Journal of Product & Brand Management

The effect of brand extensions on product brand image

F. Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna,
Article information:
To cite this document:
F. Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna, (2010) "The effect of brand extensions on product brand image", Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 19 Issue: 3, pp.170-180, https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421011046157
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421011046157
Downloaded on: 04 December 2017, At: 06:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 20453 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"Effect of brand extension strategies on brand image: A comparative study of the UK and Spanish markets",
International Marketing Review, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 107-137 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851908">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02651330810851908</a>
(1995),"Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 51-64 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769510095306">https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769510095306</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:210680 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The effect of brand extensions on product
brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
School of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of fit, familiarity, perceived quality and attitude towards the brand on product brand
image after an extension and also to examine whether the product image of a brand is diluted as a result of brand extension.
Design/methodology/approach – The model adopted for the study is based on that developed by Martinez and de Chernatony. A questionnaire
consisting of seven constructs (general brand image, product brand image, quality, familiarity, fit, attitude, and demographic characteristics) was
administered to 474 respondents. Convenience sampling and face-to-face survey methods were used. The brands and extensions used in the study
were the same as in the Martinez and de Chernatony study. The difference between these two studies is that, while Martinez and de Chernatony have
investigated the effects of brand extension on both general brand image and product brand image, in this study general brand image is examined only
before the extensions in order to compare the two brands. The results of the pre-tests showed that Turkish consumers could not assess the effects of
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)

hypothetical extensions on the general brand image. Therefore, as for the effects of brand extensions, only the product brand image after the extension
is investigated.
Findings – The results show that brand extensions affect the product brand image negatively, whereas the fit between the parent and extension
brands decreases the negative effect. The drop of image as a result of extension is greater when the perceived image and quality of the parent brand
are higher. Perceived quality of the brand, consumers’ brand familiarity, fit perceived by the consumer, consumers’ attitudes towards the extension have
a positive effect on the product brand image after the extension.
Research limitations/implications – Owing to the sample size and sampling method, the study has its own limitations in terms of external validity.
In addition, only two brands and two extensions were tested and the extensions used were hypothetical, which may lead to a lack of generalizability.
Practical implications – The higher the image of a brand, the more the dilution that occurs, which means that companies should take caution when
extending into different product categories.
Originality/value – The study is one of the very few research efforts conducted in the Turkish market concerning brand extensions and the sample
used in the research consists of consumers rather than students.

Keywords Brand image, Consumer behaviour, Brand awareness

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Fierce competition forces firms to adopt strategies that create
a competitive advantage for the firm. Creating a brand name
with well-established associations is one way of achieving this
aim. Firms invest heavily in developing a brand. It is a very
costly process but has many returns once success is achieved.
However, firms do not always have the financial strength or do
not want to invest so heavily in creating a new brand name
each time they develop a new product. Usually a more
economical strategy is used to introduce a new product.
Instead of creating a new brand name for the new product
category, an existing well known and successful brand name is
extended into the new product category; in other words,
brand extension is used. It is a well-known fact that
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
19/3 (2010) 170– 180
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421011046157]
developing a new brand requires much more investment
than creating a brand extension which is what motivates firms
to prefer brand extensions more than creating a new brand.
For this reason the last decade shows that many firms use
brand extension strategies to enter new markets.
Brand extension is defined differently by some academics.
Some define it as a new product introduced within a certain
product line (i.e. introducing banana flavored yogurt within
the existing yogurt product line) – which is actually defined as
line extension by many academics. On the other hand, brand
extension may imply introducing a new product line to the
firm by using an existing brand name; in other words
extending an existing brand name into new product categories
(i.e. developing motorcycles under an established automobile
brand name). This study assumes the second definition for
brand extension – using an existing brand name to enter new
product categories. Another classification for brand
extensions names two categories of extensions, which are
horizontal and vertical. Introduction of a new product in
either a related product class, or in a product category
completely new to the firm is categorized as horizontal
extension. On the other hand, vertical extension usually refers
to the introduction of a new extension in the same product
category but at a different price and quality level. In
horizontal extensions, mostly the existing brand names are
used for the new extensions whereas in vertical extensions, a

170
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
second brand name or descriptor alongside the core brand
name is used (Kim and Lavack, 1996, p. 24).
On inspection of brand extension literature, it can be seen
that one of the pioneering and most-cited studies is that of
Aaker and Keller (1990). Their study has been replicated by
various academics using the same variables and similar brands
and brand extensions in order to test whether the model of
brand extension applies to different settings and cultures as
well. It is always important to test models in different cultures
in order to be able to generalize the results. As Martinez et al.
(2008) stress in their study, there are only a limited number of
studies on brand extensions from an international perspective
and since quite a lot of brands are global and use international
brand strategies, it is important to conduct brand extension
studies in as many different countries as possible. Hence, this
study contributes to the brand extension literature by being
one of the first to be applied in a Middle Eastern culture.
Martinez and de Chernatony have analyzed “how variables
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
related to the parent brand and the extension influence brand
image after the extension” (Martinez and de Chernatony,
2004, p. 39). This model proposed by Martinez and de
Chernatony (2004) has been considered as a basis for this
study. In order to be able to make comparisons and verify the
model, the same global brands (Nike and Puma) and brand
extensions (Nike jeans, Nike camera, Puma jeans and Puma
camera) were used in this study. The same variables were used
but some minor changes were made on the attributes that
make up the variables. In the Martinez and de Chernatony
(2004) study product brand image after introducing the
extension was measured using five attributes whereas in the
current study it was measured by asking only a single variable
(what would the image of Nike jean be? 1 ¼ Bad, 5 ¼ Good).
Besides, Martinez and de Chernatony measured the effects of
brand extensions on both the general brand image and
product brand image after the extensions whereas in this
study, only product brand image is examined after the
extensions. The reason for these changes is that, the pretests
conducted before the application of the questionnaire showed
that the respondents could not assess the image of a
hypothetical brand extension in such detail – alas, only one
question was asked to measure this variable. Besides, pre-tests
also revealed that, Turkish consumers could not assess the
effects of hypothetical extensions on the general brand image.
Therefore, as for the effects of brand extensions, only the
product brand image after the extension is investigated. The
objectives of the study are to determine:
.
Whether the product image of a brand is diluted as a
result of brand extension.
.
Whether the extension with a high fit will have a lower
dilution effect on the product brand image as compared to
the extension that has a lower fit.
.
The amount of effect the variables of familiarity, fit,
perceived quality and attitude towards the brand have on
product brand image.
.
Whether the brand extension model is valid in a Middle
Eastern culture.
2. Theoretical background
The brand is one of the most important assets a firm owns. A
firm with a high brand equity achieves high perceptions of the
brand by the customers, greater loyalty by customers, less
vulnerability to competitors’ marketing actions, high profit
171
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
margins, less negative reaction by customers to price increases,
higher support of middlemen, higher marketing promotion
effectiveness, increasing licensing and brand extension
opportunities (Keller, 2008, p. 49). In order to achieve high
brand equity the firm must invest heavily in the brand. Creating
and maintaining a new brand is very costly. This fact leads firms
to adapt cost effective ways of entering a new market. One of
the most popular strategies of growth that is less risky and
cheaper than creating a new brand is brand extension. Because
the brand name is already known by customers, the extension
usually gains easier acceptance in the market. “Brand
extensions provide a way to take advantage of brand name
recognition and image to enter new markets” (Aaker and
Keller, 1990, p. 27). The consumer is more familiar with and
has greater knowledge about the brand, so develops higher
affect to the extension as compared to an entirely new brand
name. In addition, when an existing brand name is used for a
new product, less investment is made in advertising, point of
purchase promotions, distribution channels, etc.
Brand extension may be defined as utilizing an existing and
successful brand name for entering a new product category.
However, as mentioned earlier, brand extension is defined
differently by different academics. Aaker and Keller (1990)
define it as, “brand extension occurs when a firm uses an
established brand name to introduce a new product into a new
product category”. According to Farquhar (1989), brand
extension may be classified into two classes: line extension and
category extension where a line extension occurs when the
parent brand name is used for a new product that targets a
different market segment within the same product category in
which the new product is a new variety in the product line
whereas a category extension occurs when the existing brand
name is used to enter a new product category. Line extensions
occur when new sizes, flavors, etc, are introduced to a firm’s
present product category using an existing brand name (Tauber,
1981, p. 36). Tauber (1981, p. 37) also uses the term franchise
extensions to imply brand extensions and defines it as “taking a
brand name familiar to the consumer and applying it to
products that are in a category new to the parent firm”.
As mentioned above, brand extensions may be in one of two
different directions: horizontal extension or vertical extension.
Horizontal extension is when the existing product name is
used to extend into the same product class (line extension) or
into a different product category (brand extension, category
extension or franchise extension) (Aaker and Keller, 1990;
Tauber, 1981). Vertical extension, on the other hand, is when
a new product is introduced “in the same product category
but with a different price and quality balance” (Pitta and
Katsanis, 1995, p. 60). The vertical extension may be upward
(prestige products) or downward (value products). Stretching
the brand up or down usually harms the parent brand
therefore sub-branding strategies are often required for the
extension to be successful (Keller, 2008, p. 533). Sub-
branding is when the firm chooses to combine a new brand
name with an existing brand name (e.g. Marriott Hotels,
Courtyard Inn by Marriott) (Keller, 2008, p. 491).
Downscale extensions of prestige products have negative
impact on the customers whereas upscale extensions of
prestige products are more favorably accepted (Pitta and
Katsanis, 1995, p. 62). The reason why downscale extensions
have a negative impact on brand image may be due to the
changing perceptions the customers attain because the parent
brand is associated with lower price and quality (Kim and
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
Lavack, 1996, p. 27). In addition, Kim and Lavack (1996,
p. 28) argue that even for upscale extensions, the consumers
become confused and uncertain about the quality and image
of the parent brand. Therefore, caution must be taken when
extending the brand vertically. Ries and Trout (1986) also
stress that, any kind of an inappropriate extension may create
serious damage to the parent brand and it may be hard for the
company to overcome this situation.
3. Research hypotheses
3.1 Product brand image and dilution
Brand image is defined by Keller (1993, p. 3) as “the
perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory”. In other words
brand image is what comes to the mind of the consumer when
a brand name is mentioned. Keller (1993) goes on to explain
that there are three important aspects of image: favorability,
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
strength and uniqueness of brand associations. Moreover, the
associations may be formed in one of the following categories:
attributes of the product, benefits achieved from the product
or attitudes towards the brand. The aim of every firm is to
create favorable and positive associations about the brand
which results in a positive image of the brand (Keller, 1993).
Some marketing tools that may be used to create brand image
are, the product itself, its packaging/labeling, the brand name,
the logo, the colors used, the point of purchase promotions,
the retailer, the advertisements and all types of other
promotions, pricing, owner of the brand, country of origin,
even target market and users of product.
Despite the many advantages gained by using brand
extensions, they also have the potential of creating some
problems for the firm, such as cannibalization, failure, partial
failure and dilution even if the extension is successful (Pitta
and Katsanis, 1995, p. 51). When a brand is extended into
product categories that are not consistent with the original
product or if different associations are created by the
extension, this can damage the brand’s image. In other
words, even successful extensions may harm the core brand
image if the associations created by the extension alter existing
associations (Keller, 1993, p. 16). Especially if excessive
extensions are made, the differentiating association may be
lost which may cause dilution of the image of the brand
(Dacin and Smith, 1994; Aaker, 2004, p. 211). Brand
extensions, especially unsuccessful ones, may dilute brand
names by “diminishing the favorable attribute beliefs
consumers have learned to associate with the family brand
name” (Loken and Roedder John, 1993, p. 79). The result of
an extension may be the cannibalization of sales of existing
products and the dilution of the current image of the parent
brand (Reddy et al., 1994, pp. 243-244). Pitta and Katsanis
(1995) make a distinction between successful repeated
extensions and their effects on brand equity (wear-out) and
negative effects of unsuccessful extensions on brand equity
(dilution). This study does not make such a distinction; all
negative effects on the product brand image are considered as
having a diluting effect on product brand image:
H1. Any type of brand extension (fit or no fit) will have a
dilution effect on the product brand image of the
parent brand.
H2. The brand extension that fits the parent brand will
have a higher product brand image than the brand
extension that has no (or lower) fit.
172
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
3.2 Perceived quality
For customers the quality of the brand/product is an important
aspect when forming a perception about the brand. The
customer evaluates the brand according to his/her perceptions
of quality which is “sometimes more difficult than actually
delivering high quality” (Aaker, 1990, p. 48). Customers who
have strong attitudes about the quality of a brand tend to
transfer these positive attitudes to the brand extension (Aaker
and Keller, 1990; James, 2006). In other words, consumers’
acceptance of the extension increases if the parent brand is
perceived to be of high quality and therefore, perceived quality
of the brand highly impacts the image of the extension. Hence,
the perceived quality of the brand will positively affect the
product brand image following extension. Therefore:
H3. The perceived quality of the brand will have a positive
effect on the product brand image of the parent brand
after the extension.
3.3 Familiarity with brand
How well a customer knows a brand shows how familiar he/she
is with the brand. Keller (1993, p. 10) defines brand familiarity
as “the number of product related experiences that have been
accumulated by the consumer (through product usage,
advertising, etc.)”. Any type of experience with and exposure
to the brand increases familiarity. Research shows that
customers tend to buy brands that they are familiar with.
Experiments show that even if customers are shown some
words that have no meaning and later are motivated to “pick”
the names that they like, most of them choose the nonsense
words they have been shown before (Aaker, 2004, p. 203). The
same applies to brand names. When a customer is familiar with
a brand name, he/she has more favorable attitudes towards it as
compared to brand names he/she is not aware of. “Knowledge
of the brand-specific association is required for consumers to
appreciate the appropriateness of the brand in the extension
category” (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994, p. 216).
Therefore, if a customer is familiar with the brand, this will
have a positive effect on the image of the extended product.
Hence, the following hypothesis may be stated:
H4. Consumers’ familiarity with the brand will have a
positive effect on the product brand image of the
parent brand after the extension.
3.4 Brand fit
Brand fit is how closely related (or similar/congruent) an
extension is with the parent brand. Brand fit is not only
restricted to product category similarity. Park et al. (1991,
p. 185) also stress the fact that: “two different bases that
consumers may use to evaluate an extension’s goodness of fit
with the brand category are product feature similarity and
brand concept consistency” where brand concept consistency
implies consistency with brand associations. A fit may exist in
any one of the associations that are made about the brand.
Product associations may be based on product category,
product attribute/functional benefits, application, technology,
channel, user and brand personality/self-expressive benefits
(Aaker, 2004, pp. 205-206). The strength of a brand highly
depends on the associations that the consumers make when
they come across the brand name. If a brand has strong
associations, it will evoke positive attitudes in customers. “A
meaningful association that is common to both the brand and
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
the extension can provide the basis of fit” (Aaker, 1990, p. 51).
Therefore, a fit may exist in any one of these mentioned areas.
It is important to note that how a business is defined affects
the direction the brand extension is going to take. The
definition of the business actually affects the associations
made about the brand. For example, BIC is defined as a
disposable pen and being disposable is the core association of
the brand and thus it was possible to successfully extend the
brand name into disposable razor and lighter product
categories (instead of stationary as would have been
expected) (Tauber, 1981).
On examining brand extensions in a competitive context,
Han (1998) found that when there is a low fit between the
extension and the parent brand the extension is perceived to
be of lower quality as compared to extensions with higher fit
and “neither the ad format nor the type of attribute could
overcome the negative effects of low fit”.
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
Prior studies show that when there is a fit between the
extension and the parent brand, the customers evaluate the
extension more positively (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990; Boush
and Loken, 1991; Park et al., 1991; Dacin and Smith, 1994;
Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994; Han, 1998; Barett et al., 1999;
Gronhaug et al., 2002; Martinez and de Chernatony, 2004;
Story and Loroz, 2005; James, 2006; Kim and Roedder John,
2008). Hence:
H5. Fit perceived by the consumers will have a positive
effect on the product brand image after the extension.
3.5 Attitudes toward the extension
Attitudes are the overall evaluations of the brand by the
consumer (Keller, 1993, p. 4). The attitude the consumer has
about a brand determines whether he/she will like the
product, buy the product, become loyal to the product, etc.
When a negative attitude is formed, it is almost unchangeable
and usually leads to the avoidance of the brand by the
consumer. Therefore, attitude towards the extension is an
important variable in determining whether the extension is
accepted by the consumer or not. If the attitude towards the
extension is high, this will have positive effect on the product
brand image, if it is low, there will be a negative or negligent
effect on product brand image. Therefore, it could easily be
said that the success of a marketing program depends on
creating favorable brand associations (Keller, 1993, p. 5) and
these positive attitudes have a positive impact on product
brand image. Hence, it could be hypothesized that:
H6. Consumers’ attitudes towards the extension will have a
positive effect on the product brand image after the
extension.
4. Literature review
One of the advantages of well-known brands is, over time
consumers form expectations about the performance of the
brand (Keller, 2008, p. 497) and hence create certain
associations about the brand. The reason why firms introduce
brand extensions to the market instead of creating a new
brand rests highly on this fact. When a brand extension is
introduced to the market, it is easily accepted by consumers
especially if there is a high fit between the extension and the
parent brand regarding product category (Aaker and Keller,
173
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
1990; Park et al., 1991) or associations (Park et al., 1991,
Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994).
Perceived fit between the extension and the parent brand
may depend on the transferal of current skills or assets to
making the extension; the perceived product class
complementarity; and the perceived product class
substitutability (Aaker and Keller, 1990). In the same study
Aaker and Keller (1990) also stress the fact that the
customer’s perceptions of the difficulty of making the
extension has a positive relationship with the evaluations of
the extension – i.e. if it is more difficult to manufacture an
extension, the consumer has a more favorable attitude
towards the extension as compared to an easily
manufactured extension.
Another important area of study concerning brand
extensions is the impact of an unsuccessful extension on the
parent brand. In their study, Loken and Roedder John (1993)
found that quality perceptions on the parent brand was
negatively affected when the extension was in a similar
product category with the parent brand and almost unaffected
when it was in a dissimilar product category with the parent
brand. In other words if the unsuccessful extension is similar
to the parent brand it has a more negative impact on the
parent brand compared with an unsuccessful extension that is
distant (dissimilar) from the parent brand. Another important
issue pointed out in the brand extension literature is the
impact of brand extension on parent brand’s image (Ries and
Trout, 1986; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Kim and Lavack,
1996; Martinez and Pina, 2003; Martinez and de
Chernatony, 2004; Martinez et al., 2008, Salinas and Perez,
2009). Most of those studies reveal that together with the
components mentioned above (perceived fit, perceived
quality, familiarity with the brand, perceived quality of the
extension) the brand extension strategies may influence the
brand image after the extension.
Some other areas of research conducted concerning success
of brand extensions are: sequential introduction of brand
extensions and their effects on parent brand (Aaker and
Keller, 1990), effect of the number of previous brand
extensions on the success of brand extension, effects of
variance of quality on extension and interrelatedness of
extensions with parent brand (Dacin and Smith, 1994),
impact of consumer knowledge of product class on the
success of the brand extension (Smith and Park, 1992),
relevance of the extended associations with that of the parent
brand (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994), symbolic value of the
parent brand (Reddy et al., 1994), effects of brand extensions
on brand alliances (James, 2006), the impacts of brand
extensions on brand personality (Diamantopoulos et al.,
2005), the effects of brand concept consistency and product
feature similarity on the success of extensions (Park et al.,
1991); the role of technology and technology congruence in
consumers’ perceptions of extensions (Story and Loroz,
2005).
5. Preparation of the questionnaire
As mentioned above, the model adopted for this study is
based on the model developed by Martinez and de
Chernatony (2004). The questionnaire consists of seven
constructs that are general brand image, product brand
image, quality, familiarity, fit, attitude and demographic
characteristics of respondents. In order to make direct
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image Journal of Product & Brand Management
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180

comparisons, the brands and extensions of the original study Table I Respondents’ profile
are adopted. The original scale uses a seven point Likert scale
whereas this study uses a five point Likert scale due to the fact Characteristic Frequency %
that Turkish respondents cannot perceive the differences Age
between the intervals of a seven-point scale. Most studies 15-17 50 10.5
conducted in Turkey use a five point Likert scale. 18-21 237 49.9
Martinez and de Chernatony have investigated the effects of 22-25 187 39.6
brand extension on both general brand image and product
brand image, in this study general brand image is examined Gender
only before the extensions in order to compare the two Female 218 46.4
brands. The results of the pre-tests showed that, Turkish Male 252 53.6
consumers could not assess the effects of hypothetical Education
extensions on the general brand image. Therefore, as for the Elementary 81 17.2
effects of brand extensions, in this study only the product High school 256 54.5
brand image after the extension is investigated.
Graduate school 113 24
The original items were translated and back translated by a
Postgraduate 20 4.3
linguistic expert. In accordance with the comments of the
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)

expert and the results of the pilot study, some items were Income (YTL)
corrected. Minor changes were made on the original scale. 0-500 8 1.7
Instead of using five attributes to measure product image after 501-1,000 64 13.6
the extension, only one attribute was used in the Turkish 1,001-1,500 82 17.4
version due to the fact that during the pilot study, the Turkish 1,501-2,000 149 31.6
respondents showed difficulty in perceiving such detailed 2,001 and above 168 35.7
description of a hypothetical extension.
The dependent measure used in the study is image (image
of extension – product brand image). The independent 7. Findings and results
measures used are perceived quality of the brand, consumers’
familiarity with the brand, perceived fit of extension with Before conducting any analysis on the data collected, the
parent brand and attitude towards the extension. reliability of the scales were measured using Cronbach’s Alpha
For the study, in order to be able to make comparisons, the coefficient. The results of the reliability analysis are given on
brands Nike and Puma and their hypothetical extensions of Table II.
jeans and camera were chosen as in the Martinez and de As seen from Table II, the internal consistency estimates of
Chernatony (2004) study. Since these two brands are global all the scales except for one (Puma jeans-GBI 1) are above the
and also taking into consideration that according to the results cutoff point of 0.7 as recommended by Nunnally and
of the pre-tests conducted before the study, the most popular Bernstein (1994). Therefore, it could be said that the data
sports wear brands in the Turkish market came out to be obtained for the study is highly reliable.
Nike, Adidas, Puma and Converse, the selection of these two In order to assess the general brand image before extensions
brands seems not to be posing any methodological problems. and product brand images of Nike and Puma brands both
before and after the extensions, independent sample t-tests
were conducted. As in the Martinez and de Chernatony
6. Sample selection (2004) study the quality and image perceptions are high for
both brands but Nike seems to have a relatively higher general
Four different questionnaires were prepared to collect data for
image, product image and quality perception (mean for
the four different extensions (Nike-Jean; Nike-Camera;
quality ¼ 4.32, t ¼ 2.58 and p ¼ 0.01; mean for general brand
Puma-Jean; Puma-Camera). The data were collected in
image ¼ 3.78 and product brand image ¼ 4.39) than Puma
May 2008.
(mean values for quality ¼ 4.13, general brand image ¼ 3.63
The first part of the questionnaire consists of questions
and product brand image ¼ 4.11). Statistically testing the
regarding the general brand image and product brand image
(before extension), perceived overall quality of the brand
before extension and familiarity with the brand. The second Table II Reliability analysis for the scales (Cronbach’s alpha
part of the questionnaire consists of questions about product coefficients)
brand image (after extension), perceived quality (after
Samples
extension), fit of the extension to the parent brand and
Nike Nike Puma Puma
attitudes toward the extension. The last part of the
jeans camera jeans camera Total
questionnaire consists of questions concerning the
Variables (n 5 119) (n 5 125) (n 5 113) (n 5 117) (n 5 474)
demographic characteristics of the respondents (age,
education, gender, household income). QUA 0.768 0.713 0.887 0.779 0.800
Face to face surveys were conducted with 474 respondents GBI 1 0.827 0.789 0.534 0.873 0.705
in Istanbul – Turkey. The frequency analysis for the PBI 1 0.768 0.695 0.868 0.883 0.831
respondent profile is given in Table I. FAM 0.815 0.852 0.828 0.793 0.822
Similar number of questionnaires were collected for each of FIT 0.901 0.852 0.852 0.906 0.822
the extensions (Nike Jean n ¼ 125, Nike Camera n ¼ 112, ATT 0.886 0.883 0.913 0.889 0.913
Puma Jean n ¼ 113, Puma Camera n ¼ 114).

174
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image Journal of Product & Brand Management
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180

significance of the results, independence samples t-test was
conducted for the two brands concerning the general brand
image before the extension (t ¼ 1.77, p ¼ 0.077) where no
statistically significant difference was found and product
brand image before the extension (t ¼ 4.89, p ¼ 0.000) where
a statistically significant difference was found.
The familiarity scores for both brands are: (mean ¼ 3.43
for Nike and 3.36 for Puma; independent samples
t-test ¼ t ¼ 0.83, p ¼ 0.40). This shows that there is a
greater score of familiarity for the Nike brand as compared
to Puma and there is no statistically significant difference
between the familiarity mean scores of the two brands.
After the respondents were informed about the extensions,
in order to test whether there are any significant differences
between the sub-samples of extensions regarding product
brand image and perceived quality with the brand,
independent samples t-tests were conducted. The results
showed that there were no significant differences among the
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
Regarding H1, the means obtained for product brand image
were compared. Table III shows the means, t-values and
significance values for the two brands in general (both taken
into consideration), the two brands separately (but both
extensions taken into account together), and the two brands
and the two extensions separately.
The scores achieved for product brand image before and
after the extensions show that H1 is supported. No matter
how the extension is (even if it fits with the parent brand or
not) the product brand image after the extension is affected
negatively by it. Table III shows that the overall product brand
image drops when an extension is taken into account. When
the extension fits the parent brand, the negative effect is less,
when the extension does not fit the parent brand then the
product brand image is more affected by it (for Nike-Jean and
Puma-Jean the drop is less than for Nike-Camera and Puma-
Camera). This shows that H2 is also supported.
Table III also shows that for a brand with a higher perceived

sub samples of extensions concerning the evaluation of the image and quality, the drop of product brand image is more
parent brands. when an extension strategy is used. In other words, when a
As for the results of Nike brand after the extension, the brand has a high image and is perceived to have high quality,
mean of the perceived quality scores are 4.29 for jean and if an extension strategy is used the product brand image is
4.34 for camera. The results showed no statistically significant more affected than for a brand that has a lower product brand
differences among the two sub samples of extensions image and lower perceived quality (the t-value for Nike is
(p ¼ 0.64). 17.08 whereas for Puma it is 11.90).
As for the results of independent samples t-tests for the
Puma brand, following with the product brand image, the 7.2 Product brand image
independent samples t-test showed no statistically significant In order to test H3, H4, H5, H6, H7 a multiple linear
differences (p ¼ 0.09) with mean values 4.04 for jean and regression analysis was conducted where the product brand
4.19 for camera. image after extension was used as the dependent variable and
The results of the independent samples t-test for perceived perceived quality of the brand, consumers’ familiarity with the
quality showed no statistically significant differences for the brand, fit perceived by the consumer and consumers’
Puma sub samples of extensions (p . 0.16) with mean values attitudes towards the extension variables were used as the
4.05 for jean and 4.21 for camera. independent variables. Multiple regression analysis was first
conducted for the whole sample (n ¼ 474) and as a second
7.1 Dilution step, separately for each type of extension (Nike-Jean, Nike-
Concerning H1, the paired samples t-test results shows that Camera, Puma-Jean, Puma-Camera).
the product brand image for both brands decreases after As a result of collinearity statistics analysis, variance
extension. The mean for product brand image before inflation factors (VIF) indicate that the largest value is
extension for the overall sample (n ¼ 474) is 4,26 whereas 4.048 and minimum tolerance value is 0.245. Since a VIF
the mean of the product brand image after the extension is value above 10 and a tolerance value below 0.10 pose a
3.09. In order to test the results for statistical significance, a multicollinearity problem, these values indicate that for this
paired samples t-test was conducted (t ¼ 20.224, p ¼ 0.000). analysis there is no serious multicollinearity problem.
This shows that H1 is supported. In addition, product brand When the sample is taken as a whole, the results of the
image was assessed for the brands and the extensions regression analysis show that perceived quality of the brand,
separately. For the Nike brand, the mean of the product consumers’ familiarity with the brand, fit of the extension to
brand image before the extension is 4.39 whereas it is 2.98 the parent brand as perceived by the consumer, consumers’
after both extensions (t ¼ 17.08, p ¼ 0.000) and for the Puma attitudes towards the extension have a positive effect on the
brand the mean of the product brand image before the
extension is 4.11 whereas it is 3.21 (t ¼ 11.9, p ¼ 0.000) after
both extensions. Table III The mean values for product brand image
As for the product brand image scores for all of the Mean
extensions separately, the mean value of the product brand Before After t-values Significance
image for the Nike jean before extension is 4.37 whereas it is
extension extension ( t) ( p)
3.56 after extension (t ¼ 7.44, p ¼ 0.000); for the Nike
camera extension the mean for the product brand image PBI (overall) 4.26 3.09 20.224 0.000
before extension is 4.41 and after extension it is 2.42 Nike 4.39 2.98 17.08 0.000
(t ¼ 19.8, p ¼ 0.000). For the Puma jean extension, the mean Puma 4.11 3.21 11.90 0.000
of product brand image before extension 4.03 whereas it is Nike-Jean 4.37 3.56 7.44 0.000
3.64 after the extension (t ¼ 5.02, p ¼ 0.000) and for the Nike-Camera 4.41 2.42 19.80 0.000
Puma camera extension, the product brand image mean value Puma-Jean 4.03 3.64 5.02 0.000
is 4.19 before extension whereas it is 2.80 after the extension Puma-Camera 4.19 2.80 12.4 0.000
(t ¼ 12.4, p ¼ 0.000).

175
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
product brand image after the extension (see Table IV). All of
the independent variables are statistically significant and the
total variance is quite high (0.711) showing that the model
explains 71 percent of the variance in product brand image
after the extension. Adjusted R-square is taken into account
since small sample sizes result in artificially inflated R-square
scores and result in optimistic estimation in models.
From Table IV and the above given multiple regression
formula it can be seen that for the whole sample, all of the
independent variables have a positive and statistically
significant effect on product brand image after the
extension. Therefore, it could easily be said that H3 is
supported. Perception of the quality of the brand by the
consumers’ (beta ¼ 0:391) has the highest positive effect on
product brand image after extension, followed by fit perceived
by the consumer (beta ¼ 0:334), consumers’ attitude towards
the brand extension (beta ¼ 0:180) and consumers’
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
familiarity with the brand (0.060), respectively. Although
the effect of consumers’ familiarity with the brand
(beta ¼ 0:060) is quite low, it is both positive and
statistically significant.
Results of the separate multiple regression analyses for the
four extensions are given in Table V.
As can be seen from Table V, for Nike-Jean, Puma-Jean and
Puma-Camera extensions the adjusted R-square scores are
around 0.72-0.74 meaning that the three models explain
approximately 72 percent of the change in product brand
image after extension when analyzed separately. For Nike-
Camera, the adjusted R-square score is lower (0.511)
Table IV Multiple regression analysis result for the whole sample
(n ¼ 474)
Model Standard. Coef. (t)
Constant 0.02681
Perceived quality 0.391 (10.481) *
Familiarity 0.060 (2.179) * *
Fit 0.334 (7.516) *
Attitude 0.180 (3.587) *
Notes: R ¼ 0.845; R-square ¼ 0.714; Adjusted R-square ¼ 0.711;
*p , 0.000; * *p , 0.050; VIF values are between 1.213-4.048 for the
independent variables; Product Brand Image ¼ 0.391 (Perceived
Quality)+0.334 (Fit)+0.180 (Attitude)+0.060 (Familiarity)
Table V Regression analysis results for the four extensions (Nike-Jean, Nike-Camera, Puma-Jean, Puma-Camera)
Stand. Coef. (t)
Model (Nike-Jean)
Constant (Unstand.) 20.0791 (20.299)
Per. quality 0.120 (1.843)
Familiarity 0.072 (1.328)
Fit 0.344 (4.096) *
Attitude 0.436 (4.678) *
R 0.865
R-square 0.747
Adj. R-square 0.738
VIF values 1.313-3.853
Notes: *p , 0.000; * *p , 0.050
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
meaning that the model for this extension explains 51
percent of the change in product brand image after extension.
For all four extensions, the VIF values are all below 10 and
the tolerance values are all above 0.10. Therefore, it could be
said that the models have no multicollinearity problems.
Table V shows that for Nike-Jean extension, attitude
towards the extension (beta ¼ 0.436) has the highest effect on
product brand image after extension followed by fit of the
extension with the parent brand (beta ¼ 0.344). For this
model perceived quality and familiarity variables are not
statistically significant; thus, have no significant effect on
product brand image after extension. For the Nike-Camera
extension, perceived quality (beta ¼ 0.459) has the highest
effect on product brand image after extension followed by fit
(beta ¼ 0.341); familiarity and attitude has no statistically
significant effect on product brand image after extension. For
the Puma-Jean extension, perceived quality (beta ¼ 0.648)
has the highest effect on product brand image after extension
followed by familiarity (beta ¼ 0.186); fit and attitude has no
statistically significant effect. For the Puma-Camera
extension, perceived quality (beta ¼ 0.451) has the highest
effect on product brand image after extension, fit
(beta ¼ 0.297) has the second highest effect; familiarity and
attitude has no statistically significant effect on product brand
image after extension.
8. Discussion and managerial implications
This study tries to validate that, in a Middle-Eastern culture,
extensions tend to deteriorate the product brand image,
whether the extension fits the parent brand or not.
Additionally, the effects of perceived quality, fit of the
extension to the parent brand, familiarity with the brand,
attitude towards the extension on product brand image after
the extension are also evaluated. Overall, it was found that the
product brand image is diluted once an extension is made,
whether it fits the parent brand or not. Moreover, when
evaluated in general, the factors that have the greatest impact
on product brand image after an extension is made are quality
and fit. The other two factors, attitude and familiarity, have
less impact on product brand image after an extension. In
fact, familiarity has a negligent but statistically significant
positive effect.
When assessing the extensions separately, for both Nike-
Camera and Puma-Camera extensions, the same independent
variables (perceived quality and fit) have a positive effect on
Stand. Coef. (t) Stan. Coef. (t) Stand. Coef. (t)
(Nike-Camera) (Puma-Jean) (Puma-Camera)
0.386 (1.320) 0.105 (0.478) 20.210 (2 0.849)
0.459 (5.102) * 0.648 (9.033) * 0.451 (6.341) *
0.009 (0.136) 0.186 (2.608) * * 0.095 (1.629)
0.341 (3.452) * 0.091 (1.105) 0.297 (3.839) *
0.025 (0.214) 0.036 (0.359) 0.148 (1.836)
0.726 0.861 0.855
0.527 0.742 0.730
0.511 0.732 0.720
1.146-3.281 2.058-4.089 1.398-2.645
176
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
product brand image after extension, whereas the other two
independent variables (familiarity of the brand and attitude
towards the extension) have no statistically significant effect.
The reason for this could be that camera is seen as an
extension that has a low fit with the parent brand, therefore
customers place importance to quality and the level of fit
when assessing the image of the product. Since a camera is an
electronic gadget, it is quite ordinary for consumers to place
importance on quality. For Nike-Jean and Puma-Jean
extensions however, completely different independent
variables (fit and attitude for Nike; perceived quality and
familiarity for Puma) have an effect on product brand image
after an extension. In general, Nike is perceived to have a
higher image and higher quality than Puma by the
respondents. Therefore, the results show that for the brand
that is perceived to have a higher image and quality, fit and
attitude are the two important factors that affect product
brand image after extension; in other words, the higher the
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
extension fits the parent brand and the better an attitude the
consumer has towards the extension, the higher the perceived
product brand image will be after the extension. But for a
brand that is perceived to have a lower image and quality,
perceived quality and familiarity are the variables that have an
effect on product brand image after an extension; meaning
that when the consumer has a lower perception of image and
quality of a brand, he/she places importance to the quality of
the extended product and how familiar he/she is with the
brand when forming product brand image after the extension.
As for dilution effects, as mentioned previously, the product
image of a brand after an extension is made is diluted no
matter what type of extension strategy is applied. These
results are in line with the Martinez and de Chernatony
(2004) study. However, compared with their study, dilution is
more acute with the camera extension for both brands in the
Turkish sample whereas it is more acute with the jean
extension for the Nike brand in the Spanish sample. In other
words, the highest dilution is with Nike camera followed by
Puma camera extension in the Turkish sample whereas it is
more acute with the Nike jean extension in the Spanish
sample. This result may be due to the fact that as Turkey is
one of the major textile producers in the world, Turkish
consumers may not expect an apparel producer to be an
expert in technological products (camera). Therefore, when
an apparel producer tries to extend into a technological
product category, dilution of the product brand image is more
as compared to extending into a similar product category
(jean). As for managerial implications, in situations where the
quality of the extension is an important feature for the
customer, companies could be better off adopting a vertical
brand extension strategy using a different brand name, or
even a sub-brand, rather than the parent brand name in order
to avoid dilution of the image of the parent brand.
Additionally, to achieve success with this new category, it
would be better for companies to plan and execute separate
brand communication strategies for their new products. The
results also reveal that fit, familiarity, attitude and perceived
quality do not alter this perception. Furthermore, the higher
the image of a brand, the more the dilution that occurs no
matter what type of extension strategy is applied.
When the sample is taken as a whole, the results show that
perceived quality of the brand, consumers’ familiarity with the
brand, fit of the extension with the parent brand as perceived
by the consumer, consumers’ attitudes towards the extension
177
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
all have a positive effect on the product brand image after the
extension. Among these independent variables, perceived
quality has the highest effect on product brand image followed
by fit, attitude and familiarity. These results suggest that, in
order to be able to at least maintain product brand image after
an extension, companies should focus their brand
communication strategies for the extension on quality.
Moreover, when fit is higher between the extension and the
parent brand, less dilution will occur on product brand image
after the extension.
Results show that in Turkey the Nike brand has a higher
image as compared to Puma brand in general but when an
extension is made, the product brand image of Nike drops
more as compared to the drop of product brand image of the
Puma brand. In accordance with this result, those brands with
higher product brand image should be very cautious when
creating extensions. The gains from the extension should be
very justifiable since no matter how high the quality, nor the
fit, any type of extension causes dilution. If companies still
choose to extend, care should be taken that the extensions fit
the parent brand as much as possible.
Compared with the Martinez and de Chernatony (2004)
study, although the general brand image of Nike is higher
than Puma in both the Spanish and the Turkish cultures, the
results also reveal some minor differences between these two
cultures. Taking into consideration that Nike and Puma are
global brands, the levels of perception and the degrees of
effects of attitudes towards the extension, familiarity with the
brand, perceived quality and fit of the extension with the
parent brand on product brand image after the extension are
slightly different.
In addition, the Martinez et al. (2008) study shows that UK
and Spanish consumers respond similarly to brand
extensions. Since the results of this study conducted in the
Turkish market are also quite similar to the study conducted
by Martinez and de Chernatony (2004), it could be said that
in a Middle-Eastern culture, respondents’ approach to brand
extensions of global brands are quite similar to that of UK
and Spanish cultures. Hence, global brands may use very
similar communication strategies in all of the three cultures
mentioned, maybe with minor local adaptations.
It is noteworthy that for the Spanish market the consumers’
attitudes towards the extension have a positive effect on
product brand image after the extension, whereas for the UK
market this is not true (Martinez et al., 2008). In the Turkish
market, consumers’ attitudes towards the extension also have
a positive effect on product brand image after the extension.
Therefore, it could be said that considering the consumers’
attitudes towards the brand extension, Turkish consumers are
more similar to Spanish consumers as compared to UK
consumers. This could be due to the fact that both Spain and
Turkey are Mediterranean countries, so the Turkish culture
may resemble the Spanish culture more than the UK culture,
hinting that global brands could use very similar marketing
strategies for countries located in the same region even if the
cultures seem to be different (Western and Middle-Eastern).
As with all studies, this study also has some limitations.
First of all, the sample size and the sampling method used in
this research (convenience sampling method) may lead to a
decrease in external validity. Yet, the sample consists of
consumers rather than students in this research which means
that, although the results may not be generalized due to the
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
sample size and method, the sample strongly carries the
ability of representation of the consumers.
In addition, the findings are based on only two brands and
their hypothetical extensions (jeans and camera) so
generalization beyond this set should be made with caution.
Further studies should be applied to different product
categories and brands. In addition, using real applications of
extensions instead of hypothetical ones would be more
realistic and give better results. Furthermore, more accurate
results may be obtained via longitudinal research and
experimental designs. As seen with the results of the pre-
tests, consumers have difficulties assessing the hypothetical
extensions’ effects on product brand image. Therefore,
instead of producing hypothetical extensions on paper and
asking the respondents to evaluate the extension and the
general and product brand image after the extension, further
studies may result in more accurate findings if they apply
experimental designs with concrete and embodied extensions
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
that subjects can see and touch. Controlled tests (and
commercialization) may be a good alternative such as
incorporating with a brand to produce and launch an
extension in a specific region (a particular geographic region
or a specific retail store) and collecting data for further
analysis. When hypothetical extensions are introduced, the
respondents cannot accurately make judgments about the
brand image in general and product brand image after the
extension.
Conducting brand extension studies in different countries
and differing cultures would shed light on existing brand
extension literature as well as being a guide to firms acting
globally.
References
Aaker, D. (1990), “Brand extensions: the good, the bad and
the ugly”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 47-56.
Aaker, D.A. (2004), Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating
Relevance, Differentiation, Energy, Leverage and Clarity,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations
of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 27-41.
Barett, J., Lye, A. and Venkateswarlu, P. (1999), “Consumer
perceptions of brand extensions: generalising Aaker &
Keller’s model”, Journal of Empirical Generalisations in
Marketing Science, Vol. 4, pp. 1-21.
Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A process-tracking
study of brand extension evaluation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 28, February, pp. 16-28.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The importance of
the brand in brand extension”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 214-28.
Dacin, P.A. and Smith, D.C. (1994), “The effect of brand
portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand
extensions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May,
pp. 229-42.
Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, I.G. and Grime, I. (2005),
“The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:
experimental evidence”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 129-49.
Farquhar, P. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing
Research, Vol. 1, September, pp. 24-33.
178
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
Gronhaug, K., Hem, L. and Lines, R. (2002), “Exploring the
impact of product category risk and consumer knowledge in
brand extensions”, Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6,
pp. 463-76.
Han, J.K. (1998), “Brand extensions in a competitive context:
effects of competitive targets and product attribute
typicality on perceived quality”, Academy of Marketing
Science Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1-14.
James, D.O. (2006), “Extension to alliance: Aaker and Keller’s
model revisited”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 15-22.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 3rd ed., Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kim, C.K. and Lavack, A.M. (1996), “Vertical brand
extensions: current research and managerial implications”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 6,
pp. 24-37.
Kim, H. and Roedder John, D. (2008), “Consumer response
to brand extensions: construal level as a moderator of the
importance of perceived fit”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 116-26.
Loken, B. and Roedder John, D. (1993), “Diluting brand
beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact?”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 71-84.
Martinez, E. and de Chernatony, L. (2004), “The effect of
brand extension strategies upon brand image”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Martinez, E. and Pina, J.M. (2003), “The negative impact of
brand extensions on parent brand image”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 432-48.
Martinez, E., Polo, Y. and de Chernatony, L. (2008), “Effect
of brand extension strategy on brand image: a comparative
study of the UK and Spanish markets”, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-37.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric
Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluation
of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity
and brand concept consistency”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-93.
Pitta, D.A. and Katsanis, L.P. (1995), “Understanding brand
equity for successful brand extension”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 51-64.
Reddy, S.K., Holak, S.L. and Bhat, S. (1994), “To extend or
not to extend? Success determinants of line extensions”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 243-62.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning: The Battle for Your
Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Salinas, E.M. and Perez, J.M.P. (2009), “Modeling the brand
extensions’ influence on brand image”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 50-60.
Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (1992), “The effects of brand
extensions on market share and advertising efficiency”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, August, pp. 296-313.
Story, J. and Loroz, P.S. (2005), “Technological congruence
and perceived quality of brand extensions”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 438-47.
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
Tauber, E.M. (1981), “Brand franchise extension: new
product benefits from existing brand names”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 36-41.
Corresponding author
F. Müge Arslan can be contacted at: mugearslan@marmara.
edu.tr
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
material present.
A recognized brand name is one of the most powerful
weapons in any firm’s armory. Many benefits can be attained
by companies able to boast high levels of brand equity. For
instance, consumers develop stronger positive attitudes
toward the brand, become more loyal and therefore less
susceptible to the marketing efforts of rivals. A more
sympathetic response to price increases is another feasible
outcome. Organizations can also expect greater marketing
effectiveness and additional opportunities to launch licenses
or brand extensions.
The high costs involved in brand development and
sustenance prompts many firms to seek cheaper and less
risky alternatives when entering new markets. Brand
extensions fall into this category. That the brand name is
already familiar to consumers forms the rationale behind this
strategy. New products carrying the existing name are more
readily accepted in the market, while the company also
benefits because of the lower investment needed for such as
promotional and distributional activities.
Key issues
Scholars differentiate between line extensions that refer to
new launches within the same product category and brand
extensions that are introduced into a new one. Both types
of extension can be classified as horizontal as opposed to
vertical extensions related to differences in price and quality.
Downscale vertical extensions can negatively affect consumer
perceptions of the brand while a more favorable response to
upscale extensions is the norm. However, any resulting
confusion about quality and image can be damaging to the
parent brand.
Image reflects consumer perceptions of a brand created
through a variety of associations linked to features or benefits
of the product and attitudes toward the brand. In addition to
the product itself, marketers typically create brand images
through channels that include packaging, logo, color,
advertising, the retailer and country of origin among others.
Studies have shown that extensions that create new
associations different from the original ones can dilute or
even damage the brand’s image. This risk prevails whether the
extension is successful or not, according to analysts who also
claim that the threat is greater when the number of extensions
created becomes excessive. The potential for the
179
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
“cannibalization of sale of existing products” is likewise
noted.
Other key factors are:
.
Brand quality. Consumers are more likely to accept an
extension when they perceive brand quality to be high as
positive views of the brand are transferred to the
extension.
.
Familiarity with the brand. This can be acquired from
product usage and exposure to the brand through
advertising. The premise here is that people will feel
positive about an extension when they are already familiar
with the brand.
.
Brand fit. Congruence between the parent brand and the
extension can be achieved by various means like similarity
in product category or product attributes. There is also
the possibility of fit existing in any of the product
associations that are formed. It has been found that
consumers perceive an extension to be of inferior quality
when the extension fits poorly with the parent brand. The
opposite effect is likelier when a close fit exists.
.
Attitude. Research suggests that consumers who are
positive towards a brand will buy the product and
become loyal to it. A negative attitude is equally likely to
be influential and result in brand avoidance. On this basis,
it is proposed that a favorable attitude towards an
extension will positively impact on product brand image.
An opposite effect will materialize if the attitude is
unenthusiastic.
Earlier research has shown greater favorability towards
extensions that are more difficult to manufacture. How
unsuccessful extensions impact on the parent brand has
likewise received attention. In this case, studies indicate that a
negative effect is likelier when the parent brand and extension
are in a similar product category. Among other factors
previously explored are sequential brand extensions, number
of previous extensions, the parent brand’s symbolic value and
consumer knowledge of the product class.
Research and findings
Arslan and Altuna explore the above issues in a study of 474
respondents in Turkey. The survey was based on earlier work
involving hypothetical jeans and camera extensions of Nike
and Puma brands, selected because of their popularity within
the Turkish market.
The findings indicated that:
.
quality and image perceptions are high for both brands
but highest for Nike;
.
respondents were more familiar with Nike than Puma,
although the difference was statistically insignificant;
.
a decrease in product brand image after extension for both
brands;
.
reduction in product brand image after extension is
greater for brands with higher perceived image and quality
than for brands where perceived image and quality is
lower;
.
consumer perception of brand quality has greatest positive
impact on product brand image following extension; and
.
product brand image is less negatively affected when the
extension fits the parent brand and more negatively
affected when the fit is poorer.
While quality and fit generally have the largest effect on
product brand image after extension, the impact of attitude
 The effect of brand extensions on product brand image
F. Müge Arslan and Oylum Korkut Altuna
and familiarity is much less significant. This also applies to the
camera extensions for the two brands. In the authors’ opinion,
the camera’s status as an electronic gadget and low fit with the
parent brand will raise the importance of quality. A different
impact occurs where the jeans extensions are concerned. The
variables fit and attitude impact most on product brand image
for Nike, while with Puma it is quality and familiarity. Arslan
and Altuna conclude that:
.
for brands perceived to have high image and quality,
extensions that closely fit the parent brand and favorable
consumer attitude towards the extension will positively
effect product brand image; and
.
quality of extension and consumer familiarity with the
brand will have most impact on product brand image for
brands considered lower in image and quality.
Marketing suggestions and further study
Where extension quality is important to consumers, vertical
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)
brand extensions are recommended. In such situations,
marketers are encouraged to use a sub-brand or a different
brand name altogether in order to prevent the parent brand
being negatively affected. Separate brand promotional
strategies for new products could also be deployed.
In general, companies need to emphasize quality within
brand communication strategies for extensions and should
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
180
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 19 · Number 3 · 2010 · 170 –180
aim for a fit between the extension and parent brand. Where
higher product brand image is evident, potential benefits must
justify the action and fit should be as close as possible.
Survey responses were similar to those produced by UK
and Spanish participants in the prior study. Hence, the
authors propose that marketers might employ similar
communication strategies with “minor local adaptations”
when promoting global brands within these cultures.
Furthermore, the comparable attitudes between Spanish
and Turkish respondents invites the assumption that utilizing
similar strategies may be feasible for nations within the same
region, even where cultural differences exist. Additional study
within different countries and cultures is advised, however.
While survey respondents were considered representative,
further study using a larger sample size may allow
generalization of findings. Restricting the investigation to
two brands and using hypothetical extensions are also
acknowledged as limitations. It is therefore suggested that
longitudinal research involving different brands and product
categories is undertaken so that attitudes toward real
extensions could be accurately measured.
(A précis of the article “The effect of brand extensions on product
brand image”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. KottemannPascal, Pascal Kottemann, PlumeyerAnja, Anja Plumeyer, DeckerReinhold, Reinhold Decker. Investigating feedback
effects in the field of brand extension using brand concept maps. Baltic Journal of Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
2. Shenje Jacob. 2017. Midas touch or time bomb? A look at the influence of celebrity endorsement on customer purchase intentions:
The case study of fast foods outlet companies in Harare, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Business Management 11:15, 347-356.
[Crossref]
3. Danny D. E. Kim. 2017. A Unified Measure of Media Brand Personality: Developing A Media Brand Personality Scale for
Multiple Media. International Journal on Media Management 19:3, 197-221. [Crossref]
4. Yao-Hsu Tsai. 2017. Simplified structural modeling of loyalty acquisition based on the conceptual clustering model. Cluster
Computing 38. . [Crossref]
5. George Rossolatos. 2017. Brand image re-revisited: a semiotic note on brand iconicity and brand symbols. Social Semiotics 17,
1-17. [Crossref]
6. , , , , . 2017. The Influence of Excessive Product Packaging on Green Brand Attachment: The Mediation Roles of Green Brand
Attitude and Green Brand Image. Sustainability 9:4, 654. [Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Pennsylvania Libraries At 06:21 04 December 2017 (PT)

7. Marco Hubert, Arnd Florack, Rafael Gattringer, Tim Eberhardt, Ellen Enkel, Peter Kenning. 2017. Flag up! – Flagship products
as important drivers of perceived brand innovativeness. Journal of Business Research 71, 154-163. [Crossref]
8. Anja Plumeyer, Pascal Kottemann, Daniel Böger, Reinhold Decker. 2017. Measuring brand image: a systematic review, practical
guidance, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science . [Crossref]
9. Jacqueline C. Wisler. 2016. U.S. CEOs of SBUs in Luxury Goods Organizations: A Mixed Methods Comparison of Ethical
Decision-Making Profiles. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
10. Annukka Jyrämä, Sami Kajalo, Tanja Johansson, Anni Sirèn. 2015. Arts Organizations and Branding: Creating a New Joint
Brand for Three Arts Organizations. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 45:3, 193-206. [Crossref]
11. Rajesh Srivastava. 2015. Measuring the effectiveness of the communication strategy by using the brand score technique – a
conceptual study. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:2, 133-146. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Harleen Kaur, Ajay Pandit. 2015. Modelling Consumer Evaluation of Brand Extensions: Empirical Evidence from India. Vision:
The Journal of Business Perspective 19:1, 37-48. [Crossref]
13. Pui Fong Ng, Muhammad Mohsin Butt, Kok Wei Khong, Fon Sim Ong. 2014. Antecedents of Green Brand Equity: An Integrated
Approach. Journal of Business Ethics 121:2, 203-215. [Crossref]
14. Lucian Pitic, Stelian Brad, Diana Pitic. 2014. Study on Perceived Quality and Perceived Fair Price. Procedia Economics and Finance
15, 1304-1309. [Crossref]
15. Jean Boisvert. 2012. The reciprocal impact of vertical service line extensions on parent brands. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal 22:6, 546-564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Soyoung Kim, Hyunjong Chung. 2012. The impacts of perceived fit, brand familiarity, and status consciousness on fashion brand
extension evaluation. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education 5:3, 203-211. [Crossref]
17. Angelina Nhat Hanh Le, Julian Ming Sung Cheng, Yueh Hua Lee, Megha Jain. 2012. Brand extension: using parent brand
personality as leverage. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 24:4, 599-618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. F Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna. 2012. Which category to extend to – Product or service?. Journal of Brand Management
19:5, 359-376. [Crossref]
19. Edwin Love, Mark Staton, Christopher N. Chapman, Erica Mina Okada. 2010. Regulatory focus as a determinant of brand value.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:7, 512-517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Rafael Bravo, Leif E. Hem, José M. Pina. Online Brand Expansion towards the Offline Setting 69-89. [Crossref]