that aged customers are more loyal to any product.

Manufacturer will produce their products as per consumption and retailer will maintain the stock as consumer consumption. Company major target is to give variety of choice to consumer what he/ she likes can pick from the portfolio of LU Brand. as their products are for the mass market. anyone can purchase it. It is not necessary that a person who is earning well can be the right customer for the Bakeri biscuits. From grandfather to grandson is their target market. So researcher recommends the LU (Bakeri) manufacturers that they should place them equally in all area of residence and market them in equal way so their product availability is more important. no age limit for their any product. A consumer living in DHA can buy Bakeri (Date) for his need and for his taste. Sometimes children play more roles in purchasing of confectionary items and sometimes the old family members. similarly consumer of Nazimabad can also buy the Bakeri (Date) as his/ her will and wish. Continental Biscuits cannot narrow down their target segment. As purchasing is dependent on income and income play big role to increase the consumer’s choice but research’s analysis indicate that marketer should focus on mass market. As the research outcomes are that area of residence has no role in the decision power of consumer. So research indicates that gender is barometer of decision making in the consumption of FMCG product Page 147 of 170 .Buying Decision is important for the marketer to know who has more influence at this factor of shopping. Consumption patter on consumer is very important for the manufacturer and for the retailer as well. But research said there are no effects of age on consumer buying decision.

Tiger and Prince Biscuits in ticky packs so now it is a good time to leverage their Bakeri brand with ticky packs in the market.specially LU (Bakeri) Biscuits. classic etc are further steps to satisfied their loyal customers. LU already introduced TUC. same case with LU when it extended brand with the introduction of Bakeri. date. Very interesting results of research are that brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the reputation of pattern brand name LU. Consumers are happy with range of available taste and product as per their need and demand. Finally research come to conclusion that brand extension make consumer life easy. LU decision of Bakeri brand was very successful and it’s line extension with respect to different taste like coconut. Marketer should focus the gender in their advertisement and bring their attention on key elements for each market. LU can increase its sale by bring the small ticky packs of Bakeri all flavors to target the school going children. Page 148 of 170 . Most of the companies extend their brand to cater more customers and increase the sale and revenue for them. Researcher recommends that LU that their decision of extension of brand was a good decision and it further line extension is giving more sale and reputation.

000 – 40. 1.Are you familiar with Brand Name LU (Bakery) Biscuits? 2.H. Is corporate LU brand is appealing to you? 5.Pick any one factor which affects your selection of taste: Sweet Crispy Hygiene Taste Bitter Page 149 of 170 .000 Area of residence? DHA Nazimabad Profession Clifton Marketing Banking Engineering Brand knowledge: 1.Are you agree that Extension of Brand make our choice easy? 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4.E.In your opinion which brand need more improvement to get customer attention Classic Coconut Date Plain Brand Extension and Consumption Pattern of the Consumer.Agreed 3-Netiher agreed nor disagreed 2-Disagreed Brand Extension and Consumer Buying Behavior: 1.Pick any one factor which affects your buying decision : Name Price Availability 2. Can you recognize LU(Bakery) Biscuits brand among other competitive brands? 4.C. Instructions: Please read each item and CIRCLE the number that most accurately reflects your opinion Gender Age Male Female Qualification 21 – 30 Post Graduation 21.Do you agree that extensions of LU Bakery have no difference with the existing one? 2. The information you provide me will be confidential and will not be used for any other purpose. Did you know what are the products of the LU (Bakery) Biscuits taste like? 3.000 Gulshan-e-Iqbal Doctor 10.000 P.Which taste would you like to purchase after Brand Extension of LU (Bakery)? Classic Coconut Date Plain 2.S 31 – 40 41 – 50 50 and Above Doctoral 41.Did you agree that the Extension of Bakery Biscuits sabotage the Lu Bakery Biscuits? 3.In your opinion do you assess which taste would prefer more to buy the customers? Classic Coconut Date Plain 3.000 & Above Saddar Teacher North Others Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Graduation Income MS/Phil 31.000 –20. Is the products of the company with brand extension do satisfy your need? 6. Is brand extension like any other extension in the industry satisfy your need? Brand Extension effects: (5-Strongly agreed 1-Strongly Disagreed) 1.000 – 30.QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you for your cooperation to complete the questionnaire.

D. 5. 54 9.Aaker D. 1997.Aaker.. California Management Review. Building Strong Brands. 1996. 1991. 380 .. A.. Sloan Management Review.Aaker. A. D. “Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name”. 1990. New York. Page 150 of 170 . D.. (July/August). New York: The Free Press. D. . 1992.Aaker.A. Strategic market management (3 ed. 27-32.. 3. 7. K. 1992. Inc. A. D. The value of Brand Equity. 2004.Aaker. Vol. 2000.A. A. New York: The Free Press.Aaker. Journal of Business Strategic. Brand Extensions: The Good.Aaker.Aaker.A. 6-18. 12-22 rd 6. D.: Leveraging the Corporate Brand. et al.BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. 27-41 2. New York: The free press. “Brand Leadership”. 32-44 8. 13(4). “Consumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions”. 31 (Summer).Aaker. Journal of Marketing.L. The Free Press. 1-22 4. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name.. D. A. and The Ugly. & Keller. The Bad. 47-56..). Canada: John Wiley & Sons. 46. 54 (January). 1990. D.

“New Launches”. Romeo. 16. P.D.” Journal of Consumer Research. “The Influence of Positive Mood on Brand Extension Evaluation. Miniard. & Styles C. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Energy.. T. 1995. and Jean B. New York. Paul W. 386-400. 2000. Brand development versus new product development: toward a process model of extension decisions. 2002. 2nd Edition. 2006. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Page 151 of 170 . Leverage.Bennett. Differentiation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.Berné Carmen.. Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance. Brand development versus new product development: towards a process model of extension decisions. T. “Dictionary of Marketing Terms”. 52-59 11.. Mugica Jose M and Yague Jesus M. Lincolnwood. D. 19 (1). Journal of Product & Brand Management.Andrews Rick L and Currim Imran S.ACNielsen. 222-234 14. 10-19 13. “The Effect of Variety Seeking on Customer Retention in Services”. 25-66 12. 2004. 65-79 15. “Identifying Segments with Identical Choice Behaviors Across Product Categories: An Inter-category Logit Mixture Model”.Ambler.Aaker.Ambler.A.Barone. Clarity. Free Press. C.10. 26 (March). 6(4).. McGrew – Hill. & Styles. 421-450 17.. South Africa. Michael J. 1997. 1996.

Boush. 1996.Bottomley and Stephen J. R. J. L. 38 (November). Great Britain: Pearson Education. Doyle. 8 (6). 335-345 18. 28 (February).Bei. 365-377.” International Journal of Research in Marketing. 19. Essex (UK). 16-20 Page 152 of 170 . Richard “Making Brand Extensions Work”.” Journal of Marketing Research.” Journal of Marketing Research. Sales and Marketing Management. Principles of Marketing (2nd ed. Paul A. 494-500 22. 255-289 20. 24(1).-T. “The Formation of Attitudes towards Brand Extensions: Testing and Generalising Aaker and Keller's Model. 13 (October). S. Limited. “Do We Really Know How Consumers Evaluate BrandExtensions? Empirical Generalizations Based on Secondary Analysis of Eight Studies. “Essentials of Marketing Communications”. and Barbara Loken. S. Holden. & Heslin. and John R.Blythe.).. The consumer reports mindset: Who seeks value the involved or the knowledgeable? Advances in Consumer Research.Brassington. “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation. F. 2006.. 1991. 150(11). 84. David M. & Pettitt. 1997. 151. 24. 2001. 2001. 1998. 21. 3rd Edition.Bottomley. 23. Pearson Education Limited.Branson. 2000.Services. 1628.

6(Fall).. Vol. Advances in Consumer Research. J. A typology of consumer knowledge content. and Chen. 1994. and Alba. S.Chen.Buday.C. Keller. 12(1). A. Journal of Consumer Marketing. M. 26. 28. 29. Journal of Product and Brand Management.K. 27. Communication Strategies for Brand Extensions: Enhancing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links.Buday.. S.. J. 31(2)..Chen K. L. 1. 2000. 243-254 32. 2004.Bridges. and Liu C.4. Journal of Product and Management. 214-239. 58.H. 1991 27-30. W. 25-36 Page 153 of 170 . Journal of Advertising. M. Journal of Marketing Research. “Positive Brand Extension Trial and Choice of Parent Brand”. Capitalizing on Brand Extensions. 1989. & Sood.25.. 27-30. K. 1. No. 1986. Tom.Brucks. Journal of Consumer Research. M.Broniarczyk. S. 6(2). 31. The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior. 2000.Brucks. 30. T. 13 (1). S.9. M. 1985... 3(1). “Capitalizing on Brand Extensions”. 29(4). Brand dilution effect of extension failure-a Taiwan study. “The importance of the brand in brand extension”. Journal Of Consumer Marketing.

Kulluvaara Camilla.. 2003. Asim Ansari. Niraj and Paul F. “The Effects of Order and Direction on Multiple Brand Extensions.. Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research propositions. 119129. 2003. “The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension. Peter Lenk. 35. 34.” Journal of Marketing Research.” Marketing Letters. The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the earning and Organization of Product Information. 2004.Davis. Peter A. and Daniel C. Pradeep Chintagunta.” Journal of Business Research. Brand Extension case study of three Swedish companies. 8 Page 154 of 170 . and Michel Wedel.. S. International Journal of Research in Marketing.. “Representing Heterogeneity in Consumer Response Models – 1996 Choice Conference Participants. Anderson. A.Czellar.SE. Kannan Srinivasan. S.04/70 .Dacin. 36..DeSarbo. “A vision for the year 2000: brand asset management”.SHU EX . Richard Johnson. 97. 1995.33.. 443-454. 20(1). SHU • ISSN: 1404 – 5508 • ISRN: LTU . 1994. Kamel Jedidi.Cowley. E. 1994. Wagner Kamakura. 30(3). Smith. Tornberg Johanna. 39. 30 (June). Wayne S.Dahlberg Elina.Dawar. 5-14 37. & Mitchell. Journal of Consumer Research. Charles Himmelsberg. A. 229-242. 31 (May). 27-43 38.

R. T.Erdem. L. 1997.(July).Diamantopoulos Adamantios.De Pelsmacker.. “Impact of Brand Extensions on Brand Personality. European Journal of Marketing. Geuens. 339-351 44.De Chernatony. Intention and Behavior”. 7 -12 46. 1990. 47. 2nd Edition. “Creating Powerful Brands’. 1998.Ernst& Young and Nielsen. Pearson Education Limited. New Product Introduction: Successful Innovation/ Failure: A Fragile Boundary. J.. 21-34 42. M. 1998. P.Farquhar. 129-149 43. P. 335-348. & McDonald. 1999. A Relational Model for Category Extensions of Brands. Journal of Advertising Research.Farquhar. 2001. “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement of Belief.. 40. 39 (1-2). & Van den Bergh. 856. Herr. Attitude. H. 17(1).. Smith Gareth and Ian Grime. P. & Fazio. 22-29 45. H. Oxford. Journal of Applied Page 155 of 170 . 245-260 41. 30. Butterworth Heinemann.. P. “An empirical analysis of umbrella branding”. Advances in Consumer Research.. 1990. Essex (UK). Managing brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XXXV (Aug). 2005.Experimental Evidence”.Feldman Jack M and John G Lynch. “Marketing Communications”. M. M.

& Goldsmith. K. The end of the line? Overkill on extensions. Journal of Product and Brand Management. Journal of Marketing Research. Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge. 421-435 48. Eun Joo. R. 509-518. 1988.. 9(2). European Journal of Marketing.Flynn... L. R. New York Irwin: McGraw-Hill. 50. D.. 35 (November).Glynn. 36(11/12). E. 54. 46(1). Brandon. 2005.Psychology. Consumer evaluations of extensions and their effects on the core brand. Zeynep and Maheswaran. A. 156-165 49. Journal of Business Research. A Short. Lynn: “Effects of Evaluation Criteria on Fashion Brand Extension”. G. 74-86 Page 156 of 170 . R.Gibson R. 1990.Hawkins. 2001. Consumer behaviour: Building Marketing Strategy. 2002. Durairaj. Best. 1999.Grime. Wall Street Journal. 7(6). 52. 464-473. 1998. Judith C. M. 73 (3). & Brodie. 57-66.Gürhan-Canli.. 1415–1438 53. & Coney. R. 1998. Park. The importance of brand specific associations in brand extension: further empirical results. & Smith. June 18.Forney.. Diamantopoulos. 51. “The Effects of Extensions on Brand Name Dilution and Enhancement”. I. B1. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management.

2003. 30(1).Hart. 1990. & Iversoen N.E.Haig. the truth about the 100 biggest branding mistakes of all time. Great Britain: Anthony Rove Ltd. J. 59.Hoyer. & Iversen...Hem. “Factors Influencing Successful Brand Extensions”. L. Brand Due Dilligence. Repeat Purchase Product‘ vol. R. 2001. Dr L.: Brand Finance. 58.M. 7279. C. E. 1990. 9(1). & Price L. 2003. Steven. Norway (September). “Brands the New Wealth Creators”. David.. 4-37.17. Page 157 of 170 . Comment: Consumer's memory for product knowledge. no. M. de Chernatony. Advances in Consumer Research. 1982. L. Brand failures. M. & Duncan P. & Murphy.Hartmen..Hem. Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common.17. London. “Consumer evaluation of franchise extension products”: A categorizing processing perspective. Transfer of Brand Equity in Brand Extension: The Importance of Brand Loyalty.. 61.Hastie. 24-33 57. 56. Wayne. 120-127. L.1. 59 62. 60.. 141-148.. 2002. C. Advances in Consumer Research. S. VPl.P..55... 1-4. 72. D & Brown.Haigh. 1998.. N. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. Kogan Page Limited. L. in advances in conquers research.

63- Interbrand, 2009” Best Global Brand – 2009 Rankings” Internet document. Accessed 11 Jan 2011. http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx

64- Järlhem Manthana, Mihailescu Raluca, “The study of consumer perception of the parent brand and its extended brand personality”, ISSN 1403-851X, 2003, 622

65- Jalees Tariq, a Modular Approach to Study the Impact of Brand Extensions, FMCG in Pakistan. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M-Phil PAF-KIET, Karachi, 2008, 5-25

66- Jay Pil Chai, “Brand Extension as Informational Leverage”, Review of Economic Studies, 65 (4), 1998, 655-669.

67- Jo, Myung- Soo, Nakamoto Kent and Nelson James E, “The Shielding Effects of Brand Image against Lower Quality Countries-of-Origin in Global

Manufacturing”, Journal of Business Research, 56 (8), 2003, 637-646

68- Jokanovid Jelena, “corporate brand equity valuation in the Food and beverage industry in Slovenia”, Master Thesis, University Of Ljubljana faculty of Economics, 2005, 3 -27

69- John, Deborah Roedder, Loken, Barbara and Joiner, Christopher, “The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship Products Be Diluted?” Journal of Marketing, 62 (January), 1998, 19-32.

Page 158 of 170

70- Jun, Sung Youl, Mazumdar, Tridib and Raj, S.P., “Effects of Technological Hierarchy on Brand Extension Evaluations”, Journal of Business Research, 46, 1999, 31-43.

71- Kanwar, R., Grund, L., & Olson, J. C., When Do The Measures Of Knowledge Measure What We Think They Are Measuring? Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 1990, 603.

72- Kamal, R.S., “The shift in the classical brand concept”. Unpublished Manuscript, Institute of Rural Management, 2003, 55

73- Kapferer, J.N. Reinventing the Brand. London: Kogan Page Limited, 2001, 221245

74- Kapferer, J.N. [re] inventing the brand, can top brands survive the new market realities? USA: Kogan Page Limited, 2001 , 121-145

75- Kapoor, H., Competitive Effects on the Evaluation of Brand Extension. PhD Dissertation. Eric Sprott School of Business. Faculty of Public Affairs and Management, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, 2005, 240-256

76- Keller, K. L., Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing. 29, 1993, 1-22.

77- Keller, K.L., Strategic Brand Management. USA: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1998, 25-44

Page 159 of 170

78- Keller K.L.: Building Customer-Based Brand Equity. Marketing Management, Vol. 10 Issue 2, 2001, 14-19.

79- Keller, K. L. “Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.” Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003, 125-136

80- Keller, K.L., Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity 2nd ed. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2003, 120- 125

81- Keller, K. L., & Sood, S., Brand Equity Dilution. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 2003, 12-15.

82- Khalid Waqas, Ahmed Waqar, Branding in Small Companies (A case study of Vital Tea in Pakistan), School of Management Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2002, 19-22

83- Kim, C.K. & Lavack, A.M., “Vertical brand extensions: current and managerial implications.” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(6), 1996, 61- 75.

84- Kim, Byung-Do and Mary W. Sullivan, “The Effect of Parent Brand Experience on Line Extension Trial and Repeat Purchase,” Marketing Letters, 9 (April), 1998, 181-193.

85- Klink, Richard R. and Daniel C. Smith, “Threats to the External Validity of Brand Extension Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August), 2001, 326335.

Page 160 of 170

10-25 87. Page 161 of 170 . Inc. “The Reciprocal Impact of Brand Leveraging: Feedback Effects from Brand Extension Evaluation to Brand Evaluation”. 12th Edition. 63-77. M. T.86. P. Marketing Management 12 ed. & Keller. K. 8 (3). New Jersey. & Armstrong. 1990. Vicky and Robert Jacobson.Kotler. G. P.Lane. Principles of Marketing (7th ed. Marketing Letters. 55-60 90.Kotler. 45-73 89. G. Goodman. 123-157 91. 24-28 92..Kotler.. 1996. “Stock Market Reactions to Brand Extension Announcement: The effects of Brand Attitude and Familiarity. Marketing an Introduction. Keller.Kotler.Kotler. Vicki and Jacobson Robert. 93. New Delhi: Prenticehall of India Private Limited. “Principles of Marketing”. 51-66 88.Lane. Principles of Marketing 11th ed. & Armstrong.. Essex (UK).. 2005. 2nd ed. 1997. “Marketing Management. 1995.. & Armstrong G. 59 (January). P. & Hansen. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey.. P.Kotler. 2009. P.” Journal of Marketing. K.. P. M.L.L. 2007. 2006.. & Armstrong.. 261-271. G.” Pearson Education Limited. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. Prentice-Hall..). Pearson Education Inc. Inc. Brandy. USA: Prentice Hall.

Journal of Marketing. 99.Loken. 55-61 98. D.McAlister. 2005. 64(2). 96.Lane and Robert Jacobson. Karl Eller Graduate School of Management. 9. Working Paper #54. “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior. & John. D. 2000.” Journal of Marketing. 57 (July). Direct Marketing.MacInnis. and Nakamoto. 2000.34 Page 162 of 170 . 71-84. “The Role of Consumer Knowledge in Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension”. 80-91. Vol.94. Leigh and Edgar A Pessemier. 95. Issue 6.. D. Building a Brand's Personality from the Customer Up. “Stock Market Reactions to Brand Extension Announcements: The Effects of Brand Attitude and Familiarity. 59 (January). 1993. 97. 64 (April). J. University of Arizona. “The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions. 80.” Journal of Marketing. “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have A Negative Impact?” Journal of Marketing.. 311-322 101. 1982. 1995.Lane. 65. A thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology.Lane. 1134 100. V. 22.” Journal of Consumer Research. R. K. B.The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions.Ma Yun. 63-77.. R. Vicki R.Larson. 2002. 1990. “Examining factors that influence the perceived goodness of brand extensions”.

2005.102. 2003. Page 163 of 170 . APA Journal..3. Inc.. The Logic of the Actual Dilution Requirement. 1996.. Boston College Law Review. & Saari. A. “Managing Negative Feedback Effects Associated with Brand Extensions: The Impact of Alternative Branding Strategies”. Fit as a determinant of success in brand extension.. 221-233 104. Vol. M. S. 1996. & Dacin. 2000.Michaclidon Nina.Mermin J.: Interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. 6 (2). M.. 23): Journal of Consumer Research.. A.Mitchell. 258 Marketing Academy. 119-140. H. “Factors Affecting Brand Extension in Competitive Market”. 1997. 45-57 106. 85-101 105.Muroma. 5(1). university of Pisttsburgh. 103. 219 107. 108. No.McCarthy. A. and Michael S. 1. Sandra J. 1996. 42 No.. B. C. PhD Thesis. P. Paper presented at the The 25th annual conference of the European Budapest. The Marketing Review.W.McClendon.69. The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Whan Park. 207-256. “Characteristics of Marketing Channels: A Theoretical Framework”. Journal of Consumer Psychology.Milberg. Arnott David C and Dibb Sally. Vol.. Journal of Consumer Research (Vol. McCarthy. A bold vision and a brand identity for the planning profession.

116- Parker Jones. E. Ford Lauderdale.. European Journal of Marketing. and Robert Lawson.J. Advances in Consumer Research. 1991. Non Durable Goods. 2011. E. 45-47.1998. 2006 “The Success of Nike Brand. http://exitcreative.. & Weitz. 33 No. 18 (September). C. 33(5/6). Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving consumer goods. 114- Nkwocha.Nijssen. 1999. Sandra J. 185-193. I.”Internet document. a History. V. 2000. 1990. England: Prentice Hall Inc. Southern University. Accessed 12 Jan.. Whan. Dissertation”. Nova.Muthukrishnan.. “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency. Role of Product Knowledge in Evaluation of Brand Extension. 1991.Nijssen..Nilson.Murphy. Chichester: Wiley. 17. Vol.cop. Milberg. Brand Strategy. European Journal of Marketing. 111. . 51 110.109. C. 1997. Competitive Branding-Winning the Marketplace with Value Added Brands. Florida. A. “Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving consumer goods”. 5/6.34 115.T. J..net/blog/2006/12/the-success-of-the-nike-brand-a-history/ Page 164 of 170 .” Journal of Consumer Research. Wayne Huizenga Graduate School of Business and Entrepreneurship. A.Park. “Consumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions: Durable Goods Vrs. H. 450-469 113. 67-69 112. M. J. 407. 18(1). B.

121- Rajagopal. & Katsanis.461. A. Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education.. ITESM-CCM. Working Paper. Not Product Lines. Brand Extension Effects. 2004. J. Variety Seeking Behavior and Customer Value on Decisions: A Multi-experiment Analysis”. 2000.. G.London: Kogan Page Limited. 28-33 123- Randall.117- Peterson. 12(4). Mexico DF 14380. Understanding Brand Equity for Successful Brand Extension. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension: Can B2B Brands be extended into Consumer Market?” Master Thesis. 2006. G.A. ‘Influence of Advertising Variability. 51-64 119- Phang Leon. (2 nd ed. 118- Pitta. Extend Profits.L. Journal of Harvard Business Review on Brand Management. & Kenny. “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis. 28 (December). Mexico City Campus.. 1997. 146-152 Page 165 of 170 .a Practical guide to Planning Your Strategy. 1995. Organizing and Strategy. 2001. 1999.” Journal of Consumer Research. Branding. 6-22 122- Randall. 450. A Practical Guide to Branding: Planning. London: Kogan Page Limited. Maastricht University. D. 15-20 120- Quelch. Buying Brand Name. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 105-126. P.). Robert A.

).124- Rangaswamy. 31 (May). 61-75. Holak. L. Great Britain. 2005. R. Burke.R. 125- Reddy. 1994. “Brand Information and Price”. 10. Savonia University of applied sciences unit of Page 166 of 170 . Journal of 127- Ries. “Brand Trust and Brand Extension Acceptance: The Product and Brand Management. HarperCollins Publishers. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Case: how sneakers have turned into status symbols.. 1996. 126- Reast Jon D. 1993.” Journal of Marketing Research. ed. 14 (1). 1986.. “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions. The role of familiarity and expertise in luxury brand extension evaluation. Vol. 1988. & Boush.. A. Srinivas K. 62 York: 128- Ries. New McGraw-Hill. “The 22 Immutable Laws of branding”.A. Journal of Industrial Economics. A.. and Oliva.. & Trout. E. 243-262. 4-13 Relationship”. 457 131- Rubini Andrea. and Subodh Bhat.L. 44-59 129- Ross Thomas W. Paper presented at the 25th European Marketing Academy Conference.. A.. Susan L. Brand equity and the extendibility of brand names. 1999. T. 36 (3). “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind” (1st. and Ries. D. Budapest. Role of Brand in consumer behavior. T. M. 303-313 130- Roux.

Journal of Economic Psychology. J. Schmitt. R. 1993. and Bernd H. B. 1994.17. 31. Martin. 1-10.& Srivastava. “Extending Brands with New Product Concepts: The Role of Category Attribute Congruity. Journal of Consumer Marketing.W. 31 (September/October). 19-20 University of 134- Sharp. 149-158. Brand Affect.Shocker. 136. Individual Brand: Which Way to Go? . 2nd Edition South-Western.Siburian S. 2004. 22-40 137. 2000. B. Mason (USA). 138.” Journal of Business Research. “The Role of Corporate Image and Extension Similarity in Service Brand Extensions”. Kuopio. 132- Seyama William. -5-22 Page 167 of 170 .”Customer Behavior: A Managerial Prospective”. & Mittal.Business and Administration. 11. & Ruekert R. “Challenges and opportunities facing brand management’. 2004.Sheth. Factors of successful Brand Extension in FMCG industry. Pretoria.N.. Ko de and Wetzels. 1994. 2010. 23-37 132- Ruyter. Daniel A.K. and Brand Breadth.: Company Brand vs.D. 10 (3).659. J. 2006. 21. 135- Sheinin. 639. A. an introduction to the special issue: Journal of Marketing Research. “Managing brand extension”.

1990. 143. 10 (March).” Journal of Marketing Research. and Srinivas K. 36-41 Page 168 of 170 . Vol. 12(1). 29 (August). 2001. 1993. Lorraine and Roderick J.Skowronski.. Journal of Business. E. 52 (4). 689-699. 145. “ Measuring Image Spillovers in Umbrella Branded Products”. Brodie. “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency. 1992. and Extremity Biases”. 65 (October). Daniel C. M. John J. Vanitha.Swaminathan. Wahn Park.Sunde. and Donal E.139. Carlston. Journal of Consumer Research. Positivity. “Brand franchise extension: new products benefits from existing brand names”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M.. Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments.Sujan.. 1987. 296-313. 141. Richard J. Mary W. Reddy. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions: Further Empirical Results. 1985.Sullivan. 63(1). 309-30. “Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in Negativity. and C. 24.Tauber. 142. 140.” International Journal of Research in Marketing.Smith. 144. “The Impact of Brand Extension Introduction on Choice. 1-15. 47-53. Business Horizon. 1981.” Journal of Marketing. 31. Fox.

Völckner Franziska. 2003. “Ad Spending on Brand Extensions-Does Similarity Matters?” Journal of Brand Management.Van Trijp. Wayne D Hoyer and Jeffrey Inman . Hans C M.Tufts University. 22. 14 (4). 2-5 150. How Do Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions? Research findings from India. Sattler Henrik. Journal of Business and Psychology. 26-30. 281-192 152-Vaidyanathan R.control world. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Research Papers on Marketing and Page 169 of 170 .Taylor. “Empirical Generalizability of Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”. Massachusetts. National Institute of Technology.Taylor V A and Bearden W O . 2000.146. 605-624 153. D. 28. West Sussex. Athletic Footwear. 2006. 2004.. 1988.. 1996. “Brand Stretch: Why 1 in 2 Extensions Fail. Journal of Advertising Research. Journal of Marketing Research.Thamaraiselvan N. “Why Switch? Product-Category Level Explanations for True Variety-Seeking Behavior”. 63-74 148. 2003.Tauber.41 149.. E. “Role of Brand Familiarity in Internal Reference Price Formation-An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective”. Department of Management Studies. 11 (1). and How to Beat the Odds”. Sivaram A. 33. Industry Analysis Economics of Management and Strategy.. 54-56 151. Brand leverage: strategy for growth in a cost. 147.

Journal of Consumer Research. 37-46 Page 170 of 170 . 29(1). 13 (1). Management Decision. 2004. http://www. 2002. 1999. 305326 155. 157- Yates J. L.com/marketing/branding/imageandbrandingcolm nistjohnwilliams/article76186.entrepreneur. 662-669. “The Reciprocal Effects of Extension Quality and Fit on Parent Brand Attitude”.Retailing University of Hamburg. S..M. Vol 24. 8-36 158- Zhang.. 2000. Building Winning Brand Strategies That Deliver Value and Customer Satisfaction.Wood. Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Internet document. 159- Zimmer M R and Bhat S. Accessed 12 Jan 2011.: Brand Valuation and its Applications.html 156. & Sood. W. 1995. “Cardinal Rules for Logo Design”. Journal of Product and Brand Management..Weilbacher. 2005. 'Deep' and 'Surface' Cues: Brand Extension Evaluations by Children and Adults. 129. 38(9).Williams. J. 3-19 154. S.. Lincolnwood: NTC Publishing Group.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful