Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

Do Prototypical Brands Facilitate or Impede the Introduction of Novel Extensions?
Frank Goedertier, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Belgium
Niraj Dawar, Ivey Business School, Canada
Maggie Geuens, Gent University, Belgium
Bert Weijters, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Belgium
Novel products, defined as unique innovations that are clearly distinct from other available alternatives, tend to have
high failure rates (Sethi and Iqbal, 2008). But successful novel products are often more profitable than incremental
innovations (Day, 2006), providing firms with an incentive to attempt novel innovation. Novel product failure is often
due to lack of consumer acceptance, rather than technological or product shortcomings (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). To
increase the acceptance of novel products, innovating firms may use a brand extension strategy - launching new
products under brand names that are already familiar to consumers. Benefits of this strategy include immediate
consumer awareness and a potential transfer of relevant brand associations (Tauber, 1988; Aaker, 1990).
Prototypical brands - those perceived by consumers to be most representative of their product category (Nedungadi and
Hutchinson, 1985) - are among the most familiar in any category. Prototypical brands are, by definition, also strongly
anchored in the product category of which they are the most representative and central exemplar (Nedungadi and
Hutchinson 1985). Researchers have argued that category anchoring may facilitate consumer acceptance of extensions
in categories close to the core category associated with the prototypical brand due to brand-category fit (i.e. the
extension‘s perceived similarity to the parent brand (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990), but may hinder acceptance of distant
extensions (Keller, 2008). However, past brand extension research has focused on products that are new-to-the-brand,
but not new-to-the-market. Since novel products by definition depart from consumers‘ current category representations,
the strong category anchoring of prototypical brands may hinder, rather than help acceptance of both for distant and
close extensions.
However, in the context of novel extensions, other features of prototypical brands might strongly influence their effect
on consumer acceptance. In addition to being highly familiar to consumers, and strongly anchored in their base
category, prototypical brands tend to also carry strong associations of quality and trustworthiness (Aaker and Keller
1990; Loken and Ward, 1990). In three studies we examine whether these trust associations can overcome consumers‘
perceived uncertainty about novel extensions, and whether these might offset a potential fit disadvantage.
Study 1
The objective of study 1 was to generate a set of brand stimuli that vary in brand prototypicality but have similar
awareness levels. Based on a pre-test (N = 28) 12 product categories, each associated by respondents with five to seven
familiar brands, were selected for inclusion in the online main survey (n=235; 49% male; 25-65 years), and12 brands
nested in four product categories were retained for further analyses: SUVs (Land Rover, Toyota, Opel), PCs: (Siemens,
Sony, IBM), Ketchup (Devos-Lemmens, Calvé, Heinz), and Photo cameras (Canon, HP, Sony). Study 1 also serves as a
preliminary investigation of the effect of brand prototypicality on the acceptance of novel extensions. Categorization
theory suggests a two-step brand extension evaluation process (Boush and Loken, 1991), wherein Step 1 consists of an
assessment of the fit between the parent brand and the extension product, and the second entails attitude transfer from
the brand to the extension product. In Study 1, we investigate whether brand prototypicality facilitates or hinders the
first step of this process for close novel extensions. A pre-test focus group (N = 8) identified a realistic, fictitious novel
(close) product for each of the product categories identified in the first pre-test. These innovation stimuli were included
in the main survey described above. Survey results show a significant positive effect of brand prototypicality on
perceived brand-product fit: B = .64 (t = 17.82, p < .001); brand awareness does not have a significant effect on
perceived brand-product fit (B = -.02, t = -.72, p = .466). Thus, after controlling for brand awareness, brand
prototypicality has a strong and significant positive impact on perceived brand-product fit.
Prototypicality has been conceptualized as the opposite of novelty or distinctiveness (Schifferstein and Hekkert, 2008;
Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998), suggesting a possible perceived fit conflict when prototypical brands are extended to
innovative products. Interestingly, the results of Study 1 suggest no such conflict. Even stronger, we find that brand
prototypicality increases fit perceptions between a brand and a close novel extension. Taking a brand extension research
perspective one could argue that when novel extensions are ‗close‘, consumers may perceive a level of category
coherence despite the extension‘s novelty (Bridges, Keller and Sood, 2000). Because perceived fit is an important driver
of innovation acceptance (e.g., Aaker and Keller, 1990; Loken and John, 1993), prototypicality probably also facilitates
consumer acceptance of close novel innovations. Insights from product innovation research, however, may offer an
alternative explanation. While brand extension research focuses on the effect of perceived brand-product fit to explain
consumer evaluations and acceptance of extensions (e.g. Boush and Loken 1991; Keller and Aaker, 1992), product
innovation research stresses the negative relation between consumers‘ perceived uncertainty about new products and
product acceptance (Ram and Sheth, 1989; Sorescu, Chandy, and Prabhu, 2003). In contrast to existing products, novel
products are perceived as risky, carrying uncertain outcomes (Ram and Sheth, 1989; Robertson, 1971; Golder and
Tellis, 1997). This uncertainty originates from perceived performance, physical, social, psychological, or financial risks
(Ram and Sheth, 1989). To overcome uncertainty, consumers engage in search behavior (Urbany, Dickson and Wilkie,
92