Journal of Consumer Marketing

The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image

Eva MartínezLeslie de Chernatony
Article information:
To cite this document:
Eva MartínezLeslie de Chernatony, (2004),"The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 39 - 50
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760410513950
Downloaded on: 06 November 2014, At: 14:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 28194 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)

F. Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna, (2010),"The effect of brand extensions on product brand image", Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 19 Iss 3 pp. 170-180
Eva Martínez, José M. Pina, (2003),"The negative impact of brand extensions on parent brand image", Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 12 Iss 7 pp. 432-448
Tony Meenaghan, (1995),"The role of advertising in brand image development", Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 23-34

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 383794 []
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
extension strategies
upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and
Leslie de Chernatony
The authors
Eva MartõÂnez is Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Facultad de
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
Ciencias EconoÂmicas y Empresariales, The University of
Zaragoza, Spain.
Leslie de Chernatony is Professor of Brand Marketing at
Birmingham Business School, The University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK.
Keywords
Consumer behaviour, Perception, Brand image,
Brand extensions, Marketing strategy
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to analyze the effect that a
brand extension strategy has on brand image. Specifically,
the paper analyzes how variables related to the parent brand
and the extension influence brand image after the extension.
From a sample of 389 consumers the paper demonstrates
that the extension strategy dilutes the brand image. Through
a regression analysis it is shown that the perceived quality of
the brand and consumers' attitudes towards the extension
positively influence both the general brand image (GBI) and
the product brand image (PBI) after the extension. While
familiarity with the products of the brand only affect the GBI,
the perceived degree of fit affects the PBI.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . pp. 39-50
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited . ISSN 0736-3761
DOI 10.1108/07363760410513950
39
Introduction
In today's market, having a well thought through
brand strategy is a key contribution to corporate
success. Brands enable consumers to efficiently
encode their functional and emotional values in
their minds (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001).
The resulting images enable consumers to
recognize the points of difference between
competing brands. Keller (1993) defines brand
image as the ``perceptions about a brand as
reflected by the brand associations held in
consumer memory''. These associations refer to
any aspect that link the brand with the
consumer's memory (Aaker, 1996a).
Relationships are then created between
consumers' personalities and the perceived
personalities of brands (de Chernatony and
Benicio de Mello, 1995; Fournier, 1998; Hogg et
al., 2000). One of the challenges for marketers is
how to determine the associations consumers
have of specific brands. Suggestions are provided
by writers such as Low and Lamb (2000) who
developed a protocol to measure brand image.
Even though relating the measurement of brand
image directly to the product appears a reasonable
way to determine what is in the consumer's mind,
it should be realised that often products are
marketed under an umbrella brand strategy,
which could lead to a more general brand image.
Keller (1993) argues that within multidimensional
brand images, direct associations are seen with
both the product and aspects of the brand. It is
therefore appropriate to consider a method for
measuring the dimensions of a brand's image that
can be used for various product categories and
various brands (Aaker, 1996b).
When studying a brand's image it should be
realised that this is not static and is influenced
by the numerous decisions that the company
takes about its brand over time. A frequently
adopted strategy is that of brand extension.
There are several reasons for the popularity of
This paper was developed during the first author's
research stay at the Centre for Research in Brand
Marketing, Birmingham Business School, supported
by the ``Ministerio de EducacioÂn, Cultura y Deporte''
of the Government of Spain (Ref. PR2002-012). She
wishes to express her gratitude for the financial help
received from the CICYT (project SEC2002-
03949). The authors would like to thank Susan
Drury for her helpful comments.
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
brand extension strategies. For example, the
cost of launching a new brand in consumer
markets is very high (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995),
and the probability of the success for a new
product is higher with a well-known parent
brand (Aaker, 1991).
With the popularity of brand extensions, there
is notable literature on the subject exploring how
consumers behave as a result of different brand
extensions. Specifically, attention has focused on
how different variables related to the parent
brand (e.g. brand quality, brand reputation,
brand breadth, familiarity, etc.) and the
extension considered (e.g. fit or similarity,
consistency, difficulty) influence consumers
(Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991; Dacin
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
and Smith, 1994; Bottomley and Holden, 2001).
The majority of studies have considered those
aspects that increase the success of a brand
extension. However, some studies have been
concerned with the negative effect that the newly
extended brand may have on the parent brand
(Loken and John, 1993; GuÈrhan-Canli and
Maheswaran, 1998; John et al., 1998).
The majority of studies in the literature
consider perceptions when evaluating the
variables that can have a positive or negative
influence on the extension, as well as attitudes
towards the extended brand. Furthermore the
majority of studies are based on
experimentation with groups of students.
Exceptions to this are seen when the data has
been obtained from market survey (Dacin and
Smith, 1994; Park and Kim, 2001; Gronhaug
et al., 2002; Hem et al., 2003), or from panel
data (Reddy et al., 1994; Swaminatham et al.,
2001), or experimentation with samples
reflecting specific aspects of brands being
studied (Loken and John, 1993; John et al.,
1998). Some of these studies have allowed
researchers to investigate different kinds of
brands (real and fictitious) across a broad range
of extensions, thereby allowing the analysis of
the joint effect of different variables.
Nevertheless, this technique has received
criticism from some authors because of the
external validity problems (Kind and Smith,
2001) and the occasional use of hypothetical
brands or the forcing of a response in a group
environment (Swaminatham et al., 2001).
There is a gap in the literature in so far as the
effect of brand extensions on brand image has
40
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
received little attention. We sought to advance
knowledge by investigating this. Starting from
the premise that a brand's image is based on the
associations that consumers have with the
brand, we investigated how the consumer's
perception of brand variables, and the extension
itself, affect a brand's image. Our concern was
to understand the extent to which certain brand
extension strategies carry more risk than others.
Our objectives were to:
. Determine the change that occurs to a
brand's image as a result of a brand extension
strategy. We investigated this using two
different methods: the general brand image
related to the name (GBI) and the brand
image related directly to the product (PBI).
. Study the influence of specific variables on
the image after the extension using the
above two measurement methods. The
variables included are: the quality of the
parent brand, knowledge or familiarity with
the brand, the fit or similarity between the
brand and the extension, and attitudes
towards the extended product.
The paper opens with a review of the literature,
after which we postulate hypotheses. We explain
the methodology employed, then address the
analysis and empirical findings. We finish with a
discussion of the managerial implications from
the study and with conclusions.
Conceptual background and hypothesis
Brand image relevance
Within the two perspectives, corporation and
consumers, from which the brand can be
defined (de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo, 1997;
1998) emerge two key concepts: brand identity
and brand image. Aaker and Joachismsthaler
(2000) define brand identity ``a set of brand
associations that the brand strategist aspires to
create or maintain''. Brand identity has to
consider multiple aspects, such as the desired
positioning and the personality (de Chernatony,
1999), which are attenuated by the
organizational culture and the relationships
staff build with stakeholders. Facilitated by
communication mechanisms (Kapferer, 1997),
the brand identity forms associations in the
consumer's mind resulting in a brand image.
Both concepts are interrelated and through
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
assessing the congruence between brand
identity and image this enables corporations to
refine their brand strategy (van Rekom, 1997;
Haynes et al., 1999).
The extant literature shows that brand image is
a multi-dimensional concept, but there is no
consensus on how to empirically measure it.
Keller (1993), when posing a theoretical method
for measuring brand equity, observes that brand
image included associations related to the
product (attributes, benefits and attitudes),
favorability of brand associations, strength of
brand associations, and uniqueness of brand
associations. Lassar et al. (1995) developed a
scale for measuring consumer based brand
equity, in which they refer to the image
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
dimension as the social image, which is
understood as ``the consumer's perception of the
esteem in which the consumer's social group
holds the brand''. Within the theme of brand
equity, Aaker (1996b) proposes that brand image
be measured through association/differentiation
measures regarding value, brand personality,
organizational associations, and differentiation.
Aaker's approach can be used for brands in
different product categories, enabling us to talk
about a general brand image related
fundamentally to the brand name.
There is a stream of literature that regards
brand image as being directly related to the
product category within which the brand is
marketed. Low and Lamb (2000) argue that
within brand associations there are three
multidimensional and interrelated concepts, i.e.
brand image, perceived quality and brand
attitude. They created a protocol for measuring
brand image based on the product category.
Measuring brand image, based on product
category, has been used in different ways in
recent studies (Gwinner and Eaton, 1999;
Hogg et al., 2000; Faircloth et al., 2001; Hsieh,
2002). However, these always have taken into
account that not only must the physical
attributes of the products be considered, but
also the functional, emotional and
self-expressive benefits (Davis, 2002; VaÂzquez
et al., 2002). This method of measuring brand
image provides us with what we refer to as
product brand image.
Not all companies have the same
opportunities to extend their brands, as it is
conditional on their historical brand strategies
41
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
(Mihailovic and de Chernatony, 1994; Milberg
et al., 1997; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000;
Desai and Keller, 2002). Nevertheless, if they
decide to launch a new product, as part of a
brand extension strategy, a change of brand
image will occur with new associations created
in consumers' minds. This may dilute feelings
and beliefs consumers hold about the parent
brand (Ries and Trout, 1986; Sharp, 1993).
Even though the associations for the new
product may be positive, negative associations
might be created that adversely affect the brand
image (Pitta and Katsanis, 1995; Chen and
Chen, 2000). Loken and John (1993) found
that a dilution effect occurs in the beliefs
associated with the brand family when the
attributes of the extension are inconsistent with
the prior beliefs about the brand family.
Nevertheless, in the case of a ``flagship''
product, such as children's shampoo for
Johnson & Johnson, beliefs may be immune to
change when the extension is moderately
inconsistent with the beliefs about the new
brand, and a dilution effect may occur if a line is
extended that is very close to the ``flagship''
product (John et al., 1998).
In summary, the literature analysing the
dilution of brand image as a result of a brand
extension strategy is limited. Furthermore, it
does not provide any clear measurement of the
image construct, but rather talks about
associations and beliefs in general. We propose
the following hypothesis:
H1. The brand extension strategy will have a
dilution effect (a) on the general brand
image and (b) on the product brand
image.
Brand extension variables
Even though the variables addressed in the
brand extension literature are very broad, we
will focus on those perceptual factors that have
an influence on brand image.
The perceived quality of the brand is a
variable that has been considered in various
brand extension studies. The underlying
assumption is that the beliefs or attitudes
regarding the original brand will be transmitted
to the extension, and a greater perceived quality
in the original brand will have a positive effect
on acceptance of the extension (Milewicz and
Herbig, 1994). Aaker and Keller (1990) and
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
Keller and Aaker (1992) did not find any direct
quality effect, given the same influences
through the fit. Nevertheless, Bottomley and
Holden (2001) find that the said effect occurs
when a secondary analysis of the data is
performed on both the Aaker and Keller (1990)
study, and subsequent studies. More recent
studies have demonstrated a relationship
between greater brand quality and the success
of an extension (Park and Kim, 2001; van Riel
et al., 2001, Gronhaug et al., 2002).
Low and Lamb (2000) show, using structural
equations modeling, that brand associations,
which encompass the three constructs brand
image, perceived quality and brand attitude, are
related to each other.
Given these findings, we anticipate that
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
consumers' perceptions of brand quality before
brand extension influences brand image after
the extension. We therefore postulate:
H2. The perceived quality of the brand
will have a positive effect (a) on the general
brand image after extension and (b) on the
product brand image after extension.
The knowledge, or familiarity, that consumers
have with the brand is likely to influence all of
their perceptions of the brand. Park and Kim
(2001), through a structural equation model,
show that consumers' relationships with the
brand affect intentions of purchasing the
extension, for similar or different extensions.
Dawar (1996) also considered brand knowledge
together with the fit, and found different results
according to the associations the extension had
with the brand. Kind and Smith (2001) observe
that consumers' reactions before a brand
extension will be affected by their familiarity
with the products related to the brand. This
relationship is demonstrated by Hem et al.
(2003). Even though these authors use the
reputation of the parent brand, they measure it
through items related to the satisfaction
provided by the brand. Swaminatham et al.
(2001) found that experience with the brand
influenced the trial of extended products. Also,
Low and Lamb (2000) discovered that brand
image may change depending on consumers'
level of familiarity with the brand. As a result of
this literature, we postulate:
H3. Consumers' brand familiarity or
relationship with the brand will have a
42
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
positive effect (a) on the general brand
image after extension and (b) on the
product brand image after extension.
When analyzing the effect of an extension on a
brand's image, the fit or similarity between the
parent brand and the extended brand are likely to
affect the brand's image. Many studies have
found a direct effect between the fit perceived by
consumers and the acceptance of the extension
(Aaker and Keller, 1990; Boush and Loken,
1991; Keller and Aaker, 1992; van Riel et al.,
2001; Bottomley and Holden, 2001; Gronhaug et
al., 2002; Hem et al., 2003). More recent studies
have proposed variables that moderate the effect
of the fit on the acceptance of the extension.
These include the communication strategy (Pryor
and Brodice, 1998; Lane, 2000; Bridges et al.,
2000), the mood of the individuals (Barone et al.,
2000), the number of products associated with
the brand (DelVecchio, 2000), exposure to the
extension and the information provided (Kind
and Smith, 2001) and the price and perceived
quality of the extension (Taylor and Bearden,
2002) etc. When analyzing the fit, two
components are important: the similarity between
the new product and the typical products of the
company, and the consistency between the new
product and the parent brand (Park et al., 1991).
If within fit one considers the degree of
consistency between the brand associations and
the associations generated by the extension, we
would expect this to affect the brand image after
the extension. Similarly, Sheinin (1998) finds that
a strong fit generates strong brand positioning,
measured through consumer beliefs. Based on
this literature, we postulate the following:
H4. The fit perceived by the consumer
will have a positive effect (a) on the general
brand image after extension and (b) on the
product brand image after extension.
A brand extension strategy could be conceived
as a means of optimizing relationships with
customers (Davis and Halligan, 2002). Thus,
knowing how a brand extension affects brand
image is important when developing
relationship strategies. Some studies have
analyzed how consumers' brand extension
associations affect their attitudes towards the
extension (Glynn and Brodie, 1998; Bristol,
2002). However, we are interested in how the
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
attitudes towards the brand extension change
consumers' associations about the core brand
(Pitta and Katsanis, 1995). Empirical work has
demonstrated that attitudes towards the brand
has an effect on brand image (Low and Lamb,
2000; Faircloth et al., 2001), and we anticipated
a similar effect when investigating attitude
towards the extension with respect to the brand
image after the extension. Our hypothesis is:
H5. Consumers' attitudes towards the
extension will have a positive effect (a)
on the general brand image after
extension and (b) on the product brand
image after extension.
In summary, we postulated that brand extension
will have a dilution effect on both the general and
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
the product brand image. We also expected that
variables such as the quality of the brand, the
consumer's brand familiarity, the fit or similarity
between the parent brand and the extended
brand and attitudes toward the extension will
have a positive effect on both general and
product brand image after extension.
Methodology
We undertook a market survey involving real
brands of relevance to consumers to avoid some
of the external validity problems of other
experimental designs (Kind and Smith, 2001).
Some of these limitations include the occasional
use of hypothetical brands or the forcing of a
response in a group environment (Swaminatham
et al., 2001). Specifically we focused on the
sportswear market which is dominated by Nike,
Adidas and Reebok (MINTEL, 2002)
We focused on the youth segment of the
sportswear market, for the following reasons:
. The brands that operate in this market use
prominent communications campaigns and
are part of a broad line of products linked with
the sports category. As such they generate
associations that are not only centered on the
product but also with the brand.
. The segments aged 15-19 and 20-24 are
the main consumers of sports clothing and
footwear (MINTEL, 2002).
. These are durable goods, of which
consumers have considerable knowledge
and familiarity.
43
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
Pretests
Two pretests were undertaken prior to the market
study. In the first pretest, a group of 58
undergraduate students were asked to write down
the attributes or feelings they associated with
sportswear products. This methodology has been
employed by other researchers, e.g. Low and
Lamb (2000), Hogg et al. (2000) and Hsieh
(2002). The idea behind this was to avoid
imposing our frame of reference on the
respondents. This resulted in more than 300
associations, albeit many referred to similar
concepts. The associations were grouped together
by two expert judges, resulting in a list of 15
associations that were used in the second pretest.
The first pretest also asked respondents to
indicate on seven-point Likert scale the level of
perceived quality of eight sportswear brands
and their level of familiarity with each brand.
The eight brands were selected by visiting the
main sportswear outlets in the city where the
study was performed. The choice of brands
reflected the national market (MINTEL,
2002). From those questions, two brands were
chosen: Nike, with the highest quality level
(QN = 6.57) and greatest familiarity
(FN = 6.81); and Puma, also with a high, but
significantly lower quality level (QP = 5.16,
t = 7.41, p < 0.0001), and a high but lower
familiarity level (FP = 5.55, t = 7.42,
p < 0.0001). Those brands with scores similar to
Nike were rejected, because then we would be
using a similar type of brand, nor the brands
with levels below Puma, because these were less
well-known brands, and therefore measuring
their brand image could be problematic.
The second pretest was carried out with a
group of 45 undergraduate students at the same
university. They indicated on a seven-point
Likert scale the extent to which the list of 15
attributes or feelings from the first pretest are
associated with sportswear products. In this way,
the five associations most related to sportswear
products were obtained, which forms the basis
for measuring the product brand image (PBI).
They also asked to indicate what other products
they thought each of the two brands supplied.
This allowed us to assess the extent to which
respondents have a clear idea of the broad range
of products that both brands market.
Respondents then indicated the degree of
similarity on a seven-point Likert scale that a
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
series of 11 different products had with those
products typically offered by each of the two
brands. These products have been used in other
previous studies about brand extension. All of
the products were considered different from
those that were typically marketed by both
brands. From this result we chose two extensions
that had the same level of fit with respect to both
brands. These were: jeans (FINJ = 3.07,
FIPJ = 3.04, p > 0.9) and a camera (FINC = 1.71,
FIPC = 1.78, p > 0.6). Moreover, the two
products had significant differences in the degree
of similarity for both brands (FINJ = 3.07,
FINC = 1.71, t = 5.54, p < 0.0001; FIPJ = 3.04,
FIPC = 1.78, t = 5.61, p < 0.0001).
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
Subjects and procedure for the market survey
Four different questionnaires were prepared
with analogous questions, such that each one
considered one brand and one extension: Nike
and jeans, Nike and cameras, Puma and jeans
and Puma and cameras. The questionnaire,
first of all, referred to the perceived quality of
the brand and to the degree of familiarity. Then
the product brand image and the general brand
image before the extension were measured, and
questions relating to the fit and the attitude
towards the extension were subsequently posed.
Finally, the brand image after the extension was
evaluated in terms of the product brand image
and general brand image.
Face-to-face interviews were undertaken with
389 respondents in Birmingham, England,
resulting in a similar number of fully completed
questionnaires for each of the four categories.
To be eligible respondents had to be aged
15-24. The mean age of the sample obtained
was around 20.48.
Measures
An exhaustive review of the literature was
performed to select the most appropriate way to
measure each variable considered. Throughout
the study seven-point Likert scales were used.
The brand image was measured in two different
ways. The general brand image (GPI) was
measured using the items proposed by Aaker
(1996b), omitting those referring to the
organization, as they made no sense in this
context. The items used are listed below:
. This brand provides good value for money.
44
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
. There is a reason to buy the brand instead
of others.
. The brand has personality.
. The brand is interesting.
. I have a clear impression of the type of
people who consume the brand.
. This brand is different from competing
brands.
Respondents indicated their level of agreement
with each item. The product brand image (PBI)
was measured using the five attributes or
feelings associated with sportswear derived
from pretest two (active, comfortable,
functional, leisure and sporty). Respondents
indicated the degree to which each word was
associated with sportswear. Both measures were
applied before the extension (GBI1, PBI1) and
after the extension (GBI2, PBI2).
The perceived quality of the brand (QUA) was
measured via two questions. One focused on
opinions about the products (bad products/good
products) and the other directly evaluated brand
quality (poor quality/good quality) (Park and
Kim, 2001). For knowledge or familiarity with the
brand (FAM), Dawar's (1996) proposal was
followed, which considers the familiarity with the
products of the brand (not at all familiar/very
familiar), the frequency of purchase of the brand's
products (not often/very often) and knowledge of
the products (not very knowledgeable/very
knowledgeable). The fit or similarity (FIT) was
measured following Park et al. (1991), assessing
the fit between the new product and the original
products of the brand (very dissimilar/very similar)
and the fit between the new product and the
brand image (very inconsistent/very consistent).
To measure attitudes towards the extension
(ATT), two questions were used as recommended
by Kind and Smith (2001). The first assessed
perceived favorability of the new product (not very
favorable/very favorable) and the likelihood of
trying the new product (not very likely/very likely).
All the scales to measure the variables resulted
in a high level of internal consistency across the
four sub-samples and the total sample, as in the
high alpha values in Table I. Moreover, when
principal component analyses were undertaken
for the total sample and the for sub-samples,
each one of the scales with more than three items
(GBI1, PBI1, GBI2, PBI2 and FAM) loaded on
to a factor (eigenvalue greater than 2.1 in all
cases, capturing a total variance greater than 55
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image Journal of Consumer Marketing
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50

Table I Reliability analysis of the scales (Cronbach's alpha coefficients)

Samples
Nike-jeans Nike-camera Puma-jeans Puma-camera Total
Variables (n = 98) (n = 96) (n = 94) (n = 101) (n = 389)
QUA 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.88
FAM 0.76 0.84 0.85 0.92 0.92
FIT 0.93 0.80 0.91 0.73 0.87
ATT 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.87
GBI1 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.86 0.84
PBI1 0.88 0.83 0.82 0.87 0.87
GBI2 0.90 0.81 0.87 0.87 0.85
PBI2 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.82 0.80

per cent). These results confirm that we can use Figure 1 Effect of brand extension on general brand image
the mean of every scale in the statistical analysis
following generally accepted practice.
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)

Results

We firstly assessed whether any one of the

sub-samples had atypical characteristics. The mean
perceived quality scores of 4.80 and 4.89 in each of
the two sub-samples that evaluated the Nike
brand, were not significantly different (p > 0.65),
and the mean levels of familiarity of 4.55 and 4.44,
also showed no significant differences (p > 0.55).
Analogous results were obtained for the two
Figure 2 Effect of brand extension on product brand image
sub-samples that evaluated the Puma brand,
regarding the mean perceived quality (4.75, 4.69,
p > 0.69) and mean level of familiarity (4.89, 4.06,
p > 0.4). There were also no significant differences
regarding the two measurements of the brand
image before the extension (GBI1 and PBI1),
either between the two sub-samples that evaluated
Nike or between the two that evaluated Puma.
Thus the sub-samples showed similarities with
regards to the measurement of the variables
considered before the extension.
Below, we now compare our results to the
hypotheses postulated originally. The means
analysis related to the H1, and the regression t = 4.16, p < 0.0001) and the product brand
analysis to all other hypothesis. image (PBI1 = 5.42, PBI2 = 4.17, t = 9.34m,
To test H1 it is apparent from Figure 1 and p < 0.0001); but when the extension is a camera,
Figure 2 that the brand image after extension is significant differences do not occur in the GBI
affected by the brand extension strategy. This is (GBI1 = 4.42, GBI2 = 4.31, p > 0.1), although
seen across both image measures (i.e. GBI and they do in the PBI (PBI1 = 5.15, PBI2 = 4.34,
PBI) for all brand extensions. For the Nike t = 7.83, p < 0.0001). In the case of Puma,
brand image, significant differences occur in the significant differences occur for both the brand
case of the jeans extension, both for the general of jeans (GBI1 = 4.26, GBI2 = 3.93, t = 4.84,
brand image (GBI1 = 4.45, GBI2 = 4.05, p < 0.0001; PBI1 = 4.85, PBI2 = 4.15, t = 6.34,
45
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
p < 0.0001) as well as for the camera
(GBI1 = 4.23, GBI2 = 3.93, t = 3.44, p < 0.0001;
PBI1 = 4.79, PBI2 = 4.05, t = 6.34, p < 0.001).
There is notable, albeit not unanimous, support
for H1, which postulated that the brand extension
strategy would have a dilution effect on the
general brand image and on the product brand
image. It is logical to expect this dilution effect to
be greater when the brand image is measured
through attributes or feelings related to the
product (Figure 2) than when measured through
aspects more related to the brand per se (Figure 1).
To test H2 to H5, we worked with the sample
as a whole (n = 398). The use of grouped data in
a regression analysis is common in brand
extension studies (Aaker and Keller, 1990;
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
Dacin and Smith, 1994; Bottomley and
Holden, 2001; etc.). With the mean of every
scale, two regression analyses were performed
where the dependent variable was the general
brand image after the extension and the product
brand image after the extension, respectively;
and the independent variables were the
perceived quality of the brand, the familiarity of
the consumer with the brand, the perceived fit
and the attitude towards the extension
(Table II). The correlation between the
independent and dependent variables in each
case was greater than 0.3, and the correlation
between the independent variables never
exceeded 0.7. Although the R2 value is not very
high, it is in line with other, previous studies
that use variables from Likert scales.
Regarding H2, perceived quality of the brand
(QUA) has a positive effect on the general
brand image after the extension (GBI2), as
shown by the regression coefficient (0.315),
which is significant (p < 0.01). A similar result is
Table II Standardized regression coefficients and t values for the effect of
brand extension on brand image
GBI2 PBI2
Stand. coeff. (t) Stand. coeff. (t)
QUA 0.315 (6.50)* 0.325
FAM 0.215 (4.52)* 0.034
FIT 0.024 (0.49) 0.127
ATT 0.311 (6.34)* 0.277
R2 0.425 0.333
F 70.87 * 47.96*
Notes * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
also found in the case of the product brand
image after the extension (PBI2), where the
coefficient takes the value of 0.325 (p < 0.01).
In view of this H2 is supported and the
perceived quality of the brand has a positive
effect on both the general and product brand
image after extension.
To test H3, as regards the level of familiarity
with the brand (FAM), in the case of GBI2
there is a positive significant coefficient (0.215,
p < 0.01). Thus there is support for the notion
that the familiarity with the brand has a positive
effect on the general brand image after
extension. However for PBI2, the coefficient of
the variable is not significant, leading to the
rejection of H3b.
The perceived fit between the brand and the
extension (FIT) shows results contrary to that
postulated in H4. This variable has a positive
(0.127) and significant (p < 0.05) coefficient in
the case of PBI2, but not in the case of GBI2.
H4a is refuted but there is support for H4b, i.e.
the fit perceived by consumers has a positive
effect on the product brand image after extension.
The results provide support for both parts of
H5. The attitude towards the extension (ATT)
has a positive and significant effect (0.311,
p < 0.01) on GBI2 and also on PBI2 (0.277,
p < 0.01). Thus consumers' attitudes towards the
extension have a positive effect on the general
and product brand image after extension.
Discussion and managerial implications
This study contributes to advancing knowledge
about the brand extension and brand image. It
offers the new perspective of considering both of
these aspects. This research has demonstrated
that brand extension has a dilution effect on a
brand's image, confusing the beliefs and
associations consumers hold (Ries and Trout,
1986). Furthermore, this effect is greater on
brand image when measured based on the
(6.22)*
attributes or feelings associated with the
(0.65)
products of the brand (Low and Lamb, 2000)
(2.42)**
than when measured based on aspects related to
(5.24)*
the brand per se (Aaker, 1996b). Moreover, in
the case of a brand leader, such as Nike, an
extension that initially is not considered similar
to the brand, such as a camera, has no significant
effect on the general brand image.
46
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
The implications for brand managers are that
launching a new product not related to the
typical products of the company will have a
negative effect on consumers' perceptions of the
product brand image. Nevertheless, if the brand
name is strong, the general brand image can be
maintained. In order to achieve this there is a
strong need for communications campaigns
that place more emphasis on the brand name
than on the products being marketed.
Based on the fact that brand image is affected
by an extension strategy, this work has shown
how the consumers' perceptions about some
aspects of the brand and the extension may
favour the brand image after the extension. The
higher the perceived quality of a brand, the
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
better the brand image after the extension, for
both the general and product brand image. The
level of knowledge or familiarity that consumers
have with a brand only influences the general
brand image. This could be explained by the
fact that someone who usually buys the
products, and who has not yet tried the new
product, does not perceive any changes in the
associations with the products. Nevertheless,
their relationship with the brand's products
leads consumers to a better appraisal of the
image, based on the name. In the brand
extension literature, there are occasionally
contrary findings about the impact of consumer
knowledge and the evaluation of the new
product (Gronhaug et al., 2002), which
indirectly could also explain this result. As
regards perceived fit, in spite of the fact that it
was measured using the similarity with the
usual products of the brand and the consistency
with the brand name (Park et al., 1991), it only
strengthens the product brand image, when the
fit becomes greater. The fact that it does not
influence the general brand image may be
explained by the existence of other moderating
variables, such as communications campaigns
(Lane, 2000; Bridges et al., 2000). The better
the attitude consumers have towards the new
product, i.e. the more willing they are to try it,
the better the brand's image.
These results suggest that if a company wishes
to protect its brand image in an extension strategy,
it should strive to be perceived as having higher
quality, and to encouraged product trials. If the
communications campaigns emphasise the brand
and not its attributes, there is a greater likelihood
47
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
of a favourable brand image. Furthermore, these
campaigns can help mitigate the effect on brand
image of launching a new product different from
the usual company products.
While this research has added to knowledge
about brand extensions, the findings are specific
to the sportswear market. To test the
generalisability of finding, other researchers are
encouraged to extend this research into
different markets. We are planning to replicate
this study in the fmcg and the services markets.
There are limitations to this study. We focused
on only two brands and two possible extensions.
Nevertheless, the data was obtained through a
market survey, circumventing some the problems
of experimentation (Swaminatham et al., 2001).
Conclusions
This study has demonstrated that brand extension
dilutes the brand's image, changing the beliefs and
associations in consumers' minds. The dilution
effect is greater on product brand image than on
general brand image. Our results also show that
the perceived quality of the parent brand and the
attitudes towards the extended product have a
positive effect on general and product brand
image after the extension. However, familiarity
with the parent brand's products only influences
general brand image, and the level of fit influences
product brand image.
These results are of use to brand managers.
Care must be taken regarding attributes or
feelings associated with the extended product.
Furthermore, the emphasis of communications
campaigns should be on the parent brand name
more than on the extended product's
characteristics, in order to ensure that consumers'
attitudes toward the product are positive.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on
the Value of a Brand Name, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996a), Building Strong Brands, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996b), ``Measuring brand equity across
products and markets'', California Management
Review, Vol. 31, May, pp. 191-201.
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership,
Free Press, New York, NY.
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), ``Consumer evaluations
of brand extensions'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54,
January, pp. 27-41.
Barone, M.J., Miniard, P.W. and Romeo, J.B. (2000), ``The
influence of positive mood on extension evaluations'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, March, pp. 386-400.
Bottomley, P.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (2001), ``Do we really
know how consumers evaluate brand extensions?
Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis
of eight studies'', Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 38, November, pp. 494-500.
Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), ``A process-tracing study
of brand extension evaluation'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. XXVIII, February, pp. 16-28.
Bridges, S., Keller, K.L. and Sood, S. (2000), ``Communication
strategies for brand extensions: enhancing perceived
fit by establishing explanatory links'', Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Bristol, T. (2002), ``Potential points of brand leverage:
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
consumer's emergent attributes'', Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 198-212.
Chen, A.Ch. and Chen, S.K. (2000), ``Brand dilution effect of
extension failure ± a Taiwan study'', Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 243-54.
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. XXXI, May, pp. 229-42.
Davis, S. (2002), ``Brand asset management: how businesses
can profit from the power of brand'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 351-8.
Davis, S. and Halligan, C. (2002), ``Extending your brand by
optimizing your customer relationship'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-11.
Dawar, N. (1996), ``Extensions of broad brands: the role of
retrieval in evaluations of fit'', Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 189-207.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), ``Brand management through
narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand
reputation'', Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 157-80.
de Chernatony L. and Benicio de Mello, S. (1995),
``Predicting brand preferences using self-concept
theory'', Journal of Marketing Communication, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 121-35.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall'Olmo, F. (1997), ``The chasm
between managers' and consumers' views of brands:
the experts' perspectives'', Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 89-104.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall'Olmo, F. (1998), ``Defining a
brand: beyond the literature with experts'
interpretations'', Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 417-43.
DelVecchio, D. (2000), ``Moving beyond fit: the role of brand
portfolio characteristics in consumer evaluations of
brand reliability'', Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 457-71.
Desai, K.K. and Keller, K.L. (2002), ``The effects of ingredient
branding strategies on host brand extendibility'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, January, pp. 73-96.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B.L. (2001), ``The
effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand
48
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
equity'', Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 61-75.
Fournier, S. (1998), ``Consumer and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24, March, pp. 343-73.
Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), The Mental World of
Brands, World Advertising Research Centre, Henley on
Thames.
Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (1998), ``The importance of
brand-specific association in brand extension: further
empirical result'', Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 509-18.
Gronhaug, K., Hem, L. and Lines, R. (2002), ``Exploring the
impact of product category risk and consumer
knowledge in brand extensions'', Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 463-76.
GuÈrhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (1998), ``The effects of
extensions on brand name dilution and
enhancement'', Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. XXXV, November, pp. 464-73.
Gwinner, K.P. and Eaton, J. (1999), ``Building brand image
through event sponsorship: the role of image transfer'',
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 47-57.
Haynes, A., Lackman, C. and Guskey, A. (1999),
``Comprehensive brand presentation: ensuring
consistent brand image'', Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 286-300.
Hem, L.E., de Chernatony, L. and Iversen, N.M. (2003), ``Factor
influencing successful brand extensions'', Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 19 (forthcoming).
Hogg, M.K., Cox, A.J. and Keeling, K. (2000), ``The impact of
self-monitoring on image congruence and
product/brand evaluation'', European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5/6, pp. 641-66.
Hsieh, M.H. (2002), ``Identifying brand image dimensionality
and measuring the degree of brand globalization:
a cross-national study'', Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 46-67.
John, D.R., Loken, B. and Joiner, C. (1998), ``The negative
impact of extensions: can flagship products be diluted?'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, January, pp. 19-32.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management.
Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term,
2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity'', Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), ``The effect of sequential
introduction of brand extensions'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. XXIX, February, pp. 35-50.
Kind, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001), ``Threats to external
validity of brand extension research'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38, August, pp. 326-35.
Lane, V.R. (2000), ``The impact of ad repetition and ad content
on consumer perceptions of incongruent extensions'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, April, pp. 80-91.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), ``Measuring
customer-based brand equity'', Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Loken, B. and John, D.R. (1993), ``Diluting brand beliefs:
when do brand extensions have a negative impact?'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 71-84.
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
Low, G.S. and Lamb, Ch.W. (2000), ``The measurement and
dimensionality of brand association'', Journal of Product
and Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68.
Mihailovic, P. and de Chernatony, L. (1994), ``Categorising
brand strategies using the brand-bonding spectrum'',
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 1 No. 5, pp. 310-18.
Milberg, S.J., Park, C.W. and McCarthy, M.S. (1997),
``Managing negative feedback effects associated with
brand extensions: the impact of alternative branding
strategies'', Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 119-40.
Milewicz, J. and Herbig. P. (1994), ``Evaluating the brand
extension decision using a model of reputation
building'', Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 39-47.
MINTEL (2002), ``Sportswear retailing", January, available
at: www.mintel.com
Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), ``Evaluation
of brand extensions: the role of product feature
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
similarity and brand concept consistency'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-93.
Park, J.-W. and Kim, K. (2001), ``Role of consumer
relationships with a brand in brand extensions: some
exploratory findings'', Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 28, pp. 179-85.
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.
Pryor, K. and Brodice, R.J. (1998), ``How advertising can
prime evaluations of brand extensions: further
empirical result'', Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 479-508.
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. XXXI,
May, pp. 243-62.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning: The Battle for Your
Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Sharp, B.M. (1993), ``Managing brand extension'', Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 11-17.
Sheinin, D.A. (1998), ``Positing brand extensions: implications
for beliefs and attitudes'', Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 137-49.
Swaminatham, V., Fox, R.J. and Reddy, S.K. (2001), ``The
impact of brand extension introduction on choice'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, October, pp. 1-15.
Taylor, V.A. and Bearden, W.O. (2002), ``The effects of price
on brand extensions evaluation: the moderating role
of extension similarity'', Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 131-40.
van Rekom, J. (1997), ``Deriving an operational measure of
corporate identity'', European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 31 No. 5-6, pp. 410-22.
van Riel, A.C.R., Lemmink, J. and Ouwersloot, H. (2001),
``Consumer evaluation of service brand extensions'',
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3, February, pp. 220-31.
VaÂzquez, R. del RõÂo A.B. and Iglesias, V. (2002),
``Consumer-based brand equity: development and
validation of measurement instrument'', Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 18, pp. 27-48.
49
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
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
this 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 material present.
Brand extensions and brand image ± a
tricky balance to strike
A great deal has been written and said about the
use of brand extensions. Marketers have long
recognized that this strategy provides
considerable advantages compared to the
creation of an entirely new brand. Brand
extension is cheaper, quicker and less risky than
creating a new brand. Brand extension takes
advantage of existing brand strengths and
allows for greater flexibility. And brand
extension is less of a problem when it fails than
would be the case with an entirely separate
brand. However, all other things being equal,
brand extension hurts the parent brand.
Brand extension becomes a balancing act
between protecting the hard won brand equity
of the parent brand and taking advantage of
that brand's strength in the market. Martinez
and de Chernatony provide further insight into
this dilemma by examining the way in which
brand extensions affect brand image and at the
moderating factors to brand extension impact.
The authors also make the distinction ±
drawing on past examination of the brand
image concept ± between general brand image
(relating to the brand name and other general
associations with the brand) and product
brand image.
Four factors that moderate brand dilution
Martinez and de Chernatony conclude that
brand extensions do dilute the core brand
image but their findings are not (despite this
dilution) depressing for marketers. The
research identifies four factors that act to pull
the parent brand back from the brink:
(1) The perceived quality of the parent brand
and the extension.
(2) Consumer familiarity with the parent
brand.
 The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image
Eva MartõÂnez and Leslie de Chernatony
(3) The extent to which the consumer sees the
extension as a good fit with the parent
brand.
(4) The consumers' (hopefully positive)
attitude to the new extension.
These factors provide a useful basis for the
analysis of brand strategies involving extension
since they give us the basis for actions that can
establish the extent to which the damage to the
parent brand from an extension is acceptable
(or even negligible).
Separating general and product brand image
Alongside the recognition that several factors
ameliorate the negative impact on brand image
that can come from a brand extension strategy,
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)
marketers need also to note what Martinez and
de Chernatony have said about the difference
between general brand image (GBI) and
product brand image (PBI).
General brand image relates to non-product
associations with the brand and should be
viewed differently from product brand image
which is firmly associated with the product
category. It seems self evident that product
brand image will be significantly affected by a
brand extension into a different product
category, notwithstanding the moderating
factors discussed above. GBI on the other hand
it not directly associated with the product
category being rather a less specific set of
feelings, associations and images in the
consumer's mind.
It is these general images that are essential to
a successful extension of the brand into
unrelated product categories. Caterpillar
successfully transferred its brand into footwear
and clothing markets using the image of
strength and robustness and the association
with the construction industry that the plant
manufacturing brand enjoyed. The secret lies in
the way communications campaigns are
managed. Martinez and de Chernatony argue
that their findings indicate the need for
``. . . communications campaigns that place
50
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 21 . Number 1 . 2004 . 39-50
more emphasis on the brand name rather than
the products being marketed''.
This argument returns us to one of the central
debates in brand management and brand
strategy ± the extent to which the brand can be
made to stand alongside the product rather than
being inextricably associated with a particular
product category. If brand managers are
minded to develop strategies that encompass
brand extensions, then their development of the
extensions needs to be matched by a brand
communications strategy that develops brand
image in isolation from the product category.
The focus needs to be on the brand name and
images associated with that brand name rather
than using the name as a means of
differentiation within a given product category.
Defining options in brand management
Since brand extension will remain a valid and
important option for brand management to
consider, it is important that we fully
understand what impact extending a brand will
have on our business. What the research
presented here assists us in doing is creating a
set of possible options for brand extension and
the means to begin assessing which of these
options fits our objectives most closely.
Clearly issues such as the fit of the extension,
the strength of the parent brand and brand
attributes all play a part in defining how we
assess extension options. What is important is
that we make decisions that affect our brands
with a clear appreciation of the potential
damage that may cause. Importantly, Martinez
and de Chernatony stress the significance
attributes that are not product specific in brand
extensions. Given this importance, we should
look to see the extent to which our brands have
these type of attributes ± extending a brand that
is too strongly wedded to a given product
category would seem to be a recipe for failed
extensions and damaged brands.
(A preÂcis of the article ``The effect of brand
extension strategies upon brand image''. Supplied
by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Artemisia Apostolopoulou, Dimitra Papadimitriou. 2014. The role of destination personality in predicting tourist behaviour:
implications for branding mid-sized urban destinations. Current Issues in Tourism 1-20. [CrossRef]
2. Nathalie Veg-Sala. 2014. The use of longitudinal case studies and semiotics for analysing brand development as process of
assimilation or accommodation. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:4, 373-392. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
3. Rui Carlos Estrela, Francisco Costa Pereira, Jorge Bruno Ventura. 2014. Children's socialization in consumption: the role of
marketing. EuroMed Journal of Business 9:3, 222-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley, Chris Hand, Francesca Guido. 2014. Evaluating brand extensions, fit perceptions and post-extension
brand image: does size matter?. Journal of Marketing Management 1-21. [CrossRef]
5. Dilip Roy, Saikat Banerjee. 2014. Identification and measurement of brand identity and image gap: a quantitative approach.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 23:3, 207-219. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Professor Ian Phau and Min Teah, Kamilla Hanslin, Anne Rindell. 2014. Consumer-brand relationships in step-down line
extensions of luxury and designer brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 18:2, 145-168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Nathalie Veg-Sala, Elyette Roux. 2014. A semiotic analysis of the extendibility of luxury brands. Journal of Product & Brand
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)

Management 23:2, 103-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Plavini Punyatoya, Ashish Sadh, Sushanta Kumar Mishra. 2014. Role of brand globalness in consumer evaluation of new product
branding strategy. Journal of Brand Management 21, 171-188. [CrossRef]
9. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2014. Developing and testing a value chain for fashion retailers: activities for competitive
success. Journal of the Textile Institute 105, 136-149. [CrossRef]
10. José M. Pina, Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley, Wendy Lomax. 2013. Generalizing spillover effects of goods and service brand
extensions: A meta-analysis approach. Journal of Business Research 66, 1411-1419. [CrossRef]
11. Sang Keun Park, Joseph Joo Suk Park, Hyun Yang Cho. 2013. Understanding the Elements of Academic Library Brand Image:
Based on Key Branding Concepts. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science 47, 296-320. [CrossRef]
12. Mar Gómez, Arturo Molina, Águeda Esteban. 2013. What are the main factors attracting visitors to wineries? A PLS multi-
group comparison. Quality & Quantity 47, 2637-2657. [CrossRef]
13. Abhishek Dwivedi, Bill Merrilees. 2013. Brand extension feedback effects: towards a mediated framework. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 30:5, 450-461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Abhishek Dwivedi, Bill Merrilees. 2013. Retail brand extensions: Unpacking the link between brand extension attitude and
change in parent brand equity. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) 21, 75-84. [CrossRef]
15. Plavini Punyatoya. 2013. Consumer Evaluation of Brand Extension for Global and Local Brands: The Moderating Role of Product
Similarity. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 25, 198-215. [CrossRef]
16. Yi‐Chin Lin. 2013. Evaluation of co‐branded hotels in the Taiwanese market: the role of brand familiarity and brand fit.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:3, 346-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Mar Gómez, Arturo Molina. 2013. Estrategias de gestión del valor de marca en los destinos enoturísticos. Revista Europea de
Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 22, 69-79. [CrossRef]
18. Professor T.C. Melewar, Dr Sharifah Alwi, Abhishek Dwivedi, Bill Merrilees. 2013. Brand‐extension feedback effects: an Asian
branding perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25:2, 321-340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Jin-hui Zheng, Zixia Cao, Xin Dai, Chun-Hung Chiu. 2013. Fashion Brand Purity and Firm Performance. Mathematical Problems
in Engineering 2013, 1-18. [CrossRef]
20. Stathia Zouganeli, Nikolaos Trihas, Maria Antonaki, Stella Kladou. 2012. Aspects of Sustainability in the Destination Branding
Process: A Bottom-up Approach. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 21, 739-757. [CrossRef]
21. Ibrahim Abosag, Stuart Roper, Daniel Hind. 2012. Examining the relationship between brand emotion and brand extension
among supporters of professional football clubs. European Journal of Marketing 46:9, 1233-1251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Ju-Yeon Oh, Young-Kyun Kim. 2012. A Development of Tentative Measuring items of Korean Corporate Symbolic Image using
brand personality. Journal of the Korea Industrial Information System Society 17, 83-94. [CrossRef]
23. Isabel Buil, Eva Martínez, Teresa Montaner. 2012. La influencia de las acciones de marketing con causa en la actitud hacia la
marca. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 15, 84-93. [CrossRef]
 24. Eun-Young Kim, Eun-Joo Park. 2012. Perceived Fit and Brand Value Transfer in Luxury Fashion Brand Extension. Korean
Journal of Human Ecology 21, 151-163. [CrossRef]
25. Abhishek Dwivedi, Bill Merrilees. 2012. The impact of brand extensions on parent brand relationship equity. Journal of Brand
Management 19, 377-390. [CrossRef]
26. Jian Jane Zhang, Zhenxing Mao. 2012. Image of All Hotel Scales on Travel Blogs: Its Impact on Customer Loyalty. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management 21, 113-131. [CrossRef]
27. F Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna. 2012. Which category to extend to – Product or service?. Journal of Brand Management
19, 359-376. [CrossRef]
28. Vestina Vainauskienė, Rimgailė VaitkienėBrand Risk Scenarios Development: Theoretical Insights 551-558. [CrossRef]
29. Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder J. Singh, Mònica Casabayó, Ahmed Alamro, Jennifer Rowley. 2011. Antecedents of brand preference for
mobile telecommunications services. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 475-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Stuart J. Barnes, Jan Mattsson. 2011. Exploring the fit of real brands in the Second Life 1 virtual world. Journal of Marketing
Management 27, 934-958. [CrossRef]
31. Maria Sääksjärvi, Saeed Samiee. 2011. Relationships among Brand Identity, Brand Image and Brand Preference: Differences
between Cyber and Extension Retail Brands over Time. Journal of Interactive Marketing 25, 169-177. [CrossRef]
32. Nina M. Iversen, Leif E. Hem. 2011. Reciprocal transfer effects for brand extensions of global or local origin: evidence from
Norway. International Marketing Review 28:4, 365-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)

33. Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis. 2011. Destination brand components. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5:1, 4-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Jean Boisvert, Suzan Burton. 2011. Towards a better understanding of factors affecting transfer of brand associations. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 28:1, 57-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Nathalie Dens, Patrick De Pelsmacker. 2010. Attitudes toward the extension and parent brand in response to extension advertising.
Journal of Business Research 63, 1237-1244. [CrossRef]
36. Jose M. Pina, Nina M. Iversen, Eva Martinez. 2010. Feedback effects of brand extensions on the brand image of global brands:
a comparison between Spain and Norway. Journal of Marketing Management 26, 943-966. [CrossRef]
37. Eva Martínez, José M. Pina. 2010. Consumer responses to brand extensions: a comprehensive model. European Journal of
Marketing 44:7/8, 1182-1205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Keith Dinnie, T.C. Melewar, Steven Pike, Constanza Bianchi, Gayle Kerr, Charles Patti. 2010. Consumer‐based brand equity for
Australia as a long‐haul tourism destination in an emerging market. International Marketing Review 27:4, 434-449. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
39. Xuehua Wang, Zhilin Yang. 2010. The Effect of Brand Credibility on Consumers’ Brand Purchase Intention in Emerging
Economies: The Moderating Role of Brand Awareness and Brand Image. Journal of Global Marketing 23, 177-188. [CrossRef]
40. F. Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna. 2010. The effect of brand extensions on product brand image. Journal of Product &
Brand Management 19:3, 170-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Insa‐Mascha Matthiesen, Ian Phau. 2010. Brand image inconsistencies of luxury fashion brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal 14:2, 202-218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Eun Young Kim, Lynn Brandon. 2010. Modeling Brand Equity for Lifestyle Brand Extensions: A Strategic Approach into
Generation Y vs. Baby Boomer. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 20, 35-48. [CrossRef]
43. Abhishek Dwivedi, Bill Merrilees, Arthur Sweeney. 2010. Brand extension feedback effects: A holistic framework. Journal of
Brand Management 17, 328-342. [CrossRef]
44. Eun Young Kim, Eunju Ko. 2010. Achieving Brand Power: Bean Pole of Samsung. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1, 61-70.
[CrossRef]
45. Isabel Buil, Leslie de Chernatony, Leif E. Hem. 2009. Brand extension strategies: perceived fit, brand type, and culture influences.
European Journal of Marketing 43:11/12, 1300-1324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Teresa Montaner, José M. Pina. 2009. Extending the brand: controllable drivers of feedback effects. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 18:6, 394-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Michael A. Merz, Yi He, Stephen L. Vargo. 2009. The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 37, 328-344. [CrossRef]
 48. JOHN K. CHRISTIANSEN, CLAUS J. VARNES, BIRGITTE HOLLENSEN, BIRGITTE C. BLOMBERG. 2009. CO-
CONSTRUCTING THE BRAND AND THE PRODUCT. International Journal of Innovation Management 13, 319-348.
[CrossRef]
49. Ian Phau, Edith Cheong. 2009. Young consumers' evaluations of diffusion brands. Young Consumers 10:3, 210-224. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
50. Hye-Jung Park, Nancy J. Rabolt. 2009. Cultural value, consumption value, and global brand image: A cross-national study.
Psychology and Marketing 26:10.1002/mar.v26:8, 714-735. [CrossRef]
51. Isabel Buil, Eva Martínez, Leslie de Chernatony. 2009. Brand Extension Effects on Brand Equity: A Cross-National Study.
Journal of Euromarketing 18, 71-88. [CrossRef]
52. Soyoung Boo, James Busser, Seyhmus Baloglu. 2009. A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple
destinations. Tourism Management 30, 219-231. [CrossRef]
53. Eva Martínez, Teresa Montaner, José M. Pina. 2009. Brand extension feedback: The role of advertising. Journal of Business
Research 62, 305-313. [CrossRef]
54. Ian Phau, Edith Cheong. 2009. How Young Adult Consumers Evaluate Diffusion Brands: Effects of Brand Loyalty and Status
Consumption. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 21, 109-123. [CrossRef]
55. Shwu‐Ing Wu, Chen‐Lien Lo. 2009. The influence of core‐brand attitude and consumer perception on purchase intention
towards extended product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21:1, 174-194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 14:18 06 November 2014 (PT)

56. Laura Salciuviene, Pervez N. Ghauri, Audra I. Mockaitis, Claudio De MattosBrand image perceptions across cultures: a study of
symbolic and functional associations 177-191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
57. Eva Martínez Salinas, José Miguel Pina Pérez. 2009. Modeling the brand extensions' influence on brand image. Journal of Business
Research 62, 50-60. [CrossRef]
58. Eva Martínez Salinas, José Miguel Pina Pérez, Leslie de Chernatony. 2008. Influencia de la estrategia de extensión de marca
en la imagen de marcas globales: un análisis aplicado a los mercados inglés y español. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la
Empresa 11, 77-111. [CrossRef]
59. Johan Anselmsson, Ulf Johansson, Niklas Persson. 2008. The battle of brands in the Swedish market for consumer packaged
food: A cross-category examination of brand preference and liking. Journal of Brand Management 16, 63-79. [CrossRef]
60. Eva Martinez, Yolanda Polo, Leslie de Chernatony. 2008. Effect of brand extension strategies on brand image. International
Marketing Review 25:1, 107-137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Kong Cheen Lau, Ian Phau. 2007. Extending symbolic brands using their personality: Examining antecedents and implications
towards brand image fit and brand dilution. Psychology and Marketing 24:10.1002/mar.v24:5, 421-444. [CrossRef]
62. Sameer Hosany, Yuksel Ekinci, Muzaffer Uysal. 2007. Destination image and destination personality. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 1:1, 62-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Elizabeth Taylor Quilliam. 2006. Mega, monster or misplaced? Do portion size brand extensions meet consumer needs?. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 23:3, 123-124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Jose M. Pina, Eva Martinez, Leslie de Chernatony, Susan Drury. 2006. The effect of service brand extensions on corporate image.
European Journal of Marketing 40:1/2, 174-197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. Anders Bengtsson, Per Servais. 2005. Co-branding on industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management 34, 706-713.
[CrossRef]
66. Colin Jevons, Mark Gabbott, Leslie de Chernatony. 2005. Customer and brand manager perspectives on brand relationships: a
conceptual framework. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14:5, 300-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. 2004. Nike, a great name in – cameras?. Strategic Direction 20:8, 20-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]