53605761 Master Thesis on Brand Extension | Brand | Logos

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

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

classic etc are further steps to satisfied their loyal customers. (vi) To study the effect of brand extension on the mother brand. LU can increase its sales by bring the ticky packaging of Bakeri all flavors to target the school going children and increase its sales.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”. The research shows that there is direct relationship between brand extension and mother brand sales. Page 5 of 170 . 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 studies performed are (i) To determine the impact of brand name itself on FMCG Product (Biscuit). 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. (vii) To identify the effects on Brand Extension on its variety. as he/she was familiar with the brands. (iii) To study the effect of brand extension on increasing consumer buying behavior of FMCG Products. date. a closed ended questionnaire was administered to on brand extension impact on its own sales. (ii) To study the effect of brand extension on FMCG product sales especially biscuits. It has been observed that consumers are happy with available range of products as it fulfills their need and demand. LU decision of extended Bakeri brands was very successful and its line extension with respect to different taste like coconut. It is recommended that brand extension make consumer life easy to choose without any hesitation. (viii) At last to study the brand extension on brand name of the same FMCG itself. To analyze the significant impact on the relationship between brand extension and mother brand sales. (v) To determine the effect of new advertisement of brand extension and consumer attention towards specific variety of biscuit. The study determined brand extension’s affects on the sales of new brands itself as well as on the mother brand too. (iv) To find how the consumption pattern of the consumers after brand extension on a FMCG Product. For getting responses for the study.

................2 2............................................2 PROJECT TITLE: ................................2.......................2....................................... 10 OBJECTIVES: ........................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS: .......... 19 Meaningful: ................................................ 22 Page 6 of 170 .......................................................................................................1................4 2...................4 2. 9 Company History ......... 9 Corporate Overview .....................................................Table of Contents CERTIFICATE .................1 2....................................6 2................ 11 HYPOTHESES: ...................................................................................................................................................................................4 2..................................3............................... 21 Black and white: ............3 1.....................2............................................................................................................................................2 WHAT IS A BRAND? ............. 9 ORGANIZATION: ............................................................. 20 Company reflection:.... 16 LITERATURE REVIEW: ..........................3.........................................................................2 1................... 10 Benefits to the Customers ...........................5 1...............................................................................................1 1...2......................................................... 19 Adaptable ................................ 2 PREFACE ............................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER ..................................................................................................... 16 2.................................................................................... 21 Simplicity: ............................................................................................................... 17 Components of a Brand ..................................................2 1............................. 11 1............................7 SIGNIFICANCE:..2 .......................................4....................................................................................................................................... 19 Transferable: ........2 2............................................................... 9 1.................................................................2..................................2.................................... 22 BRAND LAYOUT AND PRODUCT PACKAGING: ...................................................... 18 Memorable: .......... 4 ABSTRACT..... 21 Balance: .....................................................................................2..... 19 Protectable:....................3 1...............1 2...........................................................................3 2......................3.............. 9 Benefits to the Organization ........................... 9 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: .............................6 1...3 2...............................................................................................................................3 2.............5 2...........................................................1 1.1 2.....................................................................................................................1 1.....................................................................3..............................................................................3.......................................1 1.........................................................3................. 21 Resizing: ........................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................5 BRAND LOGO: ................................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER -1 ..... 20 BRAND SLOGAN: ..... 19 2.........................2.........3............................................................. 19 Likeable: .......................................... 21 BRAND NAME:.....................1 2........................... 10 Benefits to the Retailer/Wholesalers............................5 2...

.. 36 CORPORATE BRANDS: ..................7 2.......16 BRAND-SPECIFIC ASSOCIATIONS:....................................................................14 BRAND IDENTITY: .. 90 Money-off vouchers:....................1 2........................ 26 BRAND EQUITY AND BRAND LOYALTY: ................................... 52 Key Reasons of Brand Extension: ........................27........................ 23 BRAND EQUITY: ........................................12 2.....................27...........................................4 2........ 92 Page 7 of 170 . 91 Lottery: ............................................................24 2.............................................14.....................................25 2............3 2...........................................................................................................................5 2....................................................... 62 2........................................................................... 32 BRAND DUE DILIGENCE: .................... 80 BRAND EXTENSION EFFECTS ON CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: ................................................. 60 Pros and Cons regarding Brand Extension: ...16..22 2......................................23 2..........14...................................14........................................20 2................18 2................................. 68 RESEARCH RESULTS BEYOND THE LAB INTO CONDITIONS WITH REAL EXTENSIONS: 70 SCOPE OR GENERALIZABILITY OF BRAND EXTENSION: ... 44 Brand Extension Process ............................ 73 FMCG INDUSTRY AND BRAND EXTENSION: ......................16...................................1 2................ 90 Free taster: ............................................................................................................................ 87 BRAND SWITCHERS: ........13 2...6 2.................... 39 BRAND AWARENESS: ..................................2 2...............27...................................10 2...................................................................................................16.......................................................... 52 Rationales behind Brand Extensions ..................................17 2..............9 2.....2 2.1 2.... 30 BRAND EQUITY’S LIFE AND BRAND DILUTION: ......................................6 Cause: ..26 2.........................4 2...........................................16.......................................................................................................................... 77 BRAND LOYALTY AND CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: ...........16................ 40 Brand recognition: ..................................11 2..................................................................................................................27 RELEVANCE OF BRAND EXTENSION SUCCESS FACTORS: ............................... 72 CONSUMER EVALUATIONS OF BRAND EXTENSIONS: ..................................................................................................8 2................ 91 Piggy-backing: ...........................................................................................................27........2 2...................3 2.................................3 2..........5 2.............. 91 2............................27.................. 90 Two-for-one price: ......................................................................................................................... 33 CUSTOMER BASED BRAND EQUITY:... 81 BRAND ACCESSIBILITY AND DIAGNOSTICITY: ...........................................27.............................. 54 Successful Brand Extension ...........2.............................................21 2............................................................ 40 2............. 91 Gift: ..................... 40 Brand recall: ...............19 2....... 40 Top of mind: .................. 37 BRAND PERSONALITY: ....................... 43 BRAND EXTENSION: ....................... 71 GENERALIZABILITY ACROSS SUCCESS MEASURES:..........................15 2............................................................... 84 BRAND ASSOCIATION AND VARIETY SEEKING BEHAVIOR: ....

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

the French food giants. In the year 2007 Danone sold their biscuits category to Kraft Foods of USA.2 ORGANIZATION: 1.2 Company History Page 9 of 170 .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.5% and 49.2. Today the company has a joint venture with Kraft Foods with a shareholding of 50. 1. Prince and Tiger.CHAPTER -1 1.2.1 PROJECT TITLE: Effect of Brand Extension on Sales of “Bakeri Biscuits”: (A product of LU Continental Biscuits Private Limited) 1.5% respectively for more than two decades CBL is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of the brand LU. We have an array of products which are pre-eminent in the branded biscuit business both in Pakistan and abroad.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. 1. Candi. Our unrivalled portfolio of brands has been meeting consumer needs for well over two decades and includes such favorites as TUC.

CBL thus started its' operations in the country since September 1986 with an initial strength of 200 employees. 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. more comprehensive range of products and technical know-how became available to CBL.Incorporated in 1984. The company first introduced its' innovative brands .2 Benefits to the Customers Page 10 of 170 . Prince. 1. These brands have an array of products that falls into the category of plain biscuits. who signed a joint venture agreement with Generale Biscuits. the global manufacturers of the LU range. which was subsequently acquired by the Danone Group. crackers and ingredients based. under its power brands of TUC. the success story of LU in Pakistan began with the initiative of Hasan Ali Khan (the founder of Continental Biscuits).3 SIGNIFICANCE: 1.1 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. Expansive investments were made including the import of technology and professional expertise from abroad.3. What is the behavior and or liking and disliking of their target. Prince and Candi which proved to be an instant success.3. 1.TUC. Tiger and Candi. The company at present has an outstanding portfolio. cream variants. With global merger of Generale Biscuit and the Danone-Group.

1. To Determine the impact of Brand Name on FMCG Product (Biscuit). 3. 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. 4. 5. 1.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. 6.6 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 determine the effect of advertisement on Brand Extension and consumer attention towards specific variety. To study the effect of brand extension on the mother brand. To find the consumption pattern of the consumer after Brand Extension on a FMCG Product. To identify the effects on Brand Extension on it Variety. 7. To study the effect of Brand Extension on FMCG product Sales especially biscuit. Customer can see recommend the main organize (LU) to give attention to their favorite brand. Their shelves will not be occupied by the unnecessary items. To study the effect of Brand Extension on consumer buying behavior of FMCG Products. 2.4.5 OBJECTIVES: 1. 8.

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

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

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

HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste). HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste). Page 15 of 170 . Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). Ho: There is No Association between Gender 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).Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste). HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (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. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).

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

5 Adaptable: whereas Nike has created a “brand-in-brand” by Page 19 of 170 . that is much more memorable an easy to pronounce than Booji. 2. Puma. easy to pronounce and spell. 2.2.3 Likeable: it relates to the aesthetics of the name. a very strong and meaningful name for a leader company in sport industry (Parker Jones. Think Lotto. 2006. a brand name has to be: 2.2.2 Meaningful: Nike in Greek means “victory”. 2009. for example. 2.6 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. is a name so universal and catchy that can serve for multipurpose branding.2. 2010).1 Memorable: the name has to be short. Rubini. 2.1.1.2.2. The name of the brand has to be easy to recognized and recall in any situation and language.2. 2. (Kotler.2 BRAND NAME: The very first important feature for a brand is the brand name. Rubini. or Feiyue. how it looks and how it sounds. for example. 2010) detected that there are six main criteria to follow for choosing a brand name.

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 subdivided its brand in three product-lines. A logo must be distinctive and unique. Rubini. (Williams. 2. (Logo Blog 2010). As the brand name. but the actual possibility that a brand becomes synonymous of a product (or service). The logo was inspired by the wings of the statue of the Nike. they have created new logos exploiting the concept of the three stripes. but adding the product-line name as a suffix. Moreover.. 2. 2001. products from diverse product-lines are wrapped in different layout colors packaging. Adidas Performance and Adidas Style.2. Adidas characteristic feature.introducing the line AJ (Air Jordan).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. The original logo was then used only for the product-line Adidas Originals. or the introduction in common jargon of the verb “to google” instead of “to browse”. 2010) Page 20 of 170 . Then in 1995 the logo was registered as trademark and it has contributed to worldwide success of the company. Try to think how often hankies are replaced by the word Kleenex. but for the other two. leaving the same brand name for all of them. Rubini. 2005. the Greek Goddess of Victory.6 Protectable: it does not refer to the legal aspects of trademarks. 2010).

3.3. 2. for example in order to print it on business cards.3. colors. 2. border line. five are the most important: 2. Also. it is important to avoid logos with many details. A company should be able to resize its logo. not be inspired or even similar to the one of its competitors.4 Resizing: a logo is efficient when it is understandable when resized or inverted.tells us that there are several rules to follow during the design of a logo. and so on) that suffocates the others Page 21 of 170 . font size. a logo must be recognizable if its shape is mirrored. and still the logo must be clear. A logo that cannot be distinguished whereas painted with different tones is a failure.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.1 Company reflection: a logo should reflect the company business.3.3.e.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. 2. 2.2 Simplicity: an efficient logo is simple.

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

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

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

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

can provide a firm with a strong competitive advantage. The brand equity concept can cause confusion. Dahlberg. Furthermore. Firstly. 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. suggest two approaches to the definition and measurement of brand equity. Page 26 of 170 . and preferences of consumers to create marketing programs that complete and even go beyond consumer expectations. These tests are normally performed early in the development process. Dahlberg. 2004 ). creating a brand with high equity by building awareness. 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. since due diligence is a critical step towards reaching a correct investment decision. 1997. market share and short-term profits. 1998. not just sales. strong brands will also rise above other brands. the brand manager’s task in the process is to maximize profits and brand equity. 2. having a better understanding of needs. wants. as the distinction is not always clear. a financial evaluation and the consumer-based approach. Tornberg. Kulluvaara.of the brand. 2004).7 BRAND EQUITY: (Ambler and Styles. Tornberg. 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. In addition. brand equity tests provide managers with an indication of consumer acceptance and a quantitative trial potential. image. (According to Keller. Kulluvaara. and linking associations.

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

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

The studies have suggested that the customers are more loyal to stronger brands than weaker Page 29 of 170 . Jalees. 2008) definition of brand equity is based on customers' perceptions of the brand. could be attributed as customer-based brand equity: "The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand”. Some of the brand equity definitions are based on strategic marketing perspective and others on financial theory perspective (Kapoor. Aaker's definition is: "Brand equity is a set of assets / liabilities associated with a brand such as name awareness. and it would also support a higher price. Jalees. 1996. 2008). The firm could use above definitions of brand equity for developing long term growth-strategy. (Keller. and “level of promotion” may influence “trial purchase” more strongly as compared to determinants such as distribution. 2008). Jalees. 1990.Strong brand equity also helps in reducing the introduction cost of new brands. For example. Jalees. 1993.1995. Firms with strong “brand equity” have two advantages at the introduction stage of new brand. packaging. perceived quality. loyal customers. Jalees. therefore. Jalees. resulting in increased profitability (Aaker. Keller. 1990. (Pitta & Katsanis . predictors’ variables such as “familiarity with the brand name”. and associations that are linked to the brand that add/subtract value to the product or service being offered" (Aaker. 1993. Jalees. 2008). 2005. Marketing costs at this stage will decline considerably. 2008). It has been found that one of the strongest motivating factors for inducing trial purchase is established brand name. 2008). 2008). Retaining customers is more cost efficient than attracting new customers. and brand awareness achieved by advertising (Aaker. The marketing cost at introduction stage is generally higher as the awareness is low.

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. Jalees. we talk about its equity. 2. When we talk about brand value. it is quite impossible to determinate logically the assessment of Nike as a brand. 2009. as the brand equity is fundamentally related to intangible values. Rubini. retention of loyal customer is easier than non-loyal customer (Aaker. 2008).brands. 1992. 2010). Page 30 of 170 . Rubini.179 million (Inter brand. as it is determinate by the sum of the market values of its assets (liabilities plus owner‟s equity). Thus. 2010) Nike in 2009 occupied the 26th place in the global brand ranking chart and its brand value was worth $13. But what is brand equity and how to determinate it? Whereas it is possible to quantify the total value of Nike as a corporation.

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

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

brand extensions perceived to be clearly different from originator carry a moderate degree of risk (Loken and John.. Jokanovid. Moreover. Many private equity deals and merger and acquisition transactions account for brand equity. 1990. sec. through decreasing the positive perception consumers have about the family brand (Loken and John.unsuccessful brand extensions. The term “dilution” refers to the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services. 2. 2005 p. and (2) likelihood of confusion. 2000. Jokanovid.10 BRAND DUE DILIGENCE: Companies’ value depends largely on the brand value. 2005 p. 2005 p. 217). 2005). 1993. repeated number of brand extensions and unsuccessful brand extensions) can cause total “extinction” of the brand equity. The main reason is Page 33 of 170 . 74). 1127 (Mermin. 1993. 2005). 1995. First. 1993. regardless of its success at one point in time (Gibson. Jokanovid. Decay occurs since extensions are causing the dilution of the parent brand (Loken and John. Jokanovid. mistake or deception” . data suggest that dilution is a complex phenomenon. Findings provide the first indication that brand extensions can dilute brand names.Federal Dilution Trade Act. regardless of the presence or absence of: (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties. the risk of brand name dilution appears to be greater for brand extensions that are perceived to be moderately different from the parent brand. B1). emerging for certain types of brand extensions in just a few situations. Jokanovid. The second reason for decay of brands and the associated brand equity can be repeated cycles of successful brand extensions. In contrast. Combination of the two above mentioned factors (i.e.

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

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

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

e. both existing ones and those that are new to the market (Siburian. brand responses step is defined as the way customers respond to a brand. Jokanovid. 2001. or at an ad hoc basis. having the corporate brand. 2005) when brands are managed separately and independently. According to (Aaker. and it is related to personal identification of the customer with the brand. 2004. or in other words cohesive brand portfolio. brand relationship is defined as the relationship between the customer and brand. Brand responses lead to the positive and accessible reactions of consumers. Brand judgment is the combination of brand imagery and brand performance in the minds of the consumers. Therefore.The third step. Jokanovid. 2005). Responses are divided into brand feelings and brand judgments. i. is more rational from the company’s point of view. Jokanovid. Page 37 of 170 . Corporate brand is defined at the level of the company. overall resources allocation among brands may be less than optimal. a portfolio of product brands and a product brand. 2001. 1996. 2005). Brand feelings are customers’ emotional reactions to the social currency brand evokes (Keller. Lastly. The positive image of a strong company usually extends to credibility of the products sold under the company’s brand. 2.12 CORPORATE BRANDS: Brand literature separates the following types of brands: a corporate brand. Jokanovid. 2005). 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. instead of number of individual product brands. Criteria are the intense and active loyalty (Keller.

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

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

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

2008). firms Page 47 of 170 . 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. (Aaker. 1998. 1990. Distancing is a deliberate effort to increase the perception distance of the core brand and extension product (Kamal. Jalees. 1995. 2003. 2003. 2008). In view of the high costs associated at introduction stage. (Pita & Katsanism. 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. The cost of “new launch” is increasing. If the new product is of higher quality level with higher pricing it will be called up-scaling. 1981. In this case overall quality association of core brand is necessary for success (Pita & Katsanism. Jalees. the market is becoming more competitive and therefore more firms are deriving benefits from strong brand equity by brand extension strategies. 2008). Jalees. 2008).entering a product category that is new to the company (Tauber. 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. Jalees. If the core brand is extended into related or similar category it is considered as “close extension”. Jalees. Extending to unrelated product category is known as “Distance extension”. 2008) The vertical extension has two directions. 1995. Extensions are significant in creating awareness of the strong brands especially to the segment that are not purchasing the product. Jalees. 2008). Firms when launches “related brands” in the same product category with significant difference in price and quality levels they are considered as vertical extension. Jalees.

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

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

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

2002. However. Muroma & Saari. 2005). Ma. Page 51 of 170 .. 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. Positioning concerns customers‟ mind. 2005). Ma. Positioning does not concern the market share. 1996. An unsuccessful extension. In addition.positioning explained before. & Fazio. 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. could cause damage to the original brand (Keller & Sood. Herr. 1993. because of its attractive advantages. 2005). more research has already focused on brand extensions from different aspects. 1990. 2003. recognized and well-reputed brand already by selling sunglasses. or even a successful extension. In order to help marketing practitioners make more successful brand extension decisions and judgments. and is expected to contribute to the brand extension literature by studying this single aspect of the brand extension evaluation process. it can also be a risky strategy. Oakley was a famous. 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. Ma. 2003. or a place intended as a physical location. Ma. 2005). This thesis study investigates the relationship between consumer knowledge and fit perceptions in brand extension evaluations. the strategy of brand extensions is a way to capitalize the equity of brands by providing a new source of revenue (Hem & Iversen. Loken & John. Brand extension has become a popular new product strategy.

Kulluvaara. Concept development and testing 4. finding ways to improve the development process and thus increase the chance of success is important. Tornberg. Commercialization 8.16. Product development (includes branding decisions) 6. Developing brand extensions is seen as a type of new product development. 2000.2 Key Reasons of Brand Extension: Page 52 of 170 . Since the failure rate is high when launching a new brand.2. 2004) An eight-stage framework shown below can be a guide in the new product development process: (Brassington & Pettitt. (Ambler & Styles. Therefore it is significant to understand the managerial process involved in the extension. 2004). Kulluvaara.1 Brand Extension Process According to (Ambler and Styles. Test marketing 7. Kulluvaara.16. Tornberg. the understanding of what makes a brand extension successful and how the extensions come to market is important. Dahlberg. Monitoring and evaluating 2. Dahlberg. Idea screening 3. 1997. Dahlberg. Idea generation 2. Business analysis (financial) 5. 2004) 1. Tornberg. 1997. as brand extensions has become a popular growth strategy.

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

Page 54 of 170 . expansion of scope and market adaptability. Kulluvaara. (Kapferer. 2006) also points out that extension failure rate may increase due to companies that are overextending their brands. Dahlberg. and that retailers are running out of shelf space. 2006. The rationale behind this lies in the opportunity to capture a growing segment by promoting the positive values associated with the core brand. Tornberg. Kulluvaara. 1996.16. 2004). According to (Kapferer. Kulluvaara. Extending a brand is now an indispensable part of a brand’s life as it represents growth. 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. Tornberg. according to (Kapferer. 2. Dahlberg. growth is the first reason for extending a brand after all other options involving the core product have been explored.3 Rationales behind Brand Extensions Brand extensions are. 2004). thus increasing market coverage. and this is supported by (ACNielsen’s. Dahlberg. Brand extension is a way to achieve growth in a cost controlled world. 2004). 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. which appear distinctively compelling in that segment. 2006) prediction of 70% failure rate in the next 2-3 years. (Kim and Lavack. 2001. Tornberg.are dangerously high. Tornberg. A new product with the same brand name can penetrate a much larger and spreadable market than a new brand. Seyama. that line extensions rarely expand category demand. 2001. (Taylor. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. Seyama. 2004. 2001.

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

Other factors. Brand extensions provide a minimal cost of branding. Dahlberg. 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. Tornberg. attitudes. New products draw immediate advantage by entering from a strong positioning that the established brand name provides. Dahlberg. 2004). Dahlberg. One such example is that of Heinz. (Aaker. Kulluvaara. Kulluvaara. 2000. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. (Weilbacher. Kulluvaara. thus reducing the risk of failure (Aaker. such as economical advantages might also be rationales behind extensions. needs. nor will extensive advertising costs for new brand name awareness and preference be necessary. Tornberg. 1992. since name research will not be needed. 2004) According to (Randall. desires. whereas the launch of a new product under the name of an established brand will cost a fraction of that. 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. Tornberg. The firm after acquiring “Weight Watcher” launched low calories food and got instant recognition and positive brand association. 2004) further argues that.be discovered by conducting a market research. 1995. 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 . the introduction of a new brand is estimated to cost up to US $1 billion. 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. 2004). Tornberg. by finding out consumers’ wishes. 1992.

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

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

Dahlberg. 1995. 2000. 2004) state that the ideal is that a core brand’s associations can contribute a complex. Moreover. Dahlberg. which increases the awareness of the brand extension. 2004). 2004) add that there is a higher acceptance of extensions from established brands associations such as quality. There is a higher acceptance of extensions from established brand associations such as quality. 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. Tornberg. 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. Dahlberg. advantages to the extension can be provided when it comes to the cross fertilization which advertising of the core brand can bring. and trial.established brand name reduces the risk and costs with a new product and enhances initial consumer reaction. Tornberg. Tornberg. 2004). Kulluvaara. According to (Pitta and Prevel Katsanis. Kulluvaara. Kulluvaara. yet well-defined image to an extension as a well established brand usually has a well-defined brand image. 1995. (Pitta and Prevel Katsanis.1997. The parent brand also gains synergy through the heightened awareness that is generated in brand extension launches. brand extensions can provide positive customer based equity for the Page 59 of 170 . Tornberg. Kulluvaara. (Ambler and Styles. Dahlberg. a great benefit of brand extensions is the instant communication of salient image. In addition.

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

Page 61 of 170 . 2004). Kulluvaara. Kulluvaara. 2004). 2000. Kulluvaara. 1998. Dahlberg. Tornberg. 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. According to (Randall. Tornberg. 2002. Dahlberg. 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. Dahlberg. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. there is no single factor that by itself guarantees success. profitability. or number of years the extension has survived on the market (Grime. (Glynn & Brodie. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. (Aaker & Keller.considerable investment and does not come with a guarantee of success. 1998. 2004) It is possible to measure extension success in a number of ways. 2004) According to (Grime et al. 1990. Consumer evaluation of a brand extension is often described as a process by which the core brand associations transfer to the extension. 2002. Tornberg. it is tempting for the management to collect the rewards of their investment by extending the brand into another product category. 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. 2002. Diamantopoulos & Smith. Tornberg. Tornberg. although there do seem to be certain common characteristics. Tornberg. for example by market share. Kulluvaara. Dahlberg. Tornberg. 2004). If the new product is viewed as an investment. Kulluvaara. 2004). Dahlberg.

low marketing costs and low risk. 2. 2006). 2006). 2004. Seyama.2004). 2003) consider. and (Kotler and Keller. Seyama. enhancement of parent brand’s visibility and image. 2006) identified one key measure of a good brand extension as its ability to “bring something to the party”. (Aaker. (Chen & Chen. that the following criticizing ideas regarding brand extensions Page 62 of 170 . according to many authors. 2006) as being leverage of consumer knowledge and trust of existing brands. (Aaker and Keller. 2000. 1994. 2006) indicates that 7 out of 10 shoppers plan their purchases before going to a groceries store. and that 8 out of 10 shoppers will usually buy their favourite brand in the store. Seyama. This amplifies the preference by companies for brand extensions as opposed to new brands. Järlhem. Seyama. 1990. and this is driven by the time (and cost) it takes to establish each of the two options in the minds of consumers (Aaker. 1990. (Aaker. 2006). in a study performed in Taiwan. Thus. Seyama. as they are believed to be a key element in indicating extension and core brand success.16. Further. brand extension seems to be a risky thing to rely on. 2006). Seyama. Seyama. there are moderating variables affecting the relationship between fit and the evaluation of the extension and the core brand. 2004. 2006. 2006.5 Pros and Cons regarding Brand Extension: However. 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. The key benefits of brand extensions are well documented in the Marketing literature by authorities such as (Quelch and Kenny. consumer evaluations are considered to be important. Mihailescu. Research (ACNielsen’s.

brand extension is seen as a lazy version of a new brand. 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. 1990. The key factor in brand extension. Last but not least. remembering that in the end it will allow extension in areas which otherwise would be impossible to penetrate through creating a new brand (Murphy.can be found in the appropriate literature. line extension is time consuming and for that reason it should be implemented gradually. Mihailescu. an extension can create consumer confusion regarding the quality of the new created products. Nevertheless. 2003). the first question that comes into our minds is. 2003). Mihailescu. if brand extension is such a bad thing. Järlhem. according to (Murphy. Moreover. Järlhem. Page 63 of 170 . 1990. 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. Moreover. successful extension can benefit an organization. The extended brand is perceived as cannibalizing the parent brand by eating into the total sales of the main brand. To make this happen these factors will be discussed. 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. After viewing the pros and cons regarding brand extension.

Sustained advertising and promotional investment is therefore required to create this bond and reassure the consumer that the brand proposition will endure. for example a large number of extensions might confuse or frustrate customers. (Murphy. Järlhem. 1990. highly risky and takes a long time. 2003). Mihailescu. Second. 79. Similarly. Phang.(Keller.” Page 64 of 170 . 1990. p. brand extensions may obscure the identification of the brand with its original categories. brand extensions can lead to problems of practical nature. 1990. Järlhem. 1993. “to develop new brands is extremely expensive. Mihailescu. reducing brand awareness (Morrin. and there might be problems with retailers being unwilling to shelf/store all the different extensions.” When he speaks about expenses. According to (Murphy. First. such on-going support is expensive. generally the consumer has little interest. Järlhem. This happens when the attributes of the extension are seen as inconsistent or conflicting with the corresponding attributes of the parent brand. in the brand proposition. at least initially. Third. Phang. (Loken and John. 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”. 1999) and/or diluting the brand meaning. 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. the image of the parent brand can be hurt irrespective of the success or failure of the extension. Mihailescu. 2003. 2003) considers that “the process of branding is one whereby a bond is created between the brand and the consumer and. 2004) mentioned several drawbacks of brand extensions.

Jalees. 1990. Jalees. 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. 2008). 2003). By neglecting. 1996. Using equity of a brand to leverage into different product category may be profitable but it has its share of risk as well. 2008) endorsing the preceding opinions. and (2) brand extension that fails to make an impact may dilute the equity of a reputable brand name (Mcarthy. They found that when consumers’ perception towards brand extension is weak. this standpoint can have as consequence the disintegration of brand identity and personality.The maintenance of the brand’s visual identity is another important factor for the line extension that managers have to take into consideration. Jalees. 1993. 1990. Jalees. (Ries and Trout. Mihailescu. 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. the success to extended brand would be at the expense of parent brand. Thus Aaker and Keller were surprised that the respondents’ thought that Crest Chewing Gum. this perception will also be transformed to the parent brands and hence they would believe that the attributes Page 65 of 170 . (Aaker and Keller. 2008) in this context found that the brand extension may carry typical attributes of the parent that may be dangerous to the extended brand. a brand extension of Crest tooth paste would taste typically like toothpaste or may not be appealing. (Loken and John. 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.

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

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

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

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

Lane 2000. such as Heineken popcorn or Timex bicycles).e. i. Prior studies typically provided the single cue of a brand name and extension product category as the stimulus to be evaluated. success of the extension.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. Compared with consumers’ evaluations of real brand extensions. Sattler. 2005). for example measured as the perceived quality of the extension) on simple rating scales (see Aaker and Keller 1990. Boush and Loken 1991.. extensions already introduced on the market. 2005). Sattler. However. Völckner.e. If extension attribute information is lacking. extensions not introduced in the market. Bottomley and Holden 2001. Page 70 of 170 . and Lawson 1991. Miniard. Bottomley and Doyle 1996.. Klink and Smith 2001.e. Barone. and Rome 2000. Völckner. Völckner.g. Sattler. 2005). Keller and Aaker 1992. perceived fit) diminishes as other diagnostic cues become available (Klink and Smith 2001. Broniarczyk and Alba 1994...2..e. the impact of a single cue (e. success factors) and dependent variables (i. Milberg. Respondents in prior surveys rated the independent (i. Dacin and Smith 1994. Park. 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.

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

. Finally. quality of the parent brand) on consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions such as perceived quality of the extension. Swaminathan. To the best of our knowledge.g. Holak. Lane and Jacobson. Given this condition. 1998. Only very few studies investigate the influence of success factors on the economic extension success. 1995. and Reddy 2001. Völckner. Most of them investigated the effects of certain success factors (e.e. Sattler. trial or repeat purchase rate. 1994.before attempting any generalizations. Page 72 of 170 . by market share. 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). 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. e. 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. 2. Reddy. 2005). 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. It is therefore ambiguous whether findings based on consumers’ evaluations of brand extensions (i.. on market share or market value (Kim and Sullivan. for example.20 GENERALIZABILITY ACROSS SUCCESS MEASURES: Previous studies have focused primarily on understanding how consumers evaluate brand extensions. Fox.g. and Bhat.. Smith and Park 1992. The financial implications of using brand extensions constitute a complementary research issue that has received relatively little attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox and Reddy. According to a research carried out by (Ernest & Young and Nielsen. Sivaram. reveal that there is a failure rate of around 80%. still brand extension success is uncertain. In India it is reported that more than 80% of new products additions are using brand extensions strategies. 2003) in the field of FMCG brand extensions in European countries.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. brand extension strategies tasted success in the past. Sivaram. Sivaram. Thamaraiselvan. Though. A good brand association reduces the chances of failure of new product launch. Swaminathan. 2001. The success or failure of brand extensions is vastly dependent on how the customers evaluate the brand extensions (Klink and Smith. unsuccessful brand extensions can harm the parent brand. 1998. 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. Theoretical and managerial understanding of how a consumer evaluates the brand extensions is given substantial importance. 1999. 2003). which can result in substantial. 2003). 2003). Moreover. companies need to Page 79 of 170 . Thamaraiselvan. Moreover. Companies are taking hard steps to improve the success rate of brand extensions. loses of brand equity (Gurhan-Canli and Maheswaran. 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. Sivaram. New products are getting relatively easy acceptance among the target audience. 1995. Thamaraiselvan. Thamaraiselvan.

1973. (Jacoby and Kyner. Rajagopal. 1996. and higher profits (Reichheld. 2000. 2006 ). chance encounters and repertoire buying behavior are but some reasons for this. 2000. brand managers have to face more threats to their brands. Ambler. Rajagopal. 2006).understand the significance of these factors and their relative importance to develop a right brand extensions strategy. (Jacoby and Chestnut. 2006) argue it is unwise to infer loyalty solely from repetitive purchase patterns (behavioral loyalty). 2006). Rajagopal. resistance among loyal consumers to competitors’ propositions (Dick and Basu. When operationalizing brand loyalty (Jacoby and Kyner.. To build and maintain consumer loyalty. 1978. 2006) and (Oliver. Brand loyalty can yield significant marketing advantages including reduced marketing costs. and other innovative channels of distribution (Pearson 1996. Rajagopal. through direct and interactive methods. 2.g. 1999. 2001. Rajagopal. 1973.23 BRAND LOYALTY AND CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: The brand management has developed to take advantage of new loyalty marketing vehicles. 2006) Page 80 of 170 . 2006). Simultaneously. Rajagopal. Thus. novelty. Rajagopal. Blackston. Aaker and Joachimsthaler. 2006) have shown that brand loyalty is a key link affecting market share and relative price. 1994. 1992. 2006). brand loyalty is justifiably included in the approaches advocated by other researchers (e. internet communications. 2006). Rajagopal. especially parity responses from competitors. Rajagopal. Rajagopal. however. 1991. Baldinger & Robinson. (Chaudhuri and Holbrook. 1996. Preference for convenience. greater trade leverage (Aaker. Rust et al. 2000. brand managers are supplementing their mass-media advertising with more direct communications.

1997. 1999. It has also been Page 81 of 170 . another study explored to operationalize loyalty by questioning consumers about affective and conative loyalty (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett.. and is a function of psychological (decision-making. Rajagopal. 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. 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). behavioral and attitudinal loyalty. 2006) argues consumers become loyal by progressing from a cognitive to an affective and finally to a co native phase. evaluative) processes. 2006). Rajagopal.al.24 BRAND EXTENSION EFFECTS ON CONSUMER DECISION MAKING: Consumer decision making is largely associated with the brand extensions of familiar brands. Following other researchers such as (Dall’Olmo Riley et al. 2001. 2006) the consumers were asked as how much they liked the corporate brand (affective loyalty). . Rajagopal. Readers interested in a more detailed review on operational and conceptual aspects of brand loyalty should consult (Odinet al.” (Oliver.brought together the two “opposing” approaches to brand loyalty namely. 2005. 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. integrating them into their definition. 2006). 2. 2006). Rajagopal. In line with previous research showing that in service markets attitudinal loyalty measures are more sensitive than behavioral loyalty measures. 2001. Rajagopal.

2006). and greater than that delivered by the perceived quality level of the parent brand (Reast. 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. using Aaker's scale to measure the latter. 2004. comparable in strength with that between media weight and brand share. 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. Rajagopal.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. the evidence for the reciprocal effects of a brand extension on its parent brand is unclear. 2005. 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. A study using 368 consumer responses to nine real low involvement UK product and service brands. 2006). Rajagopal. 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. In a similar study. An experiment was conducted to Page 82 of 170 . On the contrary. particularly among the non-loyal users and nonusers of the parent brand to accept the brand extensions. 2006). finds support for a significant association between the variables.

Page 83 of 170 . 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. 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). Consequently. and parent brand dominance. its fit with the parent brand. 2006). 1998.investigate the impact of an extension's quality. The only effect of brand dominance was that it enhanced parent brand attitude when the extension was a good fit (Zimmer and Bhat. Rajagopal. an extension either left parent brand attitude unchanged or enhanced it moderately. 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. 2003. in other words. results show that respondents were more likely to question the veracity of high ad spending levels for a dissimilar extension than a similar extension. 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. 2006). though. Rajagopal. 2004. It is observed that brand extension helps a multi-product monopolist introduce a new experience good with less price distortion (Jay. Rajagopal. possibly resulting in lower product evaluations. It has been evidenced by a research study that extension quality and fit did not dilute parent brand attitude. on parent brand evaluation. Additionally.

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..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..Buyers select from among that subset of available brands of which they are aware. 2. 2006). Therefore. It is possible for either the sellers or the buyers to be worse off in the better -informed environment (Ross. 2002. extension information) on the judgment (i. Rajagopal.e. in the brand extension context.e. 2006) has discussed critical issues on brand and line extensions and integrated them into a conceptual framework. Rajagopal.al. but the distribution of these gains between firms and consumers is shown to be sensitive to the structure of the market. 1988. (Grime et. which shows that extension and core brand evaluations are affected by the consumer perceptions. family brand evaluation) made shortly after its activation. Moderating factors that influence the relationship between fit and consumer evaluations of the extension and the core brand are also identified. there are social surplus gains. 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 . When this subset grows. However. The framework is subsequently used to develop concrete research propositions to guide further research in the area. dilution effects were found in the context of both close and far extensions.

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

explaining why the shielding effects of brand image occur (Jo et. 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. (Skowronski and Carlston. 1987. 2006). This model is used to evaluate the role of brand familiarity and involvement on the formation and use of internal reference price standards. Rajagopal.brands. That is. and (2) in forming internal reference price estimates. 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. However. Empirical results show that (1) involvement is a better predictor of confidence in internal reference prices than brand familiarity. the more diagnostic information about one is for making judgments about the other. but only when involvement is low. there exists the scope of future research in understanding the asymmetries in the impact of positive versus negative extension information on family brand evaluations. The latter study was conducted with a different set of brands and consumers from a different country. one may expect a positive relationship between extension category similarity and feedback effects. Rajagopal. 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. Page 86 of 170 . In the context of brand extension. al. 2006) argue that the greater the shared associations between two targets.

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

purchase Page 88 of 170 . those involving new flavors and new packaging/sizes were most successful. This type of behavior is thought to be explained by experiential or hedonic motives rather than by utilitarian aspects of consumption. In another study it has been discussed that among the range of strategies available to a company. al. Rajagopal. Of all line extensions. Rajagopal. 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'. The market-variable such as level of competition. The behavior of variety seeking among the consumers has been divided into derived or direct variations (McAlister and Pessemier. Extensions that improved product quality were found to be unsuccessful. In a study the influence of product-category level attributes were examined and six influential factors. 2006). 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. 2006). 'change' and 'complexity' as they are pursued to gain inherent satisfaction. unexpectedness'. 2005. line extensions are an important way to keep a brand alive and to realize incremental financial growth. Rajagopal. Variety seeking has been observed in many consumer products and it has been identified as a key determinant factor in brand switching. which are involvement. 1982. retailer power and variety seeking behavior all showed a negative influence on line extension success (Nijssen. 1999.measurably and significantly between shopping modes.

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

For example.1 Free taster: For the launch of new product. 2006.27. companies usually recurs to free samples either placed in stores or send home by post. as it can be determinate by the fact that a certain company produces a particular kind of shoes. in sneaker case. the switcher is justified by the product itself.2. but because he/she is charmed by the product. 2. the loyalty to one brand might be only apparent. This technique is expensive but very effective.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. Therefore.27. 2010) summarizes six main sales promotion techniques that on the whole they might also caused brand switching: 2. (Blythe. Sneakers market is not so different from clothing and casual wearing. Rubini. or augments them with detailed features. Usually this techniques Page 90 of 170 . For this reason. he/she will easily switch to other brands when they will produce the right appealing sneakers. Adidas annot send you home a new pair of shoes.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. but they can send small sample of aftershaves for example. a certain person owns several shoes from the same brand.

or the Page 91 of 170 .3 Two-for-one price: this form of promotion is to sell two identical products by the price of one. Happy Meal by McDonalds) In addition.27. if a customer purchase shoes. Most common are cash.5 Lottery: in this case. holiday trips. This techniques. 2. However. for either behavioral or attitudinal reasons. If customers are loyal to a store. as the switching ends when the campaign ends or the voucher is spent. however. But as it is aimed to price-sensitivity. as the customer is already oriented to the product and not to the extra item. cars and vouchers for purchasing branded products.27.6 Gift: companies include free gifts in the packaging.4 Piggy-backing: this method is similar of the two-for-one price. but this time different.27.e. this technique produces short-term brand switching. the purchase of a certain product will give to the customer the possibility to participate to a lottery with different prices.lead to a short-term brand switching. 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. he/she gets also enamel or polish. For example. 2.27. For example. we can include once more the loyalty to the store. extra laces. works especially with children. A strong marketing campaign. when companies includes toys in their packaging (i. this technique hardly produces a brand switching. Another strong reason for brand switching is caused by advertising and brand communication. but it consists in adding an extra product. 2. 2.

and so on) To conclude. Cause: A customer buys Adidas deodorant and being completely satisfied with it. replacing the old products. 2005) have studied the different effects of ‘brand knowledge’ and ‘product knowledge’. a customer favorite footballer plays with Adidas).28 DIFFERENT INFLUENCES OF PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE AND BRAND KNOWLEDGE: In previous consumer research. 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. shoes.e. he/she will stop to buy also other Nike products (i. will definitely increase the awareness of a particular brand. of brand extension. Ma. gym suit.e. 2009. and Urbany. 2. Consequence: A customer buys a Nike mp3 player and being extremely disappointed with the purchase.adoption of the right testimonials (i. the switching might be caused by the nature of the loyalty itself. (Kotler. and as consequence. he also starts to purchase other Adidas products (like aftershaves. shower soap. the old brands. Rubini. (Fiske. 1994. the company can attract new customers. 2010) pointed out also another reason for brand switching can derive as cause. Miyazaki. Luebbehusen. or as consequence. and so on). as it was basically accidental. with Adidas. and therefore. in case of behavioral loyalty. They found that these two constructs affect information search Page 92 of 170 .

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

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

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

the type of investigation is Causal. LU in Pakistan has a good market value but still people don’t know about its new products and their taste.exception. Sampling: Simple Random Sampling is used to get responses from the LU Continental Biscuits especially consumers of Bekri Biscuits. The ‘Researcher Interference’ is moderate for this study. 3. After the Brand Extension customer forget the mother brand and even in some cases they don’t recognize the brand name. For this research Time Horizon is Cross-Sectional. The greatest risk with brand extension is cannibalism of sales and deterioration of the corporate brand. There are some problems in taste and packaging of some newly extended brands. The study setting is NonContrived and the researcher performed Field experiment. CHAPTER – 4 Statistical Analysis and Evaluation 4. 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.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.2 METHODOLOGY: The Purpose of research is ‘Descriptive’ in nature. The Unit of Analysis is Group.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 . 3.

7 1 . (2-sided) .061 .005 7.5 328 328.4 7 5. Sig.0 264 264.6 59 60.023) < 0.0%) have expected count less than 5.6 16 19.0 df 3 3 1 Asymp.0% N 0 Missing Percent .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 9.05 Calculation: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Brand Familiarity Qualification * Brand Familiarity 35 7 35 7 100.0% Total Percent 100.0 16 21.0 357 357.Level of Significance: α = 0.0 66 66.0% Percent 100.0% N 35 7 35 7 100.023 .4 5 1. The minimum expected count is .3 5 5.49. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.0 6 6.5 29 29.0 21 21.0% 0 .986 357 a.364 7. 2 cells (25.05 Analysis: Page 97 of 170 .560 a Total YES 248 242.

0 112 112.256 2.5 9 9.861 357 a.9 21 23.0 1 1. Ho: There is No Association between Qualification and Brand Familiarity HA: There is An Association between Qualification and Brand Familiarity Level of Significance: α = 0.0 357 357. it means that there is a strong association between age and the brand familiarity.0 3 3.05.073 4 4 1 .091 3.0 4 4.516 . So.At significance level of 95% the p value (0.9 200 197.1 4 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 .1 15 17. Sig.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp. The minimum expected count is .0 YES 1 . so research rejected the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.0 25 25.3 29 29. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 4. 5 cells (50.0 1 .023) is less than 0.0 215 215.7 328 328.05 Page 98 of 170 .5 103 102.396 .0%) have expected count less than 5.08.396) > 0. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.

396) is greater than 0. 4.0% N 0 0 0 Missing Percent .6 264 264.0% .0% 100. Level of Significance: α = 0.1 42 46.0 8 14. HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Taste.05 Calculation: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Brand Taste Profession * Brand Taste Gender * Brand Taste 357 357 357 Percent 100.Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0% 100.0% N 357 357 357 Total Percent 100.0 13 6.0 66 66.0 21 21.05.0% 100.9 24 20. So.2 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND TASTE: Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Taste. it means that there is no association between Qualification and the brand familiarity.4 YES 197 184. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0% Crosstab Brand Taste NO Age 21-30 Count Expected Count 31-40 Count Expected Count 41-50 Count Expected Count 67 79.0% 100.0 Total Page 99 of 170 .0% .

Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0. Level of Significance: α = 0.1 35 YES 182 177.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. so research rejected the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.000) is less than 0.000) < 0. 2 cells (25.2 249 249.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 357 357.509 16. Sig.50 And Above Count Expected Count 4 1. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 17.0 Total Count Expected Count Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.897 357 a. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Brand Taste.000 .0 6 6.000 16.8 108 108.882 3 3 1 . HA: There is An Association between Gender and Brand Taste.001 .0 102 Total Page 100 of 170 .82.05.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Taste NO Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count 73 77. The minimum expected count is 1.0 2 4.9 67 255 255. So. it means that there is a strong association between age and the brand taste.

291) is greater than 0.0% 357 100.309 .9 108 108.Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 30.291) > 0.0% 0 . (1-sided) 1.294 .0% N 357 Total Percent 100.0 71.176 1.353 . (2-sided) Exact Sig.101 a. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. 0 cells (.0% Page 101 of 170 . The minimum expected count is 30.291 . So.0 357 357.1 249 249.863 1 1 1 . it means that there is no association between Gender and the brand taste. Computed only for a 2x2 table Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 357 1. b.0% 357 Percent 100. Sig.0 102.3 HYPOTHESIS OF COMPETITOR’S KNOWHOW: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Income * Competitor’s Knowhow Qualification * Competitor’s Knowhow 357 100.05.0 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0%) have expected count less than 5.116 .86.291 b a Exact Sig. 4.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.113 1 .

Sig.7 18 17.000 & Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 47 49.2 13 12.000-40.0 357 357.7 116 116.960 .05 Calculation: Crosstab Competitor’s Knowhow NO Income 10.3 35 35.303 .667 .8 26 26.0 152 152.0 53 53.0 YES 105 102.302 3 3 1 . Level of Significance: α = 0.959 . HA: There is An Association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.000 Count Expected Count 41.0% 357 100.0 Total Page 102 of 170 . (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association .3 241 241.6 75 76.000 Count Expected Count 21.185 Ho: There is No Association between Income and Competitors’ knowhow.0 39 39.0 113 113.000-20.4 38 36.000 Count Expected Count 31.0% 0 .0% Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.000-30.Area * Competitor’s Knowhow 357 100.

it means that there is no association between Income and the Competitors’ knowhow. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.67.N of Valid Cases 357 a. So.05. Page 103 of 170 . 0 cells (.960) is greater than 0.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.960) > 0. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 12.

0 37 36.0 13 8.9 151 145.1 215 215.0%) have expected count less than 5. Sig.0 357.0 64 69.32.3 YES 1 . Page 104 of 170 .9 25 25.Ho: There is No Association between Qualification and Competitors’ knowhow.7 1 1.191 .4 75 75.0 Total Expected Count 116. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.3 2 2.104 4.0 241.0 Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.6 112 112. The minimum expected count is .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 1.120 4 4 1 .190 . 4 cells (40.1 12 16. HA: There is An Association between Qualification and Competitors’ knowhow.7 4 4. Level of Significance: α = 0.0 0 .034 6.501 357 a.

0 20 21. So.05.190) > 0.0 11 11.6 32 32.190) is greater than 0.E-Iqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 116 116.4 42 42. HA: There is An Association between Area of residence and Competitors’ knowhow.6 66 66.7 25 24.0 16 13.0 10 10.4 46 44. Ho: There is No Association between Area of residence and Competitors’ knowhow. it means that there is no association between Qualification and the Competitors’ knowhow.8 90 90.E.6 YES 26 28.05 Calculation: Crosstab Competitor’s Knowhow NO Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.4 91 91.2 61 60.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.6 61 61. Level of Significance: α = 0.0 357 357.0 Total Page 105 of 170 .0 29 29.0 241 241.0 30 29.3 36 36.C.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .H.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.4 22 21.

0% 0 .828 .487 357 a.0% 357 100.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0% N 357 Total Percent 100. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. it means that there is no association between Area of residence and the Competitors’ knowhow.40.974 .0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% Gender * Brand Attraction Profession * Brand Attraction 357 100. 4.0% Page 106 of 170 . 974) is greater than 0.975 .485 .0% 357 100. Sig. So.0% 0 .0% 357 100.0%) have expected count less than 5.4 HYPOTHESIS OF BRAND ATTRACTION: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Age * Brand Attraction 357 Percent 100. 0 cells (. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.842 a df 5 5 1 Asymp.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases . The minimum expected count is 10.05.974) > 0. (2-sided) .

5 210 210. So.2 14 8. HA: There is An Association between Age and Brand Attraction.8 7 12. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.6 2 2.253 6. 105) is greater than 0.106 . Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.5 147 147.3 41 38.4 4 3. Sig.0 357 357.47.05 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 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.7 25 27.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 6 6.102 . Page 107 of 170 .105) > 0.197 3 3 1 . (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.05. The minimum expected count is 2.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 21 21. 2 cells (25.0 66 66. it means that there is no association between age and the Brand Attraction.0 YES 158 155. Level of Significance: α = 0.110 1.0 264 264.Ho: There is No Association between Age and Brand Attraction.307 357 a.

342 . Computed only for a 2x2 table Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 147 147.0 102 102.341 .344 . The minimum expected count is 42.0 56 60. 0 cells (. b. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. (2-sided) Exact Sig. Level of Significance: α = 0.05 Calculation: Crosstab Brand Attraction NO Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 101 105.0 46 42. Sig. So.Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Brand Attraction.902 .0 210 210. it means that there is no association between Gender and the Brand Attraction. Page 108 of 170 .907 1 1 1 .904 1 .0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.0 357 357. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases b . (2-sided) Exact Sig.202 . HA: There is An Association between Gender and Brand Attraction.0%) have expected count less than 5.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.341) is greater than 0.0 YES 154 150.694 .0 255 255.05.00.341) > 0.342 357 a.405 .

8 62 63.533 .Ho: There is No Association between Profession and Brand Attraction.5 147 147.2 10 7.00.0 20 20.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.4 11 11.0 10 8. Level of Significance: α = 0.214 357 a. HA: There is An Association between Profession and Brand Attraction.0 74 74.539 .0 10 11.070 1.05 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. Sig.2 46 44. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 4.0 108 108. The minimum expected count is 7.0 118 118.6 9 8.271 4.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 20 20.5 44 48.0 YES 46 43. 0 cells (.0 17 17.5 74 69. Page 109 of 170 .116 5 5 1 .8 7 10.5 210 210.0 357 357.

Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0% 357 100. 4. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. Level of Significance: α = 0.0% Ho: There is No Association between Area and Product Availability.0% N 357 Total Percent 100.0% 357 Percent 100.0% 357 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent .533) is greater than 0. HA: There is An Association between Area and Product Availability.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. So.05 Page 110 of 170 . it means that there is no association between Profession and the Brand Attraction.533) > 0.05.0% 0 .5 HYPOTHESIS OF PRODUCT AVAILABILITY: Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N AREA * Product Availability PROFESSION * Product Availability AGE * Product Availability 357 100.0% 0 .0% 357 100.

(2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 3. 0 cells (.6 20 21.699 .e-Iqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 118 118.422 357 a.7 62 60.H.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 28 29.0 33 30.4 32 32.1 42 42.C.0 12 10.Calculation Crosstab Product Availability NO Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .E.0 239 239.9 91 91.9 22 24.0 17 21.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Assmp.58.8 49 44.1 58 60. Page 111 of 170 .0 357 357.9 YES 28 28.3 90 90. Sig.0 14 13.1 36 36. The minimum expected count is 10.0 14 11.051 .692 .006 5 5 1 .2 66 66.516 3.

0 357 357.0 Total Page 112 of 170 .0 239 239.0 19 24.6 6 11.4 20 20.7 75 72. HA: There is An Association between Profession and Product Availability. it means that there is no association between Area and the Product Availability.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 118 118.0 7 6. So.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.3 108 108. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0 33 35.0 11 5. Level of Significance: α = 0.4 20 20.5 YES 55 49. Ho: There is No Association between Profession and Product Availability.05.699) is greater than 0.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 9 6.0 118 118.5 74 74.6 13 13.0 79 79.6 11 13.0 39 39.699) > 0.4 17 17.

8 35 44.0%) have expected count less than 5.0 11 6.2 66 66. 0 cells (.0 Total Page 113 of 170 .569 .0 74 87.0 4 4. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 11.049) < 0.3 YES 190 176.526 357 a.05. HA: There is An Association between Age and Product Availability.0 2 2.Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.049) is less than 0.0 357 357.146 5 5 1 . it means that there is an association between Profession and the Product Availability.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.468 10.061 .62. Ho: There is No Association between Age and Product Availability. so research Reject the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.9 10 14.7 264 264. Sig.1 21 21.0 6 6.0 239 239.0 31 21.05 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. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.049 . Level of Significance: α = 0. So. The minimum expected count is 5.

0% 0 . 2 cells (25. so research Reject the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.004 11.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.506 357 a. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.332 3 3 1 .0% 357 Percent 100. (2sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 12.0% 357 100. Sig. So.0% 357 100.886 8.0%) have expected count less than 5. it means that there is an association between Age and the Product Availability.Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp.0% 357 100.006) is less than 0.006 .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 357 100.008 .0% N 0 Missing Percent .0% Page 114 of 170 . 4.05.006) < 0. The minimum expected count is 1.0% 0 .98.0% N 357 Total Percent 100.

0 19 18.5%) have expected count less than 5.05 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. (2-sided) . Sig.2 6 6.7 Date 28 31.9 26 26.8 66 66.654 4. Level of Significance: α = 0. 6 cells (37. Page 115 of 170 .72.9 10 12.0 264 264.0 357 357.7 2 2.030 16.023 .298 a df 9 9 1 Asymp.8 Plain 47 51.0 3 8.0 2 1.689 357 a.0 143 143.5 11 4. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor.1 21 21.0 77 75.0 69 69.0 4 6.Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. The minimum expected count is .0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 19.4 Coconut 112 105.4 1 .4 3 2.7 1 1.4 11 7.0 43 43.054 .

Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0. Sig.0 76 72. 0 cells (.29.7 102 102.023) is less than 0.7 Plain 41 49.753 4.0 69 69. (2-sided) .043 5. so research Reject the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.9 Coconut 106 102.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.1 37 40.3 255 255.0 26 29.9 11 12.05.0 43 43.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.0%) have expected count less than 5.1 Date 32 30. The minimum expected count is 12.0 143 143.112 357 a. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor. Page 116 of 170 .0 357 357.048 a df 3 3 1 Asymp. So.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor Classic Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 102 102.109 .124 . it means that there is an association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.023) < 0. Level of Significance: α = 0.3 28 19.

C.E.9 8 6.3 17 14.105) > 0.105) is greater than 0.3 10 7.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 12 17. so research Accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.1 Plain 11 8.4 9 7.0 357 357.0 43 43.8 5 3.0 143 143.0 25 26.0 4 10. Level of Significance: α = 0.4 5 4.9 24 26.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.6 91 91.05.0 7 9.0 Total Page 117 of 170 .H. HA: There is An Association between Area and consumer buying behavior with respect to flavor.8 18 17.0 23 18. So.0 Coconut 15 16.0 41 36.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior (Flavor) Classic Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.0 13 12.0 30 25.0 36 36.8 Date 3 5.5 13 11. Ho: There is No Association between Area and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.1 42 42.2 32 32.E-Iqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 102 102.1 8 10.0 69 69.S Count Expected Count Gulshan . it means that there is No association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.7 34 36.4 90 90.1 12 12.9 10 12.8 66 66.

so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. 2 cells (8.414 .85.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. So.05.3%) have expected count less than 5. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. it means that there is No association between Area and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Flavor.334 . Sig.518 16.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 15. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumer buying behavior with respect to Taste.0% 357 100. The minimum expected count is 3.744 . Level of Significance: α = 0.0 % 0 . (2-sided) .0% 357 100.531 a df 15 15 1 Asymp.419 357 a.05 Page 118 of 170 .414) > 0.414) is greater than 0.7 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 357 357 100.0 % 100.0% 0 .0% N Missing Percent N Total Percent Ho: There is No Association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste. 4.

3 264 264.8 69 70.0 68 68.6 6 7.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.05.0 62 62.0 Coconut 100 97.753 .8 5 3. Sig.6 24 24.1 6 6.4 15 11.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. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.5%) have expected count less than 5.0 95 95.0 21 21. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumer buying behavior with respect to Taste. Level of Significance: α = 0.6 4 4.461) > 0.371 .0 132 132.0 0 1.5 11 12.0 df 9 9 1 357 Asymp. The minimum expected count is 1.742 a Total Plain 53 50. (2-sided) . 6 cells (37. So.3 16 17.461) is greater than 0.6 2 2.05 Page 119 of 170 .0 357 357. it means that there is No association between Age and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.461 .2 0 1. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 4 1.04.6 Date 42 45.318 9. Ho: There is No Association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.0 6 5.997 a.6 66 66.

0 132 132.05.297 .0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Df Asymp.0 62 62.290 3.297) > 0.0 21 27.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.6 255 255.0 68 68.297) is greater than 0.0 357 357. it means that there is No association between Gender and Consumer Buying Behavior with respect to Taste.288 . so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0. The minimum expected count is 17. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 3.0%) have expected count less than 5.7 16 17. So.4 102 102.692 a 3 3 1 . Page 120 of 170 .3 Date 46 44.1 43 37.71. Sig.7 22 19.Calculation Crosstab Consumer Buying Behavior (Taste) Classic Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 95 95.3 Plain 46 48.761 1.9 Coconut 89 94. 0 cells (.121 357 a.0 74 67.

0% Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0% 0 .0% 357 100.9 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% N 357 Total Percent 100.0% 357 100.0% N 0 Missing Percent . Level of Significance: α = 0. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0% 357 100.0% 0 .4.0% 0 .0% 357 Percent 100.0% 357 100.0% 357 100.05 Page 121 of 170 .

867) is greater than 0.05.3 6 3. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.0 5 3.0 1 . it means that there is No association between Age and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.864 . The minimum expected count is .0 60 60.1 Availability 41 44.0 40 39. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 6.9 0 . 10 cells (50.867) > 0.9 Price 79 79.2 4 6.0 135 135.3 0 .7 264 264.4 Taste 103 99.5 6 7. So.8 1 1.8 5 1 .0 1 2.9 3 1.867 .0 0 .861 12 12 1 .377 6.8 12 11.1 21 21.0%) have expected count less than 5.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 54.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value a df Asymp. Page 122 of 170 .780 357 a. Sig.0 1 1.0 8 10.2 66 66.907 .0 6 6.1 25 25.02. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 357 357.0 107 107.0 21 19.

299 a.5 Taste 59 57.0 38 42.1 53 53.0 17 23.0 1 1.0 18 17.172 . 0 357 357. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).000 Count Expected Count 31.0%) have expected count less than 5.7 0 . Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.7 4 6.000 Count Expected Count 41.000 & Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54.0 135 135.000 Count Expected Count 21.162 a df 12 12 1 357 Asymp.0 107 107.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 17.00040.00020.5 5 0 . Level of Significance: α = 0.1 36 33.6 Availability 24 25.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Income 10.144 .11.9 22 20.Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0 0 . Sig.144) > 0.6 16 14. The minimum expected count is .7 1 .9 12 8. (2-sided) .9 20 19.0 Price 52 45.585 16.00030.05 Page 123 of 170 .0 12 5.4 152 152.9 7 11.1 39 39.0 12 15. 4 cells (20.0 60 60.429 .0 7 8.3 113 113.

Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 17 15.1 32 32.EIqbal Count Expected Count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54.3 91 91.9 5 0 .S Count Expected Count Gulshan . Level of Significance: α = 0. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.C. it means that there is No association between Income and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). Ho: There is No Association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). HA: There is An Association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0 10 10.6 5 5. So.4 14 12.6 Availability 9 7.4 0 .8 3 6.8 28 27.0 Total Page 124 of 170 .8 9 9.0 357 357.2 66 66.0 0 .0 4 4.1 13 13.0 107 107.3 37 34.0 9 6.1 42 42.0 4 5.H.E.6 0 .6 24 27.05.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.0 135 135.0 60 60.0 1 .1 36 36.1 Taste 13 15.144) is greater than 0.1 0 .1 26 25.4 16 10.8 11 11.3 90 90.0 1 1.0 16 13.1 32 34.0 19 19.3 15 15.4 Price 11 12.0 11 13.

Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 107 107.907 .1 27 38.0 Total Page 125 of 170 .4 5 1 . so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.6 Price 64 76.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0 135 135.9 Taste 108 96.3%) have expected count less than 5.907) > 0.09.0 357 357.249 a df 20 20 1 Asymp.916 .4 43 30. Sig.0 42 38. The minimum expected count is .0 12 15.0 1 1.7 255 255.05.6 0 . Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).3 102 102.6 20 17.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 12. Level of Significance: α = 0.4 Availability 40 42.658 11.196 357 a.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Buying Decision) Name Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 54 54. it means that there is No association between Area and consumption pattern (Buying Decision). 7 cells (23. (2-sided) . So.0 60 60.907) is greater than 0.993 .

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) 357 100.0% 357 Percent 100.05.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 14. (2-sided) .0% 0 .006 . so research rejected the Null Hypothesis and accepted the Alternate Hypothesis.0% N 0 Missing Percent .0%) have expected count less than 5. Critical Region: Reject Ho as p value (0.281 3.007) < 0.0% N 357 Total Percent 100. it means that there is a strong association between Gender and consumption pattern (Buying Decision).0% 357 100. 2 cells (20. 4.29.446 357 a.0% 0 .0% 357 100.0% 357 100.0% 357 100. So.007 .007) is less than 0.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.0% Page 126 of 170 .0% 0 .063 14. Sig. The minimum expected count is .067 a df 4 4 1 Asymp.0% 357 100.

0 20 24.05 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 132 132.093) > 0.8 9 7.05.3 1 1.833 1.44. So. Level of Significance: α = 0.5 21 21.128 . (2-sided) .2 264 264. The minimum expected count is .05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.2 2 .162 13.093) is greater than 0.093 .3 12 13.0 1 2.1 3 1.4 29 23.0 26 26.6 Crispy 88 93.0 8 7. Page 127 of 170 .8%) have expected count less than 5. 7 cells (43.0 73 73.0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 14.0 Bitter 18 19.4 3 4.0 126 126. HA: There is An Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).0 357 357.2 Hygiene 55 54. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.5 5 4. it means that there is No association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).909 a df 9 9 1 Asymp.8 66 66. Sig.Ho: There is No Association between Age and consumption pattern (Taste).0 103 97.2 0 2.960 357 a. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.4 6 6.

0 64 56.8 39 39.0 39 41.358 357 a.000-20.0 357 357. The minimum expected count is 2.000 Count Expected Count 21.7 11 10.05 Page 128 of 170 .000-30.8 36 39.057 1.4 18 13.0 73 73. Level of Significance: α = 0.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Income 10.2 113 113.8 6 3.244 9.432 .0 Total Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 8.0 26 26. Sig.000 Count Expected Count 41.5%) have expected count less than 5.6 19 18.Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).441 .000 Count Expected Count 31.000-40.0 1 2.8 8 8. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.1 152 152.0 12 14. 2 cells (12.84.000 & Above Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132. (2-sided) .9 53 53.0 126 126.1 9 8.9 29 23.2 Crispy 53 53.0 17 19. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).6 Hygiene 25 31.441) > 0.1 Bitter 10 11.961 a df 9 9 1 Asymp.

H. Level of Significance: α = 0.1 42 42.3 32 32.0 30 24.0 357 357.0 39 33.6 9 13.3 36 31.Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Area DHA Count Expected Count Clifton Count Expected Count P.S Count Expected Count Gulshan .3 12 13.0 Total Page 129 of 170 .0 36 36.0 26 26.E-Iqbal Count Expected count Saddar Count Expected Count North Nazimabad Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132.6 3 2.6 8 7.0 27 33.0 10 11.E.4 6 6.4 18 23. HA: There is An Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).6 Bitter 1 3. So.6 90 90.3 8 6. it means that there is No association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).05.1 16 12.8 66 66.C.3 28 32.0 126 126.5 Crispy 17 14. Ho: There is No Association between Income and consumption pattern (Taste).4 7 6.8 Hygiene 7 8.8 20 18.7 18 18.441) is greater than 0.5 3 2.5 6 4.0 17 15.8 11 11. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.6 91 91.0 73 73.

631 a df 15 15 1 Asymp.7%) have expected count less than 5.0 357 357.660 .0 22 20.000 357 a. HA: There is An Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste). So. The minimum expected count is 2. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.0 126 126.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0.05.0 73 73.33. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.3 Crispy 88 90.0 Total Page 130 of 170 .257 .0 Hygiene 51 52.7 38 36.6 255 255.994 12.9 9 7.707) is greater than 0.707 . 4 cells (16.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 11. Sig.0 26 26.707) > 0.0 33 37.05 Calculation Crosstab Consumption Pattern (Taste) Sweet Gender Male Count Expected Count Female Count Expected Count Total Count Expected Count 132 132. it means that there is No association between Area and consumption pattern (Taste). Ho: There is No Association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste). Level of Significance: α = 0. (2-sided) .1 Bitter 17 18.4 102 102.0 99 94.

16 357 2. 0 cells (. So.675 .644853627 1 Page 131 of 170 .003974793 3 0.57 1.43.281 357 a. it means that there is No association between Gender and consumption pattern (Taste).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 0.0%) have expected count less than 5. (2-sided) .674 .05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.05.11 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 = 0.534 a df 3 3 1 Asymp.675) > 0. 4. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.675) is greater than 0.06139371 -7. The minimum expected count is 7.258 1.536 1.Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 1. Sig.05 1.

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. HA: Respondent agrees that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU.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. Ho: Respondent don not agree that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) sabotage the mother brand LU. Level of Significance: α = 0. So.05 Page 132 of 170 .01 Analysis: At significance level of 99% the p value (1) is greater than 0.01 1. it means Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brand of LU. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.57 2. So. it means Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brand of LU.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (1) is greater than 0.Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0.003974793 3 0.01. Level of Significance: α = 0.06139371 -7.

72361 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (0.74 2.05.99) > 0. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.01 1.644854 0. Level of Significance: α = 0.999999 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (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.999) is greater than 0. So.055043 -4.04 357 2. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.99) is greater than 0.01 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.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 1.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (0. it means Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) have no difference from the existing brand of LU.326348 0.72361 3 0. Page 133 of 170 .01 Analysis: At significance level of 99% the p value (0.05 1.01.999999 3 0.055043 -4.04 357 2.999) > 0.74 0. So.

In other words Brand Extension makes consumer life easy with a multiple choices. so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.644854 1 0. Level of Significance: α = 0. it means that Brand extension of LU (Bakeri) increase the customer’s options to choose the best product.12 357 2.059277 -12.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.05.05 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 1.26 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0. So. Level of Significance: α = 0.05 Analysis: At significance level of 95% the p value (1) is greater than 0.05 1.4838 3 0.01 Page 134 of 170 .

01 1.01 Analysis: At significance level of 99% the p value (1) is greater than 0.4838 3 0. So.12 357 2.326348 1 Critical Region: Accept Ho as p value (1) > 0.26 2. 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 0.01. In other words Brand Extension makes consumer life easy with a multiple choices Page 135 of 170 . so research accept the Null Hypothesis and rejected the Alternate Hypothesis.059277 -12.

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

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. 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. 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. As for the LU it is good that their brand Bakeri has no specific target segment with respect to their education. It means it is now clear that that one taste can favorite among the two genders as well. Page 137 of 170 . No need to increase the brand portfolio for separate gender a separate product. Area of residence is very important for the segmentation of target market.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. Narrow down to one particular brand and improve its taste and packaging which can attract more customers. 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. 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. Barkeri should focus on its segment with improvement in quality as taste.

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. Researcher evaluate that there is no specific brand for the doctors or for the teacher. According to research in confectionary’s market profession has no association with the brand attraction. Page 138 of 170 . Teacher can like Plain Bakeri while the Doctor can like Coconut or can be vice versa. 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. Brands are not limited to profession but profession has choice to choose any of their favorite brands. But teen always wanted to explore new product/brand to increase their experience. After the analysis and evaluation researcher come to conclusion that the variables like area of residence and product availability has no association between them. Research denies the relationship of gender and brand attraction. As the consumer gaining experience day by day he/she don’t want to make experience with product they are using for long time. choice of taste made consumers life easy. 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).Analysis and evaluation of the research has been observed that age and brand attraction are not related to each other. Barki Biscuits that’s why has good line of taste for each segment of market.

Consumer buying behavior and the age of customer has very strong association between each others. mature customers are more loyal as compare to teen agers. Manufacturers should keep in mind the product availability is very important for their sale. Loyalty is associated with the maturity of customers. Teens are excited and eager to explore new variety and taste at every time of shopping. Same outcome are from the teens that their association’s analysis show very strong relation with the availability of product. Both old age and teen are the more than 60 percent of the consumers of any FMCG product. The result of analysis of gender and consumer buying behavior are very interesting that there is no association between these two variables at all. 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.After the complete analysis and evaluation it has been observed that product availability and profession of consumer has very strong relationship. 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. Their choice can be same and on Page 139 of 170 . Evaluation and analysis of two key variables age and product availability has strong relationship between each others. Complete analysis and evaluation has been observed that age of customer has direct effect on the purchasing behavior of customer. Different age people show their association with the product specially the old age people need the right product at the right time. There is no specific consumer behavior for the ladies or for the gents.

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

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. So income is not the factor of 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. So gender is one factor that has influence in the consumption pattern of consumer’s decision making. 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. Page 141 of 170 . even though office clerk can purchase for personal use or for the family usage. his/ her loyalty and their need.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. 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. Female sometimes play more important role in the purchase of family grocery items on monthly basis. Buying decision is totally dependent on the choice of customer. It is not necessary that manager can eat Bakeri (Coconut). In some societies male play more roles in the daily consumption. Area has no role in the choice of particular product of LU Biscuits.

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

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

In simple words brand are not bound to one profession but they target the mass market. Area of residence is one of the major factors that have effects on the sale of any FMCG product. There is no specific brand in the market that is dedicated to particular segment.any brand. 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. Continental Biscuits should not narrow down their target market but narrow down the brand for further improvement in taste and quality. Profession is one element of societal segmentation but there is strong association between profession of anyone and the brand attraction. But research clearly mentioned that that brand attraction has no effect on age. 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 . 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. As male and female has different line of their choices. Same is in case of brand attraction and gender choice. while on other hand teens can be attracted with new style of packaging and taste. 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. When marketer evaluate the segmentation for them age of consumer is very important to know their right target. So. some choices are same but they have different directions in most of the case.

In the Biscuit manufacturers product availability make clear difference in their sale. It is Page 145 of 170 . 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. Manufacturer of LU (Bakeri) should make clear that availability of their Biscuit at the different tuck shops and cafeterias of different institutions. Area of residence and the qualification has some impact on the sale but age of the consumer has more impact of the sale. There is a strong effect of availability of product to convert simple consumer into your loyal customers. 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. 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. As we already discuss the effects of different professional people on the sale. Aged consumer is more loyal customer as compare to young age customers who need to try new verity and taste. Age of consumer is main factor for the segmentation of target market. 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. Consumer buying behavior is also one other factor which cannot be neglected at anyhow. 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.

Important is the presence of LU (Bakeri) biscuits on the shelf of all small shops and super markets. 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. 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. They need quality and same taste every time. Manufacturer of LU (Bakeri) should focus on their quality of product for the both ladies and gents. Area of residence has effects on sale but there is no specific taste or flavor which we can specify for a particular area. they don’t prefer to try new taste every time. They sometime reject the good product because of their close association with the old product.important to know that what is basic need of specific gender like what female wants and what male customers want in their product. Researcher recommends that marketer and manufacturer should be keen on need rather than the buying behavior of gender. 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. Their purchase reflects that their basic need is fulfilled through it otherwise they don’t have particular taste for them. 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. Page 146 of 170 .

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

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

000 P.C.Are you familiar with Brand Name LU (Bakery) Biscuits? 2.000 Gulshan-e-Iqbal Doctor 10. Is brand extension like any other extension in the industry satisfy your need? Brand Extension effects: (5-Strongly agreed 1-Strongly Disagreed) 1.Which taste would you like to purchase after Brand Extension of LU (Bakery)? Classic Coconut Date Plain 2. Can you recognize LU(Bakery) Biscuits brand among other competitive brands? 4. Did you know what are the products of the LU (Bakery) Biscuits taste like? 3.In your opinion do you assess which taste would prefer more to buy the customers? Classic Coconut Date Plain 3.Do you agree that extensions of LU Bakery have no difference with the existing one? 2. 1. The information you provide me will be confidential and will not be used for any other purpose.S 31 – 40 41 – 50 50 and Above Doctoral 41.000 & Above Saddar Teacher North Others Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Yes / No Graduation Income MS/Phil 31.Pick any one factor which affects your buying decision : Name Price Availability 2.Agreed 3-Netiher agreed nor disagreed 2-Disagreed Brand Extension and Consumer Buying Behavior: 1.H.000 – 30.000 – 40. 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.QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you for your cooperation to complete the questionnaire.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 4.000 Area of residence? DHA Nazimabad Profession Clifton Marketing Banking Engineering Brand knowledge: 1.000 –20.E.Did you agree that the Extension of Bakery Biscuits sabotage the Lu Bakery Biscuits? 3.Pick any one factor which affects your selection of taste: Sweet Crispy Hygiene Taste Bitter Page 149 of 170 . Is the products of the company with brand extension do satisfy your need? 6.In your opinion which brand need more improvement to get customer attention Classic Coconut Date Plain Brand Extension and Consumption Pattern of the Consumer. Is corporate LU brand is appealing to you? 5.

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

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

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

“Positive Brand Extension Trial and Choice of Parent Brand”. 6(2).. S. M. M. 1985. A. Journal of Product and Management. Journal of Consumer Research. 1991 27-30. 29.. S. M.Broniarczyk. 1994. Keller. 2000. 31(2). The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior. Journal of Advertising. 25-36 Page 153 of 170 . Vol. 214-239. S.Chen K. J. 31. Communication Strategies for Brand Extensions: Enhancing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links. M. 1. W.9.. 1.4.C.H. 29(4). A typology of consumer knowledge content. Brand dilution effect of extension failure-a Taiwan study.. 6(Fall). Journal of Consumer Marketing. and Liu C. 3(1). 27-30. Capitalizing on Brand Extensions. 243-254 32. Journal of Product and Brand Management. Advances in Consumer Research.. Tom. 2000. 58.Brucks. 12(1). 30. T. Journal Of Consumer Marketing. 1986. 2004. 13 (1).Buday. 26. Journal of Marketing Research. S.Buday. 28. 27.. 1989.25. “Capitalizing on Brand Extensions”. No. and Alba. & Sood. L.Bridges. J..Chen.Brucks.K. “The importance of the brand in brand extension”. K. and Chen.

Peter A. A. “The Effects of Order and Direction on Multiple Brand Extensions. Niraj and Paul F. 119129. 34. 30 (June). 31 (May). 1995.04/70 . 39. 5-14 37. 1994. E. and Daniel C. SHU • ISSN: 1404 – 5508 • ISRN: LTU . Journal of Consumer Research. Charles Himmelsberg.Dacin.Dahlberg Elina.. Asim Ansari. 1994.. Anderson.” Journal of Business Research. Kulluvaara Camilla. Tornberg Johanna.Davis.DeSarbo. 27-43 38. & Mitchell. S. and Michel Wedel. S. Wayne S. Pradeep Chintagunta.33. Peter Lenk. 443-454. 36.Cowley. Smith. 2003. 30(3)..Czellar. 2003. The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the earning and Organization of Product Information. “A vision for the year 2000: brand asset management”. A. Kannan Srinivasan. Wagner Kamakura.Dawar. Richard Johnson.. Kamel Jedidi.” Marketing Letters... 229-242. 35. 2004. 20(1). International Journal of Research in Marketing.SHU EX . Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research propositions. 97. “Representing Heterogeneity in Consumer Response Models – 1996 Choice Conference Participants. “The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension.SE. 8 Page 154 of 170 .” Journal of Marketing Research. Brand Extension case study of three Swedish companies.

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

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

Haigh. 60. Wayne..Hoyer. 59 62. 61. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. de Chernatony.. “Brands the New Wealth Creators”. 56.: Brand Finance. 2003. Page 157 of 170 .. L. J..Hem. R.Haig. Advances in Consumer Research. 4-37. Advances in Consumer Research. C. David.Hartmen. M. S. E. C. 1982. Norway (September). Dr L. D & Brown..1. 24-33 57. Great Britain: Anthony Rove Ltd. 2001.. Brand failures. 141-148.17. 58. & Iversen. 9(1). London. no.. M. the truth about the 100 biggest branding mistakes of all time. L. 7279. L.. Transfer of Brand Equity in Brand Extension: The Importance of Brand Loyalty. VPl. L. Brand Due Dilligence.Hastie.55. 72.M. Kogan Page Limited. in advances in conquers research. 2003...17. 1-4. 1990.E. “Factors Influencing Successful Brand Extensions”. & Price L. 1990. Steven. N. 2002. & Duncan P. 120-127. Repeat Purchase Product‘ vol. 59. & Murphy.Hem. Effects of Brand Awareness on Choice for a Common.Hart.. 30(1). & Iversoen N. Comment: Consumer's memory for product knowledge. “Consumer evaluation of franchise extension products”: A categorizing processing perspective.P. 1998.

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

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

97. 1995. R. 59 (January).McAlister. & John.” Journal of Marketing.Larson. Building a Brand's Personality from the Customer Up. 1134 100.. 1990.Loken. 55-61 98. University of Arizona.The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions. “The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions. 80-91. 63-77. J.” Journal of Consumer Research. Issue 6. 64(2). “Stock Market Reactions to Brand Extension Announcements: The Effects of Brand Attitude and Familiarity. “Examining factors that influence the perceived goodness of brand extensions”.94.MacInnis. 95. Working Paper #54. 9. 2000. D.” Journal of Marketing.Lane and Robert Jacobson. 22.. 1982. Leigh and Edgar A Pessemier. 2000. K.Lane. “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have A Negative Impact?” Journal of Marketing. 64 (April). Vicki R. “A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety-Seeking Behavior. D. 65. 96. B. 71-84. “The Role of Consumer Knowledge in Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension”. 57 (July).. Direct Marketing. and Nakamoto. Vol. Karl Eller Graduate School of Management. A thesis submitted to Auckland University of Technology. 2005. Journal of Marketing. 311-322 101. 2002.Ma Yun. 1993.34 Page 162 of 170 .Lane. 99. 80. D. R. V.

“Managing Negative Feedback Effects Associated with Brand Extensions: The Impact of Alternative Branding Strategies”.. “Characteristics of Marketing Channels: A Theoretical Framework”. The Logic of the Actual Dilution Requirement.McClendon. 1. No. The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise.69. 6 (2). 219 107.. 1997. Whan Park. B. APA Journal. Boston College Law Review.W.. 108. 23): Journal of Consumer Research. PhD Thesis. Page 163 of 170 . M.. 2005. 103. & Dacin.Muroma. 5(1).Mermin J.Mitchell. The Marketing Review. 2003. P. A. 258 Marketing Academy. A bold vision and a brand identity for the planning profession. 42 No. M. 85-101 105. 1996. C. Inc. 207-256.McCarthy.3. Vol. university of Pisttsburgh. 1996.. Vol. Sandra J. 2000.. “Factors Affecting Brand Extension in Competitive Market”. H. and Michael S. 221-233 104.. S. 119-140. Journal of Consumer Research (Vol. Paper presented at the The 25th annual conference of the European Budapest.Milberg. A. Arnott David C and Dibb Sally. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 45-57 106. 1996. Fit as a determinant of success in brand extension. A.: Interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995.102. & Saari.Michaclidon Nina. McCarthy..

http://exitcreative. 2006 “The Success of Nike Brand. J. E. 17. Brand Strategy.cop. V. A. Florida. Role of Product Knowledge in Evaluation of Brand Extension. Whan. Competitive Branding-Winning the Marketplace with Value Added Brands.109. 1997.Park.Muthukrishnan. 450-469 113.Nijssen. C.”Internet document.Nilson. Non Durable Goods. 67-69 112. Accessed 12 Jan. European Journal of Marketing. and Robert Lawson.. European Journal of Marketing. M. Vol. 33 No. 18(1).J. & Weitz.34 115..Nijssen. Milberg. 51 110. 111. Sandra J. I. Chichester: Wiley. 5/6. Southern University. 1999.. H. “Consumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions: Durable Goods Vrs. 2000. A. 1990.net/blog/2006/12/the-success-of-the-nike-brand-a-history/ Page 164 of 170 . 2011. 116- Parker Jones. 33(5/6). Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving consumer goods. Nova.” Journal of Consumer Research. “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency. . 185-193.. a History. 1991. E. 18 (September). Advances in Consumer Research.. 407. 45-47. “Success factors of line extensions of fast-moving consumer goods”. J. Dissertation”.1998.T. B. England: Prentice Hall Inc.. Ford Lauderdale.Murphy. Wayne Huizenga Graduate School of Business and Entrepreneurship. 1991. 114- Nkwocha. C.

London: Kogan Page Limited. Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education. Branding. “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis. Journal of Harvard Business Review on Brand Management. 51-64 119- Phang Leon. G. & Kenny.. ITESM-CCM. 2001. 2006. 6-22 122- Randall.. Working Paper. J. 1997. Mexico City Campus. Mexico DF 14380. 146-152 Page 165 of 170 . 2004. 12(4). 28 (December). & Katsanis. A. D. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension: Can B2B Brands be extended into Consumer Market?” Master Thesis. 28-33 123- Randall. G. 1995. 1999. Brand Extension Effects. ‘Influence of Advertising Variability. Extend Profits. Organizing and Strategy..a Practical guide to Planning Your Strategy.L. Buying Brand Name. (2 nd ed.117- Peterson. 2000.461. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Not Product Lines. 105-126.London: Kogan Page Limited. A Practical Guide to Branding: Planning. 121- Rajagopal. Maastricht University. 450. P. 15-20 120- Quelch.). Understanding Brand Equity for Successful Brand Extension. Variety Seeking Behavior and Customer Value on Decisions: A Multi-experiment Analysis”. Robert A.A.” Journal of Consumer Research. 118- Pitta.

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

Martin.: Company Brand vs. B. Factors of successful Brand Extension in FMCG industry. an introduction to the special issue: Journal of Marketing Research.N. & Mittal. 21. 136.Sheth. 31 (September/October). 1994.”Customer Behavior: A Managerial Prospective”.Siburian S. Individual Brand: Which Way to Go? . 2000. 1994. 1993. -5-22 Page 167 of 170 .659. 10 (3). Kuopio. “Managing brand extension”. “Extending Brands with New Product Concepts: The Role of Category Attribute Congruity. 22-40 137. 1-10. 2nd Edition South-Western.. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Brand Affect. 11. 2004. 135- Sheinin. 2010. Ko de and Wetzels. “The Role of Corporate Image and Extension Similarity in Service Brand Extensions”. 132- Seyama William. 19-20 University of 134- Sharp. 639. Journal of Economic Psychology. & Ruekert R. Schmitt.& Srivastava. Pretoria. 138. 2006. “Challenges and opportunities facing brand management’.17. 23-37 132- Ruyter.W.K. J. 31. R.Business and Administration. A. B. 149-158.” Journal of Business Research. Mason (USA). and Brand Breadth. and Bernd H.D. Daniel A. 2004.Shocker. J.

and C. Carlston. 141.Smith. Business Horizon. 12(1). M. E. Journal of Business. “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions: Further Empirical Results. 1987.. John J. “Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in Negativity.. Vol.Sujan. 143.139. 10 (March). Journal of Consumer Research. “The Impact of Brand Extension Introduction on Choice. 309-30. and Extremity Biases”.. “ Measuring Image Spillovers in Umbrella Branded Products”. “Brand franchise extension: new products benefits from existing brand names”. Richard J. 1992. 52 (4).Skowronski. and Donal E. Brodie. Wahn Park. 36-41 Page 168 of 170 . 1985. 29 (August). 296-313. Vanitha. Fox. 65 (October).” Journal of Marketing.Sunde. M. 1-15. 144. 63(1). 145. Lorraine and Roderick J. Positivity. 47-53.” International Journal of Research in Marketing. Daniel C. 24. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 689-699. and Srinivas K. 140. Mary W. 1993.Swaminathan. Reddy.” Journal of Marketing Research. 1981. 2001.Tauber. Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments. 31. 142.Sullivan. 1990.

John Wiley & Sons Ltd. D.. Sivaram A. Hans C M. “Ad Spending on Brand Extensions-Does Similarity Matters?” Journal of Brand Management. 14 (4). 11 (1). 63-74 148. 2000.Taylor.Thamaraiselvan N. 33. 2004. “Brand Stretch: Why 1 in 2 Extensions Fail. E. National Institute of Technology. 2006. Athletic Footwear. 2003. “Why Switch? Product-Category Level Explanations for True Variety-Seeking Behavior”. 147. 2003.Völckner Franziska. Journal of Marketing Research. Journal of Advertising Research.146. Sattler Henrik. and How to Beat the Odds”. 28.control world.41 149. Wayne D Hoyer and Jeffrey Inman . Industry Analysis Economics of Management and Strategy. Department of Management Studies. 22. 605-624 153. Brand leverage: strategy for growth in a cost.Tauber. “Empirical Generalizability of Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”. Journal of Business and Psychology. 281-192 152-Vaidyanathan R.Tufts University. 1988.Van Trijp. Massachusetts.. How Do Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions? Research findings from India. “Role of Brand Familiarity in Internal Reference Price Formation-An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective”. 1996.Taylor V A and Bearden W O .. 26-30. 54-56 151. 2-5 150. Research Papers on Marketing and Page 169 of 170 . West Sussex..

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.