How co-branding versus brand extensions drive consumers' evaluations of new products: A brand equity approach

Current research into co-branding and brand extensions indicates that these marketing strategies benefit firms, yet marketing literature examines the concepts only independently. This article reports the findings of two studies, conducted among 256 students, that compare the effectiveness of co-branding versus brand extension strategies. The comparison of these strategies, both individually and concurrently, considers consumers' attitudes, quality perceptions, and purchase intentions toward a new product (i.e., Bluetooth-enabled sunglasses). The first study reveals that the presence of at least one high-equity brand in co-branding strategy suffices to leverage consumers' evaluations of a new product. However, the findings of the second study indicate no significant differences between co-branding and brand extensions in terms of consumer evaluations of an identical product.     

Exogenous brand crises: brand infection and contamination

Marketing Letters - Although there is an established literature regarding brand transgressions, Covid-19 has highlighted the need to better understand exogenously created brand crises. We...     

Leveraging Virtual Attribute Experience in Video Games to Improve Brand Recall and Learning

This article extends the concept of virtual direct experience (VDE) from a product to an attribute as video gamers can virtually experience an attribute within a gaming environment. Using a 2 (VAE: present versus absent) x 2 (order of brand presentation: first or second) between subjects experimental design, we find that associating a brand with virtual attribute experience (VAE) by exposing consumers to the brand name and the virtual experience simultaneously has a positive effect on brand recall, brand extension acceptance, overall attitude, and purchase intention. In addition, our results demonstrate a significant interaction between VAE and telepresence on brand recall.     

Contextual and Competitive Interference: Inhibition or Facilitation?

Existing literature has found two sources of advertising interference, competitive and contextual, that decrease the effectiveness of an ad in a cluttered environment. However, to date, the negative impact of competitive and contextual interference has been examined independently. This research explores advertising effectiveness when these sources exist concurrently. Contrary to the supposition concerning the additive effects of both sources of interference when simultaneously present, our findings indicate that viewing ads for the same product category with similar executional elements leads to the dissipation of interference effects (Study 1). Consistent with the process rationale, when a product-brand cue (versus a picture cue) is provided, this novel effect disappears (Study 2). The implications of these findings for advertising are highlighted in the discussion section.     

Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow

A number of studies have demonstrated that a maximizer’s tendency to settle for only the best choice option leads them to discard the past and feel dissatisfied in the present. The current study, however, investigates whether maximizers’ quests for perfection blinds them toward the future. A study of 522 respondents drawn from a probabilistic sample of the US population examines a series of hypotheses related to how a maximizer views the future. Consistent with the resource slack theory (i.e., the overestimation of the amount of time that will be available in the future), maximization tendencies diminish the consumer’s ability to look ahead to the future, both directly and indirectly, through the intervening roles of both regret and polychronicity (i.e., multitasking). Maximizers do not estimate future task demand accurately as they associate strong feelings of regret with their previous choices and dismiss them as poor decisions. Additionally, low polychronicity hinders their capacity to set aside sufficient time resources to be devoted to future tasks when engrossed in a current task. Implications for managers and researchers are discussed before concluding with further research avenues and limitations.