International Journal of Business and Management Studies,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 2158-1479 :: 05(01):161–176 (2016)

ANTECEDENTS OF BRANDED HOUSE ARCHITECTURE IN

BRAND ACQUISTION

Arup Barua

University of Vaasa, Finland

Alexandra Ioanid

University Politehnica of Bucharest, Romania

Post acquisition branded house architectural formation possesses a significant strategic value in relation
to consumers’ evaluation. Nevertheless, diminutive consideration has been given to the tactical aspects
of firms from emergent countries that affect the deliberate extensions of branded house in the foreign
acquired market. Concentrating on the international business and branding literature, this conceptual
work has an apprehension and specified focus on the group of factors e.g. customer, market and firm
level. Accordingly, ‘consumer level factors’ like uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation, customer
innovativeness, power distance and ‘Market level factors’ like Market concentration, emerging industry
and ‘firm level factors’ like prior experience, localization, country of origin and brand equity would be
emphasized and assessed. Decisively implication and direction of future research would be endeavored
to clarify.

Keywords: Branded house architecture, Brand architecture, Brand acquisition, Emerging countries.

Introduction

The degree of global competitiveness compels the firms from emerging countries to accentuate to extend
their brand through acquisition rather than inaugurating the entire new one in the international market
(Hsing-Ming, et al. 2011). Brand acquisition might be the most influential strategy for acquirer to enter
the foreign market (Schweizer, 2005). Nonetheless, previous studies demonstrate that companies
generally concentrate on the financial performance and cost cutting approach rather than putting an
emphasis on the consumer perception in brand acquisition (Hsing-Ming, et al. 2011) and that
inattentiveness persuades the future performance implausibility of acquiring companies (Homburg and
Bucerius, 2005). Though parent brand leverage is lucrative in the brand architecture, failure rate of
acquirer brand extension is more than 80 %( Dens and De Pelsmacker, 2010). However, Taylor and
Bearden (2003) noted that success rate is less than 50%. Hence, acquirer should consider the brand equity
for the brand acquisition success (Shahrokh, 2012). Besides, brand name and brand equity is extremely
co-related (Shahrokh, 2012), during the brand acquisition, stakeholders’ and consumers’ main focus is
immensely influenced by the potential brand name since it reassures the value for them (Gregory, 1999).
Therefore, feeble brand name extension strategy might obliterate the parent brand equity and brand
expansion (Xie, 2012).


161
162 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

However, branded house strategy builds the core brand image (Aaker, 1990). For instance, 85%
brand extensions in consumer goods use parent brand name (Ernst & Young and ACNielsen, 1999) to
escalate the acceptance of the new products (Blichfeldt 2004) though failure rate is extremely high in the
fast moving consumer goods which is about 80 percent (Ernst & Young and ACNielsen, 1999). In the
brand acquisition, acquiring companies keep the acquired brand name to maintain the brand equity such
as “P&G” kept the “Gillette” brand name as a subsidiary (Jaju et al., 2006) and Lenovo kept the
“ThinkPad” product brand name after acquiring IBM pc division (Ille and Chailan, 2011). As an antidote,
in some cases, acquirer eliminates the acquired brand name such as HSBC acquired smaller French Bank
CCF (Basu, 2006). Having influenced by the above issues, this paper will endeavor to place a study
concentrating on the companies from emerging countries who have product lines with parent brand name
in the host market (Xie, 2012) and also have a vivid intention to extend their corporate brand image
through acquiring brand from foreign markets.
Previous brand extension researches were based on domestic context such as Norway (Hem and
Iversen, 2009) and USA (Yorkston et al, 2010). There are insufficient studies on international context
(Buil et al, 2009; Ng 2010). Most of the researchers examined the parent brand association and perceived
fit between product and corporate brand in the brand extension studies (Buil, Martinez, and de
Chernatony 2009). Besides, petite concentration was put on brand management challenges (Blichfeldt,
2004) and determinants of retailer acceptance and marketing support (Volckner and Sattler 2006). Few
recent studies have been gone through where it has been seen that Xie, (2012) studied on the foreign
firms’ brand extension in the host country while Shahrokh (2012) studied on customer attitude to parent
brand extension and Damoiseau, et al. (2011) studied on brand creation vs. acquisition in portfolio
expansion strategy and Hsing-Ming, et al. (2011) studied on brand extension using parent brand
personality as leverage. But, existence of any precedent researches has not been found grounding on the
brand extension factors of firms from emerging countries using branded house strategy after brand
acquisition. Besides, Brand portfolio expansion using existing brand is motivated in the concurrent
research area expansion (Damoiseau et al, 2011). Even though it has a very limited research attention,
brand acquisition has been the strategic alternative in brand portfolio expansion (Damoiseau et al, 2011).
Angelina Nhat et al, (2012) noted that more studies on the factors on brand extensions along with the
consumer motives are imperative. So, this study aims to bridge the gap by finding the factors influencing
the branded house strategy when firms from emerging countries acquire renown brand in the host market
to extend their parent brand. Thus this paper has a definite goal to establish a relation between the various
factors and branded house architectural strategy.
To fill the gap, this study intends to draw a conceptual framework from the international marketing
and international business literature contributing an expressive theory building (Staelin, 2005) and
knowledge enlargement in the brand name extension using branded house strategy in the international
market. This framework will consider the consumer, market and firm level factors. There is an optimism
of future contribution to the literature in international business and marketing studies based on the
branded house. Accordingly, a brief review of the related literature is obvious to enable this study to
propose the allied conceptual framework along with the proposition, which will subsequently lead
towards the implication and future research direction.

Literature Review of Branded House Architecture

Branded house structural strategy is followed to achieve two general goals (Iversen and Hem, 2008) such
as perceived risk reduction and quality confirmation of the extended brand (Veronique and Raluca, 2012).
It generally allocates the parent brand’s equity to all the brand partners (Aaker, 2004). It also influences
customers to migrate to the new extended brand which is ensuring the quality (Veronique and Raluca,
2012). Consequently, it spreads out the brand recognition for customer to identify and take decision about
the extended brand since well-known parent brand transfer their brand image (Xie, 2012) using parent
brand name into the acquired brand (Bao et al, 2010). Basically, branded house strategy exists to rebrand
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 163

the acquired brand (Dechernatang, 2006). Hence, parent brand name stretching is the effective strategy in
the brand acquisition (Aaker, 1991). Brand acquisition is the legal transfer of brand elements as name,
logo and color combination and shape to acquire as ownership recorded by USPTO (United States Patent
and Trademark Office) (Damoiseau, et al. 2011) Benefit of brand acquisition is the evaluation of cost
against the actual outcome and potential synergies to reduce cost of new brand and to increase the
marketing competence (Damoiseau, et al. 2011). However, new brand creation offers several benefits
such as new brand introduction; addressing the customer needs and managing pace of brand expansion
(Kahn and Isen, 1993) But Jones (2004) noted that brand creation is risky venture due to high probability
of failure rate. Besides, new brand establishment needs marketing budgets and increases the complexities
of the firms (Tybout and Calkins, 2005). So, firms from emerging counties prefer brand acquisition in the
global or foreign market.
Brand architecture manages the relationship among the corporate, subsidiaries and product brands
(Balmer and Gray, 2003). It constructs the brand leverage, synergy, clarity rather than brand building
dissipate, confusion, marketplace and diffused focus (Aaker, 2000a). Also it drives the competitive
advantage (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2008) and takes away the prolonged heritage (Mercer, 2010). It is the
synonym of company name and its existence (Wheeler, 2006). Brand architecture strategy should be
grounded on the brand equity (Basu, 2006). Branded house is one of the brand architectural strategies. It
means parent brand name is used in the acquired brand having the dominant dynamic position; there is
little or no responsibility of acquired brand (Aaker, 2004b). Brand name might be similar such as Virgin,
BMW, HSBC (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000a). It has following characteristics such as new offerings
cost and strong brand establishment (Aaker, 2004b). It has clear identification of the brand by which
internal and external stakeholders as well as customers can realize the clarity of the brand identity and
product line visibility. Conversely, frail side of this strategy is that if acquired brand affects the
reputation, parent brand might be affected. Basu, (2006) proposed branded house architecture where one
message strategy is preferred by the M&A firms during the product branding; for instance, HSBC
“World’s local bank”. However, this type of strategy does not always denote a happy family as
competitors can influence the corporate brand equity. On the other hand, ‘Integration Strategy’ is similar
to branded house refers to product brands and business unites under a single identity as master brand
name leveraging brand associations according to hierarchy (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2008).
Basically, brand name extension is only used into the different product category (Aaker and keller,
1990). However, it can be applied in the new product and modified product lines (Kotler, 1990). The
extended brand name strategy is classified as direct and indirect naming (Vanhonacker, 2007). Direct
naming is denoted as the use of parent brand name for instance Marlboro clothing and Harley Davidson,
HSBC with branded house architectural strategy while indirect naming strategy is derived by parent brand
but indirect way as house of brand, endorsed brand, (Angelina, 2012). Direct naming strategies are mostly
dealt by classic brand name extension studies (Olavarrieta et al, 2009) while many of world’s renowned
brands use the indirect name strategies as P&G, Apple Inc. (Vanhonacker, 2007). Generally, Parent brand
expresses its brand personality (Phau and Lau, 2000), the meaning of brand name (Kressman et al., 2006)
and representative benefits to consumers (Diamantopoulos et al., 2005) by the direct brand name (Lau and
Phau, 2007). Parent brand knowledge is kept in the brand name extension following branded house
structure (Olavarrieta et al., 2009). In contrary, indirect brand name extension, brand knowledge is less
transferred and less associated with parent brand (Angelina, 2012). Direct name strategy transfers more
brand personality and association using branded house strategy comparing to sub brand, endorsed and
house of brands (Olavarrieta et al. (2009). Basically the parent brand name extension is a popular
approach in brand acquisition due to media cost, supply availability and competitors’ promotions (Xie,
2012). However, the extension of parent brand name is not constantly successful depending on the brand
positioning of acquired brand and the parent brand. Nan (2006) states that parent brand name is evaluated
by the two factors such as brand association and perceived fit. Bottomley and Holder (2001) noted that
the success of parent brand name can be evaluated by product information and fits between the new
product category and brand name. Nonetheless, Aaker and Keller (1990) noted about the fit between
existing brand and the extended category along with the parent brand perceived quality. Also, brand
164 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

image and fit positively influence the band name extension performance (Xie, 2012). Parent brand
association derives the customers’ brand knowledge for brand attitudes and personality (Keller, 1993). If
the customers have positive attitudes with parent brand, new brand structure will be positively treated
(Nan, 2006). Brand extended relevance and salience are crucial for perceive fit which may be achieved by
the effective communication (Xie, 2012). Parent brand name extension is not only transferring the
positive association but also negative association to the acquired brand which is a menace for the failure
of overall brand acquisition (Xie, 2012). Brand name extension does not provide the significant advantage
for the new product release (Xie, 2012). New brand development is time consuming and costly than
parent brand transfer (Shahrokh, 2012). Firms generally acquire brand to leverage their parent brand
association (Bambauer-Sachse et al. 2011).
But success of the brand name extension depends on the firms’ characteristics such as firms’ size,
brand numbers in the target market, market share, brand strength, marketing support, advertising and
distribution (Xie, 2012). Besides, high brand concept consistency and product feature similarity is the
focal point of success for the parent brand name assortment (Xie, 2012). Volckner and Sattler, (2006)
noted that parent – product fit, retailer acceptances and marketing support, parent product experiences are
the main determinant of M&A brand portfolio. But Nijssen and Agustin, (2005) noted that brand
positioning, extension product’s value, fit between extension and parent brand are prerequisite for brand
name extension success. Country of origin (Klein 2002) and cultural effect on the parent brand name
extension are the factors as well because of brand dilution by different conflicting information and
responses in the Eastern and Western countries (Ng, 2010). Branded house architecture is succeeded
when effective marketing strategy is initiated (Sattler et al, 2010).

Conceptual Framework and Proposition

Branded house architecture is relatively complex task in the cross border market than domestic market
since various dimensions need to be considered after brand acquisition. This study carries on brand name
extension following branded house structure after acquiring the brand and the antecedents of branded
house structure as consumer, market and firm level factors (Damoiseau, 2011; Xie, 2012). Those factors
consider the marketing environment, evaluation of brand association, fit and brand equity perception (Xie,
2012).

Consumer Level Factors

Consumer in the host country plays a significant role for the establishment of brand architecture.
Generally, consumer behaviors, norms and beliefs in the host country affect the brand name extension
(Xie, 2012). So, brand structure should be evaluated considering the consumer perception. Consequently,
in this paper, uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and customer innovativeness in the host
country perspective after brand acquisition have been given precedence.

Uncertainly Avoidance

In the international business, the cultural dimension is considered while firms accomplish the global
market segmentation. Hence, cultural knowledge is the dominant part to understand the target customers’
behavior (Krueger and Nandan, 2008). Hofstede (1991) denoted five cultural dimensions about the
national cultural differences - uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/ femininity,
and power distance, long and short-term orientation. These dimensions are more adopted in the
international business and marketing literature since cultural dimensions influence the perception of brand
image (Hsieh 2002). Generally, uncertainty avoidance is the weaker dimension than others (Henseler
et al, 2010). Nevertheless, this dimension influentially makes role on substitutability and quality
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 165

(Henseler et al, 2010). Uncertainty avoidance dimension shows the specific cultural risk and uncertainty
tolerance. Therefore, high uncertainty avoidance society is reluctant for any types of risk and opposes to
modify the brand names due to predictability, stability (Hofstede, 1980). Henseler et al, (2010) got the
positive relation between uncertainty avoidance and the direct brand name extension as a branded house
for parent brand extension success. However, there is other close relation between uncertainty avoidance
and consumer behavior regarding brand image (Hsieh 2002). In the high uncertainty avoidance society,
perceive risk and uncertainty take important part for consumer perception, information cost, brand
attributes, and beliefs (Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela (2006). This dimension is incredibly imperative to
examine the consumer perception about the branded house extension, acquiring brand in the host market.
In contrast, new brand name is risky in the high uncertainty avoidance society due to product quality
assurance by which companies face the consumer’s perceived risk. So, company tries to reduce perceived
market hazard with the quality assurance using branded house structure because high uncertainty
avoidance society prefer consistent brand (Xie, 2012).
Nevertheless, parent brand has higher image, branded house strategy is more influential due to low
perceived risk with the less marketing cost (Erdem, Swait, and Valenzuela, 2006). Branded house strategy
provides the product knowledge to consumer (Nan 2006). Also, brand extension reduces the new brand
associated risk (Aaker and Keller 1990). During the parent brand extension, acquirer would take branded
house architectural strategy as in the high uncertainty avoidance society; consumers might not be
motivated for the other brand structure (Henseler et al, 2010). Basically, consumers trust the credible
brand architecture in the high uncertainty avoidance society which is linked to the parent brand
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), with the less risk involvement (Erdem et al, 2006). Consequently,
branded house strategy can alleviate the perceived risk and increase the consistent brand association in the
high uncertainty avoidance host market (Xie, 2012). Subsequently, branded house strategy is more
beneficial for company in the society with high uncertainty using direct name strategy. Considering the
above issues, the following proposition is initiated-

Proposition 1- The High Uncertainty Avoidance has an affirmative consequence on the branded house
strategy in the host market at the post brand acquisition by the firms from emerging economies.

Long Term Orientation

Long-term orientation is an approval of values associated with potential rewards, particularly insistence
and carefulness (Henseler et al, 2010). Generally, every cultural dimension has significant influence on
brand architecture. Henseler et al, (2010) got that there is a noteworthy relation between long term
orientation and direct or indirect brand name extension in the brand architecture for parent brand
extension success. Researcher also got the significant direct effect of long term orientation on brand
extension as branded house strategy are successful in the long term oriented society rather than short term
(Henseler et al, 2010). Accordingly, in the long-term society, parent brand with high image oriented brand
gets the facilities to use the branded house strategy for their existing brand equity. In the long term
oriented society, consumers are intended to have long term relationship with the parent brand Henseler
et al, (2010).
Nevertheless, acquired brand has high brand equity influence to parent brand to leave that brand
name and following the house of brand or highly endorsed brand strategy in the long term oriented
society. If the parent brand has strong relation with customer, branded house strategy can be the superior
strategy in the long term oriented society. Because, consumer in the long term oriented society take
decision with their previous experiences and they also trust the parent brand (Monga and John, 2007).
Previous research on the cross cultural psychology showed that Asian background society accepts the
parent brand extension with low level of categorical and conceptual fit while western society opposes
(Monga and John, 2007).Henseler et al (2010) got that in the long term oriented society, transferability
aspect of fit are important and consumers also tolerate any offers with non-complementarities. In contrast,
complementary offers are most important in the short term oriented society (Monga and John, 2007).
166 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

Brand image transferability from the parent brand to the extended brand is influential. Hence, the
proposition arises here is as follows-

Proposition 2- Long term orientation has a positive effect on the branded house architectural strategy after
brand acquisition in the host market by the firms from emerging economies.

Consumer Innovativeness

Consumer innovativeness creates circumstance where individuals are eager to get new ideas and innovative
decisions independently (Xie, 2012) with less concern about the fit. It directly influences the fit and quality
dimension of Aaker and Keller’s (1990), brand extension model (V ö lckner and Sattler, 2006). Generally,
masculinity society moderates the consequence of fit and quality (Henseler et al, (2010). In the high
masculinity society, parent brand quality is usually higher (Henseler et al, 2010). Previous researches clarify
that masculinity society is positively interrelated with the consumer innovativeness (Sing, 2006).
Complementarities have a higher influence on masculine society while transferability is critical for feminine
cultures. Besides, complementarities have a high impact in masculine culture while transferability in the
feminine culture (Henseler et al, 2010). Innovative consumers can easily adopt new brand’s communication
and message as well as offer (Citrin et al. 2000). Consumer behaviors and characteristics are associated with
consumer innovativeness in relation to communication and personality and socio-economic variables (Xie,
2012). The elements of the innovativeness are generally decision making ability, relationship, interpersonal
communication and independence (Xie, 2012). In the host market, few social groups are innovative which
might be the segmented for indirect brand name extension as the endorsed band or house of brands instead
of branded house because consumers are relatively ready to take high probability to accept new products
(Xie, 2012). New brand name or house of brands reduce the probability of parent brand equity dilution and
spread the risk in the acquired and acquirer level. However, innovative customers can neglect the branded
house due to lack of innovativeness (Klink and Smith, 2001). They are keener to have new brand without
any associations while brand name extension transfers the association and brand knowledge by the side of
reducing the associate risk (McCarthy et al, 2001). Finally, this is concluded that consumers have higher
propensity to accept house of brand and endorsed brand strategy rather than branded house. Accordingly, it
is conceptually proposed that

Proposition 3- Consumer innovativeness has a negative influence on branded house architectural strategy
after the brand acquisition in host market by the firms from emerging counties.

Power Distance

Power Distance is more likely an autocratic structure accepted by the social members who allow the
power variation in the society (Hofstede, 1991). Generally, parent’s indirect brand name extension is
successful instead of branded house strategy in the low power distance society concerning the fit and
quality of the extended brand (Henseler et al, 2010). Previous research shows that consumers in the low
power distance society are more quality concerned rather than being responsive and reliable (Furrer et al,
2000). Consumers are less loyal to the parent brand in the low power distance society, which is
challenging for companies to use branded house architecture (Palumbo and Herbig, 2000). Transferability
and complementarities are influential in the individualistic society. However, in the collective society,
consumers do not consider the fit between parent and extended brand. If they get the strong parent brand
link with the extended brand, they will accept the extended brand where branded house architecture
strategy can be successful. Previous study showed that linked names in the extended brand are successful
in Asia while fit would not be considered under the one brand name (Han and Schmitt, 1997). Hofstede’s
index shows that collectivist society has high power distance while the individualist society has a low
power distance. Consumers in the individualist and low power distance society are less devoted to brand
being negatively related to branded house strategy while consumers in collectivist and high power
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 167

distance society are brand loyal and hence branded house strategy might be successful (Henseler et al,
2010). Therefore, the fourth and fifth propositions of this paper are as follows-

Proposition 4 - Low power distance has a negative effect on branded house strategy after brand
acquisition in the host market by the firms from emerging countries.

Proposition 5 - High power distance society has a positive consequence on branded house strategy after
brand acquisition in the host market by the firms form emerging countries.

Market Level Factors

Market Concentration

Market concentration is an aspect of market structure (Xie, 2012) and is defined by market share (Scherer,
1980). It means the specific market when few competitors dominate the specific market (Zhao and Zou,
2002). This is noted that high focused market can be dominated by the few giant companies while low
focused market is controlled by many competitors and this market formation influences to competitors to
take different market oriented brand structural strategies (Varadarajan, 2001). Besides, market
concentration is positively related with brand acquisition in the cross border brand expansion (Damoiseau,
et al, 2011). Because brand acquisition does not force to increase the supply and to down the price while
new brand establishment is riskier with more supply and down price in the market (Damoiseau et al,
2011). However, market demand can be classified by core and tangential areas according to resource
partitioning theory (Xie, 2012). Core demand in the market is the common demand while tangential
demand is the segmented demand of customers. Generally, companies compete each other in the high
focused market for the core market demand and therefore, segmented demand will be identified by
companies (Xie, 2012). In that consequence, specialized companies focus on the segmented market
(Swaminathan, 2001). So, mass marketing is not necessary to pick the specialized market. Current
research shows that when few competitors are dominating the market, large volume of companies
concentrate on the niche market (Zhu et al, 2009).
So, companies acquire the brand in the international market can focus on the niche market (Toften
and Hammervoll, 2009). In the multi-dimensional market, customers belong to the heterogenic economy,
social structure and culture. Also companies should gradually compete in the core market structure by
developing the brand development (Xie, 2012). Hence, targeting group of customers in the market is the
wisest decision during the brand structure (Xie, 2012). Branded house architecture provides the same
brand features and concept to the certain similar customer after brand acquisition. Also brand association
and perceived fit are factors for the brand expansion success (Nan, 2006). New brand development is cost
effective while branded house strategy is effective to target market for brand expansion. Accordingly, this
is shown that where customers demand is common in the core market structure, parent brand name
expansion with product brand is usable (Xie, 2012). If market is highly focused, specialized companies
serve into the niche market. Niche market does not show that parent brand association will be highly
associated. In the low focused market, firms might take the branded house strategy in the market center
due to homogenous demand (Xie, 2012). Banded house strategy might be viable and proper in the post
M&A to compete in the market center.

Proposition 6 - Market concentration has a negative effect on branded house architecture after the brand
acquisition in the host country by the firms from emerging countries

Emerging Industry

Besides the market structure, market growth also influences the brand expansion strategy. Damoiseau
et al, (2011) found a significant relationship between market growth and brand acquisition However,
168 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

other researcher proclaimed that to speed up the market entry, brand acquisition is effective (Caves and
Mehra, 1986). Basically companies’ global brand expansion depends on whether they are entering in the
market as mature, growing or emerging (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990). New companies can
survive easily in the emerging industry (Mata and Portugal 2002). Even companies get more profit in the
emerging industry than the matured market (Xie, 2012) since emerging market increases firms’
efficiencies and productive capacity (Brouthers, 2002) and simultaneously matured market influences
companies to place less investment due to uncertainty (Brothers, 2002). Emerging industry stimulates
companies’ behavior to take successful branding strategies. In this situation, companies can acquire brand
in the host market and take the branded house strategy to minimize the high uncertainty and risk as well
as expenditure (Xie, 2012). Hence, companies can take the branded house strategy to get benefited in the
emerging industry. Therefore, it is proposed that --

Proposition 7- Emerging industry has a positive effect on branded house architecture after acquiring brand
in the host market by the firms from emerging countries.

Firm Level Factors

Prior Knowledge

Prior international experience motivates the expansion strategy (Brouthers and Brouthers, 2000). Besides,
previous particular experiences on brand acquisition or new brand development also influence the further
brand acquisition strategy (Damoiseau et al, 2011). International experience increases the inaccessible
experiential knowledge. Tacit knowledge is important for companies to acquire the brand. So,
international experience immensely assists companies to take branding decisions and leverage the
acquirer brand in the host market (Collionson and Houlden, 2005) as in the cross border investment, cost
will be increased without international knowledge. High cost and risk orientation induces firms to take
branded house strategy (Aaker and Keller, 1990) though success is dependable on acquirer brand
association and fit (Nan, 2006). Branded house is also interrelated to brand benefits. With the
international experience, company should have host market knowledge (Xie, 2012). Before acquiring
brand, local market knowledge should be as far as realistic. However, specific knowledge might not exist
in the firms before brand acquisition (Downes et al, 2000). In the cross border brand extension,
companies generally seek familiarity based on institutional, cultural and stakeholders of the host market
since host country knowledge incredibly depends on country-to-country and seldom transferable in the
dynamic market (Xie, 2012). Most of the diversified firms are linked to the brand acquisition than less
diversified firms (Damoiseau, et al, 2011). Customer preference is also contingent according to country
characteristics (Hunt 2000). Firm’s strategy is an important driver to develop the brand and to
communicate the customers in the host market. Local knowledge increases the competitive advantage in
the host market (Delios and Beamish, 2001). Without host country knowledge, parent brand association
and perceived fit is hard to attain. As host market is unique in the global market, its knowledge helps
companies to deal the local branding strategies. Therefore, the proposition arises here is -
Proposition-8 Host market prior knowledge has a positive effect on branded house strategy after
brand acquisition in the host market by the firms form emerging countries.

Localization Strategy

Localization strategy denotes that parent brand operates the acquired brand with local circumstances; for
instance- staffs might be recruited locally to manage the acquired brand (Zhu & Huang, 2007). However,
own cultural practices may be inappropriate into the cross culture (Hofstede, 1985). Standardization is the
cost effective marketing and production strategy regarding economic of scales and culture (Xie, 2012). It
drives the firms to minimize the cost and to establish the consistent relationship and control over the
customer needs. Standardized brand and marketing strategies increase the company performance. But
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 169

marketing standardization has various constraints such as local management resistance, operational
incompatibility, local government regulation and so on (Cavusgin and Zou, 1994). Nonetheless,
localization strategy is more essential for the local marketing environment (Xie, 2012) as variety of
factors affect the branded house strategy such as marketing efficiency, over brand extension, promotional
sales, brand acquisition etc (Buday, 1989). Branded house strategy might increase or destroy the brand
equity of the parent brand (Xie, 2012).If it is preferred in the right host market; it would increase the
market share. However, standardization is likely to construct the perceived fit and association and it
affects branded house strategy favorably than localization in the host market (Xie, 2012). Generally,
marketing strategy, customer’s lifestyles and values differences influence companies to modify the host
market. Besides, according to network perspective, acquired brand should not only pursue the local norms
and origins but also follow the international competitors, inter-organizational global network and the
standard or best fit strategies (Evans et al. 2002; kraatz, 1998). Schneider (1998) noted that cultural
distinction should be considered in the cross border investment. Subsequently, parent brand name and
features fit can be the success of branded house strategy in the host market (Zou et al, 1997). Hence, it
might be proposed that

Proposition-9 Localization strategy has a negative effect on branded house strategy after brand merging in
the host market by the firms from emerging countries.

County of Origin

Most of the companies from emerging countries face the county of origin (Coo) deficiency to enter the
global market. Hard technologies are not only the basis of innovation rather marketing is an influential
driver for innovation (IBM 2010). For instance, Chinese companies are less global brand as China is not a
brand developer and innovator yet (Wei and Li, 2000) and is not matured in marketing strategy along with
the cultural background (Ille and Chailan, 2011). Generally, western companies develop any product or
services along with the brand image and goodwill (Ille and Chailan, 2011). Usually, factor endowed
countries get positive Coo effect as companies from Germany or African countries get benefits to be
global brand in the manufacturing industry while France for luxury goods (Ille and Chailan, 2011).
Emerging countries mostly acquire global renowned brand and keep the acquired brand name for instance
Lenovo, Jaguar and Land Rover (Kumare et al, 2009) by following endorsed brand architectural strategy
to brand image along with country image.
Nevertheless, Chinese brands have been succeeded with parent brand name in the global market by
the strong management, western marketing principles and host country oriented strategy (Chailan, 2010).
For instance, Chinese Haier brand got global brand recognition with strong management (Larcon and
Haier, 2010). Furthermore, global customer perception is for China as bad quality while Japan is for good
quality (Ille and Chailan, 2011). Empirical studies show that only 17 percent Americans show their
interest to buy Chinese origin brands (Tucker, 2006). So, emerging countries should improve the image
that is influenced by Coo effect (Ramo, 2007). Until improving the country image for the certain industry,
companies from emerging countries might not be benefited to take branded house strategy after M&A.
Besides, product category is another influential matter to follow the branded house strategy as Coo effect
is not favorable in certain instances e.g.- Russian raw materials (e.g.-Rosneft, Lukoil and Gazprom etc)
and diamonds from South Africa (Ille and Chailan, 2011) which are the industries companies from factor
endowment perspectives. Furthermore, Tata group’s Titan watch brand is still not recognized global
brand and allied executives noted to acquire global brand like “Swiss watch brand” with favorable Coo
effect (Khanna et al, 2008). Also, some African local brands suffered lack of foreign countries recognition
(Ille and Chailan, 2011). Under the light of above discussion, it is proposed that –
Proposition-10 Country of origin dimension has a negative consequence on branded house strategy in the
host market after brand acquiring by the firms from emerging countries.
170 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

Brand Equity

Brand equity is the customers’ mental association with the certain brand (Hsuabg-Ming, 2011). Brand
equity has five assets - brand awareness, loyalty, brand association, perceived quality and proprietary
brand assets (Aaker, 1991). It is the interior perception of marketing (Buil et al, 2013). Basically, prime
function of the acquirer is to create, transfer, enhance or regain the brand equity (Muzellec and Lambkin,
2006). For instance, 49% of the total Gillette value was brand equity during the acquisition by P&G
(Bhadadir, et al, 2008). Hence, brand name extension is a phenomenal component of brand equity (Aaker,
1991) and brand equity is the functional concept of competitive advantage (Petburikul, 2009) related to
corporate brand name. Most significantly, brand performance is the output of brand equity (Petburikul,
2009). Brand name changes after brand acquisition might dilute the brand equity of both parent and
extended product brand (Muzelled and Lambkin, 2006). For instance, positive brand equity yields 30%
positive stock return while the negative equity outputs 10% negative return (Ettenson and Knowles,
2006). So, in the brand acquisition, parent brand extension from the emerging countries apprehends
acquiring renowned global brand present themselves as global brand; e.g. - Lenovo, Jaguar and Land
rover (Ille and Chailan, 2011). Besides, acquirer from emerging countries can keep the acquired brand
name to sustain the brand equity in the host country. Hence, it is proposed that –
Proposition-11 Brand equity has a negative effect on branded house architectural strategy after acquiring
the brand by the firms from emerging countries.

Customer Level Factors

Uncertainty Avoidance +

Long Term Orientation +

_- -
Consumer Innovativeness
_
Power Distance
+
Market Level Factors
-
Market Structure
Branded House
Emerging Industry + architecture

Firm Level Factors

Prior Experience +

Localization Strategy -
-
Country of Origin
-
Brand Equity

Figure 1. Strategic factors for branded house architectural strategy in the host country by
firms from emerging countries
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 171

Conclusion

As it is said in the earlier part, this paper strives to develop conceptually by contributing the theory
development on the branded house architecture in the international marketing research. This attempt is
optimistically advance the knowledge. Concentration on the customer evaluation of brand extension by
the firms from the emerging countries in the host country has been incalculably emphasized. Besides,
there is a conceptual framework concentrating on the three levels of factors such as customer, market and
firm. In practice, uncertainty avoidance, consumer innovativeness and high power distance are positively
related to the branded house architectural strategy while low power distance has a negative output. At the
market level factors, it is seen that highly focused market has negative relation with branded house
extension while emerging industry is positively related. At the firm level factors, prior knowledge is
positively associated to the branded house architecture and other factors such as localization strategy,
country of origin and brand equity has negative relationship. Furthermore, it is revealed that customers in
the host country are unique and so branding strategies should be unique for the respective country. Firms
from emerging countries not only follow the parent brand association and perceived fit but also follow
various factors jointly affect the branded house structure.
The guidelines revealed in this study would be supportive to the managers for the firms of emerging
countries in the multifaceted international market. The exposed three levels of factors are more imperative
when companies design brand architecture after the brand acquisition. This conceptual work also guide
the future researches on branded house structure empirically along with the other architectural strategies
such as house of brand, sub brand, endorsed brand and licensing brand. Besides, a vice-versa research can
be placed study on firms acquiring from developed countries. Finally, the forwarding conceptual model
can be tested with the performance and therefore, it is important to note that the above conceptual model
segmented in three levels is not yet empirically examined. Thus, an emergence of empirical testimony is
obvious in this respect to make this conceptual model building more authentic.

References

1. Aaker, David A. (1990), “Brand Extension: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” Sloan Management Review”,
Vol.31 (4), pp 47–56.
2. Aaker, David A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press
3. Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000a), “The Brand Relationship Spectrum: The Key to the Brand
Architecture Challenge”, California Management Review, Vol. 42(4): pp 8–23.
4. Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Brand Portfolio Management”, the Free Press, New York, NY.
5. Aaker, D. A. (2004b), “Leveraging the corporate brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 46(3).
6. Aaker, David A. and Kevin L. Keller (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. (54), pp 27-41.
7. Angelina Nhat, H. L., Sung Cheng, J. M., Yueh, H. L., & Jain, M. (2012), “Brand extension: Using parent
brand personality as leverage”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,Vol. 24(4), pp 599-618.
8. Balmer, J. M. T. and Gray, E. R. (2003), “Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37(7-8). pp 972-997.
9. Bahadir, S. C., Bharadwaj, S. G. & Srivastava, R. K. (2008), “Financial value of brands in mergers and
acquisitions: Is value in the eye of the beholder?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. (72). pp.49í64.
10. Bambauer-Sachse, S. & Hüttl, V. & Gierl, H. 2011, “Can advertising elements improve consumer evaluations
of brand extensions with a moderate or low fit?”, Psychology & Marketing. Vol. 28(2), pp 205–218.
11. Basu, Kunal. (2006), “Merging brands after mergers”, California Management Review, Vol. 48(4), pp 28-40.
12. Bao, Y. & Sheng, S. & Nkwocha, I. 2010, “Product difficulty incongruity and consumer evaluations of brand
extensions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. vol. 36, pp 340-348.
13. Blichfeldt, Bodil S. (2004), “On the Development of Brand and Line Extensions,” Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 12 (3), pp 177–190.
172 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

14. Bottomley, Paul A., and Stephen J.S. Holden (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, pp 494–500.
15. Brouthers, Keith D. (2002), “Institutional, Cultural and Transaction Cost Influences on Entry Mode Choice and
Performance,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.33(2), pp 203-221.
16. Brouthers, K.D. and Brouthers, L.E. (2000), “Acquisition or greenÞeld start-up? Institutional, cultural and
transaction cost inßuences”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21(1), pp. 89-98.
17. Buil, I., & Martinez, E. and Chernatory, L. D (2013), “The influence of brand equity on consumer responses”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 30 (1): pp 62-74.
18. Buil, Isabel, Eva Martinez, and Leslie de Chernatony (2009), “Brand Extension Effects on Brand Equity: A
Cross-National Study,” Journal of Euromarketing, Vol.18 (2), pp 71–88.
19. Buday, Tom (1989), “Capitalizing on Brand Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Marketing,”Vol. 6, pp 27–30.
20. Caves, R.E. and Mehra, S.K. (1986), “Entry of foreign multinationals into the US manufacturing industries”,in
Porter, M. (Ed.), Competition in Global Industries, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
21. Cavusgil, S. Tamer, and Shaoming Zou (1994), “Marketing Strategy Performance Relationship: An
Investigation of the Empirical Link in Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 (1), pp 1–21.
22. Chailan, C. (2010), “Building brands from emerging countries: why and how? A case study in an Arab
country”, paper presented at the Global Brand Management Conference, Koc¸ University, Istanbul, pp 21-22,
23. Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M. B. (2000), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to
brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, Vol.65(2), pp 81–93.
24. Citrin, Alka Varma, David E. Sprott, Steven N. Silverman, and Donald E. Stem, Jr. (2000), “Adoption of
Internet Shopping: The Role of Consumer Innovativeness,” Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol.
100 (7), pp 294–299.
25. Collinson, Simon, and John Houlden (2005), “Decision-Making and Market Orientation in the
Internationalization Process of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Management Inter-National Review,
Vol. 45 (4), pp 413–436.
26. Damoiseau, Y., Black, W. C., & Raggio, R. D. (2011), “Brand creation vs acquisition in portfolio expansion
strategy,” The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.20(4), 268-281.
27. Delios, Andrew, and Paul W. Beamish (2001), “Survival and Profitability: The Roles of Experience and
Intangible Assets in Foreign Subsidiary Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 (5), pp
1028–1038
28. Dens, N. & DePelsmacker, P. 2010, “Advertising for extensions: Moderating effects of extension type,
advertising strategy, and product category involvement on extension evaluation”, Marketing Letters. Vol.
21(2), pp 175–189.
29. Dechernatang, L. 2006, “from brand vision to brand evaluation: the strategic process of growing”, Butterworth-
Heinemann,
30. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G. and Grime, I. (2005), “The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:
experimental evidence”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39(1/2), pp. 129-49.
31. Downes, Meredith, Anisya S. Thomas, and Carolan McLarney (2000), “The Cyclical Effect of Expatriate
Satisfaction on Organizational Performance: The Role of Firm International Orientation,” Learning
Organization, Vol.7 (3), pp 122–135.
32. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Claudia Bird Schoonhoven (1990), “Organizational Growth: Linking Founding
Team, Strategy, Environment, and Growth Among U.S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1978–1988,” Administrative
Science Quarterly,Vol. 35 (3), pp 504–529.
33. Ernst & Young and ACNielsen (1999), “New Product Introduction: Successful Innovation/Failure: A Fragile
Boundary,” Ernst & Young Global Client Consulting, Paris.
34. Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006), “Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70(1), pp 43-49.
35. Ettenson, R., & Knowles, J. (2006), “Merging the brands and branding the merger”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 47(4). pp 39í49.
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 173

36. Evans, P. Pucik, V and Barsoux J. (2002), “The Global Challenge “, Frameworks for International Human
Resource Management Boston, BcGraw-Hill. Examining the Relationship between Boundary Spanning
Communication and Individual Performance. Decision Sciences, Vol. 34 (2), p 261.
37. Furrer,O ; Liu, B . S.C. and Sudharshan, D. (2000), “The relationships between culture and service quality
perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 2(4), pp 355- 371.
38. Gregory, J. R., (1999), “Branding the merger, merging the brands”, Business Week, pp 1-12.
39. Han, J. K. and Schmitt, B. H. (1997), “Product-category dynamics and corporate identity in brand extensions:
A comparison of Hong Kong and US consumers”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 5(1). pp 77- 92.
40. Hem, Leif E., and Nina M. Iversen (2009), “Effects of Different Types of Perceived Similarity and Subjective
Knowledge in Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” International Journal of Market Research, Vol.51(6),
pp797-818.
41. Henseler, J., Horváth, C., Sarstedt, M., & Zimmermann, L. (2010), “A cross-cultural comparison of brand
extension success factors: A meta-study”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.18 (1), pp 5-20.
42. Hofstede, G. (1980), “Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Attitudes”, Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
43. Hofstede, G. (1985), “The interaction Between National and Organizational Value Systems”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 22(4), pp 347-357.
44. Homburg, C. and Bucerius, M. (2005), “A marketing perspective on mergers and acquisitions: how marketing
integration affects post-merger performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 95-113.
45. Hsiang-Ming, L., Ching-Chi, L., & Cou-Chen, W. (2011), “Brand image strategy affects brand equity after
M&A”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45(7),
46. Hsieh, Ming H. (2002), “Identifying Brand Image Dimensionality and Measuring the Degree of Brand
Globalization: A Cross-National Study,” Journal of International Marketing. Vol. 10 (2), pp 46–67.
47. Hunt, Shelby D. (2000), A General Theory of Competition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. IBM (2010), “How our future leader comfortable with complexity?”, CEO Report, IBM, Armonk, NY, p
10504.
49. Ille, F. R., & Chailan, C. (2011). Improving global competitiveness with branding strategy”, Journal of
Technology Management in China,Vol. 6(1), pp 84-96.
50. Iversen, N.M. and Hem, L.E. (2008), “Provenance associations as core values of place umbrella brand a
framework of characteristics”, EurNg, Sharon (2010), “Cultural Orientation and Brand Dilution: Impact of
Motivation Level and Extension Typicality,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 (1),pp 186–198.
51. Jaju, A., Joiner, C. and Reddy, S.K. (2006), “Consumers’ evaluations of corporate brand redeployments”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 (2), pp. 206-15.
52. Jones, J.P. (2004), Behind Powerful Brands: From Strategy to Campaign, TMH, New Delhi.
53. Kahn, B.E. and Isen, A.M. (1993), “The inßuence of positive effect on variety seeking among safe, enjoyable
products”, Journal of Consumer Research”, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 257-70.
54. Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal
of Marketing, Vol 57 (1), pp 1–22.
55. Khanna, T., Palepu, K. and Bullock, R. (2008), “House of Tata: Acquiring a Global Footprint”, Case 9-708-
446, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
56. Klink, Richard R., and Daniel C. Smith (2001), “Threats to the External Validity of Brand Extension
Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 (3), pp 326–335.
57. Klein, Jill G. (2002), “Us Versus Them, or Us Versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer Aversion to Foreign
Goods,” Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 (2), 345–363.
58. Kotler, Philip (1990), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control, 7th ed.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
59. Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M.J., Herrman, A., Huber, F., Huber, S. and Lee, D.J. (2006), “Direct and indirect
effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59(9), pp. 955-64.
60. Krueger, Dale, and Shiva Nandan (2008), “Branding in the Global Arena: The Role of Culture,” Marketing
Management Journal, Vol.18 (1), pp 30–38.
174 Antecedents of Branded House Architecture in Brand Acquisition ...

61. Kumar, N., Motrapatra, P.K. and Chandrasekhar, S. (2009), “India’s Global Powerhouses, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA, March.
62. Lau, K.C. and Phau, I. (2007), “Extending symbolic brands using their personality: examining antecedents and
implications towards brand image Þt and brand dilution”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24(5), pp 421-44.
63. Larc¸on, J.P. and Haier (2010), “La Nouvelle Strate´gie Europe´enne”, Chine Plus, Vol. 15, p. 43.
64. Mata, Jose, and Pedro Portugal (2002), “The Survival of New Domestic and Foreign-Owned Firms,” Strategic
Management Journal, Vol.23 (4), pp 323–343.
65. McCarthy, Michael, Timothy B. Heath, and Sandra J. Milberg (2001), “New Brands versus Brand Extensions,
Attitudes versus Choice: Experimental Evidence for Theory and Practice,”
66. Marketing Letters, Vol.12 (1), pp 75–90.
67. Mercer, J., (2010), “A mark of distinction: Branding and trade mark law in the UK from the 1860s.” Business
History, Vol. 52(1), pp.17-42.
68. Monga, A.B. and John, D. R. (2007), “Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The inßuence of
analytic versus holistic thinking”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.33(4), pp 529-536.
69. Muzellec, L., Doogan, M., and Lambkin, M. (2003), “Corporate Re-branding- An Exploratory Review”, Irish
Marketing Review, Vol. 16, pp 31-41.
70. Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. (2006), “Corporate Re-branding: destroying, Transferring or creating brand
equity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 (7/8), pp 803-824.
71. Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, Mary C. (2008), “Corporate rebranding and the implications for brand architecture
management: the case of Guinness (Diageo) Ireland”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 16 (4), pp.283-299
72. Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. C., (2009), “Corporate branding and brand architecture: a conceptual
framework”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9(1), pp. 39-54.
73. Nan, Xiaoli (2006), “Affective Cues and Brand-Extension Evaluation: Exploring the Influence of Attitude
Toward the Parent Brand and Attitude Toward the Extension Ad,” Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 (7),
597–616.
74. Ng, Sharon (2010), “Cultural Orientation and Brand Dilution: Impact of Motivation Level and Extension
Typicality,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 (1), 186–198.
75. Nijssen, Edwin J., and Clara Agustin (2005), “Brand Extensions: A Manager’s Perspective,” Brand
Management, 13 (1), 33–49.
76. Olavarrieta, S., Torres, E., Va´squez-Parraga, A. and Barra, C. (2009), “Derived versus full name brand
extensions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62(9), pp 899-905.
77. Palumbo, F. and Herbig, P. (2000), “The multicultural context of brand loyalty”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol.3(3), pp 116-124.
78. Petburikul, K., (2009), “The impact of Corporate Re-branding on brand equity and firm performance”, RU
International Journal, Vol. 3(1).
79. Phau, I. and Lau, K.C. (2000), “Conceptualizing brand personality: a review and research propositions”,
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 9(1) pp. 52-69.
80. Ramo, J.C. (2007), Brand China, Foreign Policy Centre, London.
81. Sattler, H. & Völckner, F. & Riediger, C. & M.Ringle, C. (2010) “The impact of brand extension success
drivers on brand extension price premiums”, International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol 27, pp
319-328.
82. Scherer, Frederic M. (1980), “Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance”, 2d ed., Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
83. Schneider, S. C., (1988), “National Vs. Corporate Culture: Implications for Human Resource Management”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 27(2), pp 231-246.
84. Schweizer, L. (2005), “Organization integration of acquired biotechnology companies into pharmaceutical
companies: the need for a hybrid approach”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48(6), pp. 1051-74.
85. Shahrokh, Z. D., Sedghiani, J. S., & Ghasemi, V. (2012), “Analyzing the influence of customer attitude toward
brand extension on attitude toward parent brand”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, Vol. 3(9), pp 1133-1148.
 Arup Barua and Alexandra Ioanid 175

86. Singh, S. (2006), “Cultural differences in, and inßuences on, consumers’ propensity to adopt innovations.
International Marketing Review, Vol. 23(2), pp173-191.
87. Staelin, Richard (2005), “Influencing the Practice through Big New Ideas,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.69, pp
21–22.
88. Swaminathan, Anand (2001), “Resource Partitioning and the Evolution of Specialist Organizations: The Role
of Location and Identity in the U.S. Wine Industry,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44 (6), pp 1169–
1185.
89. Taylor, V. A. and Bearden, W. O. (2003), “Ad spending on brand extensions: does similarity matter?”, brand
management journal. Vol. 11(1), pp 63–74.
90. Toften, Kjell, and Trond Hammervoll (2009), “Niche Firms and Marketing Strategy,” European Journal of
Marketing, 43 (11–12), 1378–1391.
91. Tucker, P. (2006), “Made in China: branding a new image: from manufacturer to major marketer Brand China
is set to boom”, The Futurist.
92. Tybout, A.M. and Calkins, T. (2005), “Kellogg on Branding: The Marketing Faculty of the Kellogg School of
Management”, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
93. Varadarajan, P. Rajan, Satish Jayachandran, and J. Chris White (2001), “Strategic Interdependence in
Organizations: Decon-glomeration and Marketing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.65 (1), pp 15–28.
94. Volckner, Franziska, and Henrik Sattler (2006), “Drivers of Brand Extension Success,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol.70 (2), pp 18–34.
95. Vanhonacker, W.R. (2007), “Brand extension naming strategies: an exploratory study of theimpact of brand
traits”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18 (1), pp. 61-72.
96. Véronique, P. D., & Raluca, M. D. (2012), “Brand name substitution and brand equity transfer”, The Journal
of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 21(2), pp 117-125.
97. Volckner, Franziska, and Henrik Sattler (2006), “Drivers of Brand Extension Success,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 70 (2), pp 18–34.
98. Völckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2006), “Drivers of brand extension success”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.70 (2),
pp18-34.
99. Wei, X. and Li, H.R. (2009), “What will make China an innovation-oriented country?” Journal of Knowledge-
Based Innovation in China, Vol. 1(1), pp. 8-15.
100. Wheeler, Alina. (2006), “Designing brand identity: a complete guide to creating, Building and maintaining
strong brand” 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.
101. Xie, Y. H. (2012), “Foreign firms’ brand extensions in a host market: strategic factors in the international
branding strategy”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20(1), pp 105-118.
102. Yorkston, Eric A., Joseph C. Nunes, and Shashi Matta (2010), “The Malleable Brand: The Role of Implicit
Theories in Evaluating Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 (1), pp 80–93.
103. Zhao, Hongxin, and Shaoming Zou (2002), “The Impact of Industry Concentration and Firm Location on
Export Propensity and Intensity: An Empirical Analysis of Chinese Manufacturing Firm,” Journal of
International Marketing, Vol.10 (1), pp 52–71.
104. Zhu, Ting, Vishal Singh, and Mark D. Manuszak (2009), “Market Structure and Competition in the Retail
Discount Industry,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 (4), pp 453–466.
105. Zhu, Z., and Huang, H., (2007), “The cultural integration in the process of cross-border mergers and
acquisitions”, International Management Review, Vol. 3(2), pp 40-44.
106. Zou S, David M. Andrus, and D. Wayne Norvell (1997), “Standardization of International Marketing Strategy
by Firms from a Developing Country,” International Marketing Review, Vol.14 (2), pp 107–123.