Brand Synergy Effects in Multiple Brand Extensions

Transcription

1 BYUNG CHUL SHINE, JONGWON PARK, and ROBERT S. WYER JR.* Three experiments demonstrate that the simultaneous introduction of two brand extensions can have a positive influence on their evaluations independently of parent extension similarity. This synergy effect occurs when the extensions are complementary (e.g., a digital camera and a digital photo printer) but is not evident when they belong to the same category (two models of digital cameras) or to unrelated categories (a digital camera and a snowboard). In addition, the effect is restricted to extension products that are introduced by the same manufacturer. Finally, it occurs only among participants who are promotion focused and therefore are disposed to consider the benefits of owning the extensions rather than the disadvantages of doing so. These and other results suggest that the synergy effect is due to the appeal of completing a set of related products from the same manufacturer rather than the physical or functional similarity of their features to those of either the parent or each other. Brand Synergy Effects in Multiple Brand Extensions The evaluation of a brand extension often depends on its physical, conceptual, or contextual similarity to the parent brand (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990; Barone, Miniard, and Romeo 2000; Bottomley and Holden 2001; Broniarczyk and Alba 1994; Martin and Stewart 2001; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991; Park, Kim, and Kim 2002; Yeo and Park 2006). However, additional considerations arise when marketers introduce multiple extensions of a brand in close temporal proximity. In this case, the extensions can sometimes have synergistic effects on evaluations of each other independently of their similarity to the parent, leading both *Byung Chul Shine is president, Bridge Laboratory, and a research associate, Korea University Business School, Korea University, Seoul ( bcshin03@naver.com). Jongwon Park is Professor of Marketing, Korea University Business School, Korea University, Seoul ( amadeus@korea.ac.kr). Robert S. Wyer Jr. is a visiting professor, Department of Marketing, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology ( mkwyer@ust.hk). This article is partially based on the dissertation research conducted by Byung Chul Shine under the supervision of Jongwon Park. The authors gratefully acknowledge members of the Korea University B.E.S.T. Marketing Group for their valuable suggestions regarding the theoretical basis for the study and the interpretation of the results. They also thank Darren Dahl, Kyeongheui Kim, and C.W. Park for insightful comments on prior versions of this article. This research was supported by the SK Research Grant of Korea University Business School to Jongwon Park. Jennifer Aaker served as guest associate editor for this article. To read and contribute to reader and author dialogue on JMR, visit to be evaluated more favorably than they would if each were considered in isolation. The experiments we report in this article identify conditions in which this synergy occurs and examine processes that give rise to it. They show that even though extensions differ considerably from the parent-brand category, they are evaluated more favorably if they are promoted together and are complementary that is, if the availability of one (e.g., a digital camera) increases the attractiveness of the other (e.g., a digital photo printer). However, this finding is not evident when the extensions belong to either the same product category (e.g., two models of digital cameras) or unrelated categories (e.g., a digital camera and a snowboard). Furthermore, the effect is restricted to conditions in which the same manufacturer introduces the extensions; it does not occur when the extensions are advertised as a unit but are associated with different manufacturers. Finally, it is evident only among people who have a disposition to focus on the benefits of behavioral alternatives rather than their costs. We elaborate on the processes that underlie these effects in the following section. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND We use the term synergy to describe the mutually beneficial effect of brand extensions on their evaluations. Synergy occurs when the value of a set of elements in combination exceeds the sum of the values that the elements would have if they occurred in isolation. Thus, suppose that V A is the value of A alone, V B is the value of B alone, and V A+ B 2007, American Marketing Association ISSN: (print), (electronic) 663 Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XLIV (November 2007),

2 664 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 2007 is the sum of their values when A and B are considered in combination. Then, (1) Synergy = V A+ B (V A + V B )> 0. In this context, synergy occurs if the evaluation of two extension products in combination is greater than the sum of the evaluations of the products if each were introduced in isolation. This definition of synergy does not require that values of both A and B increase by virtue of being combined. According to Equation 1, synergy would be evident even if one of the two extensions were valued less than it would be in isolation, as long as this decrease in value of the element is less than the increase in value of the extension that accompanies it. In the current research, however, we apply a more stringent criterion. That is, we assume the existence of synergy effects if and only if two extensions, A and B, are both evaluated more favorably when they are introduced together than when they are introduced in isolation. We propose that when consumers consider two or more brand extensions in temporal contiguity, they consider not only the extensions similarities to the parent but also their relation to each other. When the two extensions are similar in type and function (e.g., two high-speed printers), consumers may compare their specific features and decide which they prefer. In some cases, however, extensions may not be substitutes for each other but rather may be complementary. That is, the products are used for different purposes, but the availability of one increases the desirability of having the other (Chakravarti, MacInnis, and Nakamoto 1991; Martin and Stewart 2001). For example, the value of a camera lens might be increased by the availability of highquality film. At the same time, good film is more important when high-quality equipment is available that can take advantage of it. There are two ways that complementarity might come into play. First, according to the attribute-accessibility hypothesis, the exposure to two complementary products in close temporal proximity may stimulate recipients to imagine how the products might be used in combination and how the benefits might be derived from this use. In turn, this cognitive activity may call attention to benefits that might not have been considered if the products had been presented in isolation. As a result, the extensions might be evaluated more favorably than they would have otherwise. Note that if this hypothesis is correct, the two products under consideration do not need to be brand extensions at all, as long as one of the products is salient at the time the other is considered. However, there is a second possibility. The setcompletion hypothesis applies only when products are extensions of the same parent brand. That is, multiple extensions from a given company activate thoughts about the desirability of having several related products from the same firm. This is particularly true of high-tech products that are more likely to be compatible if the same company manufactures them. In this case, a company that produces two complementary extensions may signal that it is seriously committed to the development of a product line to which the extensions belong and has the expertise required to do so. More generally, however, consumers may simply find it more psychologically pleasing to possess a set of products that are used in a particular life domain if these products come from the same manufacturer. This perception could also increase the attractiveness of complementary extensions compared with ones that are in different product domains. The two aforementioned hypotheses have different implications for the conditions in which synergy occurs. The attribute-accessibility hypothesis implies that complementary extensions produce synergy even if the extensions are associated with different manufacturers, provided that the extensions are mentioned in the same context. In contrast, the effects implied by the set-completion hypothesis are restricted to complementary extensions from the same firm. An implicit assumption of the set-completion hypothesis is worth noting. Specifically, the hypothesis assumes that synergy effects result from the intrinsic appeal of having a set of complementary products of the same brand, independently of any undesirable features that the individual extensions might have. If this is so, the effects should be particularly evident among consumers with an a priori disposition to base their decisions on positive features of choice alternatives (a promotion focus) rather than negative ones (a prevention focus). Both situational and individual differences exist in these dispositions (Higgins 1997). For example, promotion-focused people may be relatively more likely to choose alternatives with high positive values along an attribute dimension, even though they have equally extreme negative values along other dimensions (Briley, Morris, and Simonson 2000, 2005). Furthermore, when this disposition is activated, it generalizes across situations and task domains (Briley and Wyer 2002). If this is so, the synergy effects implied by the set-completion hypothesis should be more pronounced among promotion-focused people than among prevention-focused people. Three experiments investigate these possibilities. Experiment 1 demonstrates that synergistic effects on evaluations of complementary brand extensions occur beyond the effects of parent extension similarity. Experiment 2 distinguishes between the attribute-accessibility hypothesis and the set-completion hypothesis. Finally, Experiment 3 confirms our expectation that synergy is more evident under conditions in which people are promotion focused than under conditions in which people are prevention focused. EXPERIMENT 1 Participants in Experiment 1 examined a mock print advertisement for a brand extension of Xerox, a well-known brand of photocopiers. The target extension was physically either somewhat similar (digital photo printer or digital camera) or extremely dissimilar (snowboard or snowboard boots) to the parent-brand category. In addition, the target extension was introduced (1) alone; (2) in combination with a second, complementary extension; or (3) in combination with a second, unrelated extension. After reading the materials, participants evaluated the target extension. We expected that evaluations of the target extension would increase with parent extension similarity, thus replicating the results of prior studies (Aaker 2002). However, our central hypothesis was that synergy effects would occur as well and would be independent of parent extension similarity. That is, the target extension should be evaluated more favorably when it is introduced along with a complementary extension than when it is introduced in isolation. How-

3 Brand Synergy Effects 665 ever, it is conceivable that evaluations of a given extension might increase with the sheer number of extensions presented simultaneously, regardless of the complementary nature among them. If so, the synergy effect should occur even when the two extensions are unrelated to each other. If the synergy effect depends on the complementary nature of the extensions, however, the effect should not occur in this situation. As we show, this was indeed the case. Method Participants and design. A total of 252 undergraduate students were asked to examine a mock advertisement for a target extension of Xerox. The experimental design was a 2 (parent extension similarity) 3 (ad type: single versus complementary versus unrelated) factorial, and the specific extension being evaluated served as an additional, counterbalancing variable. Construction of stimulus materials. We used Xerox as the parent brand. To prepare a set of brand extensions that varied systematically in terms of both similarity to the parent and their complementarity, we selected four target extensions. Two targets (a digital camera and a digital photo printer) were similar to the parent and two (a snowboard and snowboard boots) were dissimilar. Four sets of three advertisements were then constructed. Each set pertained to a different one of these products. In two sets, the target was similar to the parent. In one, the target was a digital camera, and the advertisements referred to this product alone (single-extension conditions), to both this product and a digital photo printer (complementary-extension conditions), or to both this product and a snowboard (unrelatedextension conditions). In the other set, the digital photo printer was described alone, with the digital camera, or with snowboard boots. In two other sets, the target was dissimilar to the parent. In one, the snowboard was presented alone, with snowboard boots, or with a digital camera, and in the other, snowboard boots were presented alone, with the snowboard, or with the digital photo printer. In combination, the four sets of advertisements comprised two replications of a 2 (parent extension similarity) 3 (ad type: single versus complementary versus unrelated) design. Procedure. The study was introduced as part of a survey regarding consumer evaluations of various new products. Participants were told that (1) they would be shown a print advertisement for a product that was soon to be introduced by Xerox and (2) they would then be asked to complete a series of questions about the advertised product. All participants then read a brief description of the parent brand, after which they were given a print advertisement that introduced the target extension and, under complementary- and unrelated-extension conditions, a second extension as well. After examining the advertisement, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that assessed their reactions to the advertisement. Participants in the single-extension conditions reported their evaluations of the extension along three scales frequently employed in previous brand extension research (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990); the scales ranged from 1 ( very bad/very poor quality/very inferior ) to 7 ( very good/very good quality/very superior ). Participants in the complementary-extension and unrelated-extension conditions rated only one of the two extension products shown in the advertisement (the tar- get). (We counterbalanced the particular extension selected as the target.) We averaged responses to the three items into a composite index of extension evaluations (α =.92). Participants then evaluated the quality of the advertisement along two scales ranging from 1 ( very bad/very dislikeable ) to 7 ( very good/very likeable ). We averaged ratings along the two scales (r =.83) to provide a single index of ad evaluations. After this, participants rated perceptions of parent extension similarity along a scale ranging from 1 ( very dissimilar ) to 7 ( very similar ). Finally, before the experiment, we measured participants preexisting attitudes toward Xerox along three scales ranging from 1 ( very bad/very poor quality/very inferior ) to 7 ( very good/very good quality/very superior ). In the analyses reported subsequently, we used the average score of these ratings as a covariate to control for individual differences in parent-brand evaluations (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990). Results Perceived similarity of extension. Participants perceived the extension as more similar to the parent-brand category in the similar-extension condition than in the dissimilarextension condition (4.16 versus 2.00; F(1, 246) = , p <.001). Evaluations of the target extension. Extension evaluations, pooled over target extension replications, 1 appear in Table 1 as a function of ad type and parent extension similarity. We analyzed evaluations as a function of these variables, including participants preexisting attitudes toward the parent brand as a covariate. Not surprisingly, the covariate had a positive influence on extension evaluations (F(1, 244) = 18.99, p <.001). Moreover, participants evaluated extensions more favorably when they were similar to the parent-brand category (M = 4.27) than when they were dissimilar (M = 2.92; F(1, 244) = , p <.001). This was true regardless of ad-type conditions (F < 1). Of greater theoretical interest is the significant effect of ad type (F(2, 244) = 3.43, p <.05). As Table 1 shows, target extensions were evaluated more favorably when they were accompanied by a complementary extension (M = 3.83) than when they were presented in isolation (M = 3.42; F(1, 244) = 6.18, p <.05). In contrast, evaluations of the target in unrelated-extension conditions were significantly less favorable than evaluations in complementary-extension 1This replication factor did not appreciably influence any of the results bearing on the hypothesized synergy effects (all Fs <.98). Table 1 MEAN VALUES OF DEPENDENT MEASURES AS A FUNCTION OF AD TYPE AND PARENT-EXTENSION SIMILARITY (EXPERIMENT 1) Ad-Type Conditions Complementary Unrelated Single Dependent Measures Extension Extension Extension Evaluations of Target Extension Similar extension Dissimilar extension Total Evaluations of Advertisement

4 666 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 2007 conditions (3.83 versus 3.54; F(1, 244) = 3.73, p <.05) and did not differ from evaluations in single-extension conditions (3.54 versus 3.42, F < 1). These differences did not depend on whether the extensions were similar to the parent or dissimilar to it (F < 1). Among other things, these results argue against the possibility that the synergy effect is simply a function of the sheer number of extensions presented simultaneously. Ad evaluations. Participants perceptions of the ad quality did not significantly vary over the three ad-type conditions (F(2, 249) = 2.64, p >.05). Thus, participants evaluations of the extension were not simply a reflection of their attitudes toward the advertisement that promoted it. EXPERIMENT 2 Experiment 1 demonstrated the synergy effect of complementary extensions, which was independent of parent extension similarity. However, the results do not distinguish between the two alternative hypotheses regarding the reasons for the effect. To reiterate, the attribute-accessibility hypothesis assumes that exposure to two complementary products may stimulate recipients to consider benefits they might not have considered if the products had been presented in isolation, and these considerations may increase the favorableness of their evaluations. However, these effects could occur regardless of whether extensions are made by the same company or different ones. In contrast, the cognitive processes implied by the setcompletion hypothesis are restricted to conditions in which extension products are made by the same manufacturer. That is, participants may prefer products that are part of a set and are made by the same company because they signal the firm s strong commitment to the new product area, or more generally, consumers may believe that a set of related products from the same company is intrinsically appealing. By manipulating experimentally whether the same parent brand or different ones introduced the extension products that participants considered, we were able to distinguish between these hypotheses. Method Participants in Experiment 2 were exposed to an advertisement for either one or two extension products in a category that was similar to that of the parent brand. In sameparent extension conditions, the advertisement presented two complementary-extension products from the same company (a digital camera and a digital photo printer that were both made by Xerox or were both made by IBM). In different-parent extension conditions, however, participants were told that they would receive a retail advertisement featuring digital photo equipment. In this advertisement, only the target product was an extension of the parent brand, whereas the other was an extension of another, equally favorable brand. Thus, the target and context might be described either as a Xerox digital camera and an IBM digital photo printer or as a Xerox digital photo printer and an IBM digital camera. We also counterbalanced the brand names associated with these products over conditions. In single-extension conditions, only one extension was advertised, and we also counterbalanced the manufacturer and product type. Participants and design. A total of 214 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to 6 cells, representing each combination of a 2 (parent brand: Xerox versus IBM) 3 (ad type: same parent versus different parent versus single extension) factorial. We counterbalanced the particular extension product being used as a target within each condition. 2 Procedure. The procedure for administering stimulus materials and the assessment of dependent variables were identical to those of Experiment 1. In addition, however, we obtained supplementary data on the factors that might mediate these evaluations. Participants reported their agreement with several items on scales ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Three of these items ( I think this product has excellent benefits, Excellent features of the product come to mind easily, and It is clear what this product can do for me ) pertained to the salience of the product s benefits. Three others ( [This firm] is strongly motivated to succeed in the new industry, [This firm] must be strongly committed to the new product, and [This firm] seems to just want to experiment on a new product [reverse coded]) pertained to the firm s commitment to entering the market. We averaged the items in each set to form a composite index of each factor. Results If synergy results from the salience of product benefits that are activated by two complementary products, participants should evaluate extensions more favorably in both the same-parent and the different-parent conditions than in the single-extension conditions, and their evaluations in the former two conditions should not appreciably differ. If the setcompletion hypothesis is correct, however, participants should evaluate extensions more favorably in the sameparent conditions than in the different-parent conditions, and evaluations in the latter conditions should not differ appreciably from evaluations in the single-extension conditions. The results are clearly more consistent with the setcompletion hypothesis. Analyses of extension evaluations as a function of parent brand (Xerox versus IBM) and ad type (same parent versus different parent versus single extension) 3 revealed a significant main effect of ad type (F(2, 207) = 3.78, p <.05) that did not depend on the parent brand (F < 1). Specifically, participants evaluated the target more favorably when the complementary product accompanying it was an extension of the same parent brand (4.70) than either when it was an extension of a different one (4.30; F(1, 207) = 3.96, p <.05) or when the target extension was presented alone (4.17; F(1, 207) = 7.02, p <.01), whereas the evaluations in the latter two conditions did not differ (F < 1). These effects, similar to those reported in Experiment 1, cannot easily be attributed to differences in reactions to the advertisements themselves. That is, participants evaluated the ad quality similarly regardless of the ad-type conditions 2The target extension counterbalancing had no impact on the hypothesized effect (F = 1.24, p =.29), so we do not discuss this variable further. 3Supplementary analyses in which we controlled for preexisting attitudes yielded virtually identical conclusions.

5 Brand Synergy Effects 667 (F < 1). Nor can the results be explained by the attributeaccessibility hypothesis. Participants judgments of product benefit did not significantly vary over the three ad-type conditions (F(2, 207) = 1.68, p >.10). The effect of ad-type conditions on judgments of the firms commitment was also nonsignificant (F < 1). EXPERIMENT 3 Experiment 2 confirmed the conclusion that the synergy effect of complementary brand extensions is largely due to processes implied by the set-completion hypothesis. Experiment 3 evaluates further implications of this hypothesis. We added a condition in which the extensions were similar to each other (e.g., two models of snowboards) rather than complementary. If the synergy effect is simply a function of category similarity among extensions, it should be evident in this condition as well as when the extensions are complementary. As we show, however, this was not the case. In addition, we evaluated a more subtle implication of the set-completion hypothesis. As we noted previously, the assumption that participants preferences for complementary extensions are due to the inherent appeal of owning a set of compatible extensions from the same manufacturer should be valid only among people who are particularly attentive to the potential benefits that are derived from owning the extensions rather than to the extensions disadvantages. If this is so, synergy effects should be particularly evident among people who are disposed on a priori grounds to be promotion focused (Higgins 1997). Therefore, we hypothesized that promotion-focused participants would attach greater emphasis on the desirability of owning complementary extensions and, therefore, would be more likely to show a synergy effect than prevention-focused participants (i.e., a disposition to focus on negative consequences of decisions). Method Participants in Experiment 3 considered one of two parent brands (Xerox versus Nike) and a target extension that was dissimilar to the parent-brand category (i.e., either a snowboard or snowboard boots if the parent brand was Xerox and either a digital camera or a digital photo printer if the parent brand was Nike). However, the advertisement referred to (1) the target extension alone, (2) the target and another complementary extension, (3) the target and another extension in the same category, or (4) the target and an unrelated extension. (Thus, for example, if the target extension was a snowboard, the advertisement referred to a snowboard alone, to a snowboard and a pair of snowboard boots, to two models of snowboards, or to a snowboard and a digital camera. Likewise, if the target extension was a digital camera, the advertisement referred to a digital camera alone, to a digital camera and a digital photo printer, to two models of digital cameras, or to a digital camera and a snowboard.) The specific target and extension products varied over participants within each condition in such a way that each product appeared as a target the same proportion of times in each of the four presentation conditions. Participants were introduced to the stimulus materials using instructions similar to those employed in previous studies, and after receiving the assigned advertisement, they evaluated the target product along the same scales used in these studies. In addition, however, they indicated whether they would consider purchasing the product along a scale from 1 ( would never consider it ) to 9 ( would definitively consider it ). This provided an index of purchase intentions. We assumed that participants disposition to focus on positive versus negative outcomes would be reflected by their differences in regulatory focus (Higgins 1997). To investigate the effects of this factor, we used two alternative strategies. In one case, we experimentally manipulated regulatory focus. Specifically, before participants were exposed to the product evaluation task, they performed a task that had been used successfully in other studies to induce a promotion focus or prevention focus experimentally (Higgins et al. 1994). In promotion-focus conditions, participants were asked to imagine and write down the things they wanted to achieve and the ways to accomplish them. In prevention-focus conditions, however, they were asked to write down things that were obstacles to their duties and obligations and the ways to avoid them. In the second set of conditions, we assessed regulatory focus. In these conditions, participants evaluated the target extension as in Experiments 1 and 2. Two days later, however, they returned to the experiment to complete a short survey that contained a measure of chronic regulatory focus (Higgins, Shah, and Friedman 1997). These participants were subsequently divided into a promotion-focus group and a prevention-focus group on the basis of a median split. A total of 193 undergraduate students participated to fulfill a course requirement. Of these, 97 participants took part in conditions that manipulated regulatory focus, and the remainder took part in conditions that assessed regulatory focus. In each case, participants were assigned to cells of a 2 (parent brand: Nike versus Xerox) 4 (ad type: single versus complementary versus same category versus unrelated category) 2 (regulatory focus: promotion focus versus prevention focus) design. We counterbalanced the particular extension product used as a target in each condition. Because neither the type of parent brand nor the target extension counterbalancing affected the hypothesized effects (Fs < 1), we do not discuss them further. Results We performed preliminary analyses on each dependent variable (extension evaluations, purchase intentions, and ad evaluations) as a function of ad type, regulatory focus, and method (whether regulatory focus was assessed or manipulated). Table 2 summarizes data that are relevant to the first two dependent variables. Although the effect of regulatory focus appears to be somewhat more pronounced when it was manipulated than when it was assessed, no effects of ad type or regulatory focus were significantly contingent on this variable (all Fs < 1.24, ps >.30). Indeed, the effect of regulatory focus was remarkably similar regardless of whether it was assessed or manipulated. Thus, for simplicity of exposition, we report data pooled over the two conditions. Extension evaluations. We summarize evaluations of the target extension in the top half of Table 2. The effect of ad type was significant (F(3, 177) = 9.32, p <.01), indicating a greater synergy effect in complementary-extension

6 668 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 2007 Table 2 MEAN EXTENSION EVALUATIONS AND PURCHASE INTENTIONS AS A FUNCTION OF AD TYPE AND REGULATORY FOCUS (EXPERIMENT 3) Product Evaluations Ad-Type Condition Dependent Measures/ Complementary Unrelated Same Single Regulatory Focus Extension Category Category Extension Promotion-Focus Conditions Manipulated Assessed Total 5.61 b 3.53 a 3.46 a 4.07 a Prevention-Focus Conditions Manipulated Assessed Total 3.96 a 3.18 b 4.07 a 4.45 a Purchase Intentions Ad-Type Condition Dependent Measures/ Complementary Unrelated Same Single Regulatory Focus Extension Category Category Extension Promotion-Focus Conditions Manipulated Assessed Total 4.90 b 2.87 a 2.46 a 3.21 a Prevention-Focus Conditions Manipulated Assessed Total 3.39 a 2.27 b 3.22 a * 3.44 a Notes: Means with unlike superscripts in a given row significantly differ at p <.05 (except that 3.22* in the row of purchase intentions by prevention focus differs from 2.27 at p =.07). conditions (M = 4.78) than in any of the other three extension conditions (averaged over these conditions, M = 3.63). However, the hypothesized interaction of ad type and regulatory focus was also significant (F(3, 177) = 6.11, p <.01), indicating that the aforementioned effects of ad type were evident only among promotion-focused participants. Pairwise comparisons (shown in Table 2) indicate that promotion-focused participants evaluated the target more favorably in complementary-extension conditions (M = 5.61) than in the unrelated-category conditions (M = 3.53), same-category conditions (M = 3.46), or single-extension conditions (M = 4.07), whereas the latter three conditions did not differ from one another (p >.10). In contrast, prevention-focused participants evaluated the target no differently in the complementary-extension conditions (M = 3.96) than in either the same-category extension conditions (M = 4.07) or the single-extension conditions (M = 4.45). Conversely, they evaluated the target significantly less favorably in the unrelated-extension conditions (3.18) than in each of the other three conditions (F(3, 177) = 3.95, p <.05). A comparison of the effect of regulatory focus in the complementary-extension conditions (5.61 versus 3.96) and its effect in the other three conditions combined (3.66 versus 3.86) was significant (F(1, 177) = 13.17, p <.001). Purchase intentions. The effects of experimental manipulations on purchase intentions (see the lower half of Table 2) are similar to their effects on extension evaluations. That is, in general, participants reported higher intentions to purchase the target in complementary conditions than in the other three extension conditions (F(3, 177) = 6.12, p <.001). As the interaction between ad type and regulatory focus shows (F(3, 177) = 3.32, p <.05), however, the effect was restricted to promotion-focused participants, as we expected. These participants reported higher purchase intentions in complementary-extension conditions (M = 4.90) than in any of the other three conditions (averaged over conditions, M = 2.85). In contrast, prevention-focused participants purchase intentions were no different in the complementary conditions (M = 3.39) than in either the same-category conditions or the single-extension conditions. Conversely, their intentions, as were their product evaluations, were lower in the unrelated-extension conditions (M = 2.27) than in any of the other conditions. These effects, as with those we report in Experiments 1 and 2, cannot easily be attributed to differences in reactions to the advertisements themselves. That is, an analysis of attitudes toward the ad yielded only a main effect of ad type (F(3, 177) = 3.40, p <.05). Furthermore, in general, these attitudes were less favorable in the unrelated-extension conditions (M = 2.78) than in the other three conditions (averaged over conditions, M = 3.45; F(1, 177) = 5.72, p <.05), which did not differ from one another (p >.10). GENERAL DISCUSSION Previous studies have shown that extension evaluations depend on the relationship between characteristics of the extension and those of the parent-brand category (Aaker and Keller 1990; Broniarczyk and Alba 1994; Park, Mil-

7 Brand Synergy Effects 669 berg, and Lawson 1991). These effects have usually been conceptualized in terms of categorization processes (Boush and Loken 1981; Meyers-Levy, Louie, and Curren 1994). That is, if an extension is perceived as belonging to the same product category as the parent, it may be evaluated as being similar to the parent in favorableness, independent of its specific attributes. However, the current experiments are among the first to demonstrate the extent to which an extension s evaluation can be influenced by other extensions that are introduced simultaneously. The synergistic effects we obtained are particularly noteworthy insofar as they occur even when the extension brand category is different from that of the parent, provided that the extensions themselves are complementary. This does not imply that parent extension similarity has no effect. As we found in Experiment 1, in general, extensions are evaluated more favorably if they are similar to the parent than if they are not, consistent with findings reported elsewhere (e.g., Aaker and Keller 1990; Bottomley and Holden 2001; Park, Milberg, and Lawson 1991). However, the synergistic impact of extensions is independent of parent extension similarity. Furthermore, it is not a function of the similarity of the extension products themselves. As Experiment 3 indicates, extensions that were in the same category (i.e., two models of a digital camera) were evaluated less favorably than extensions that were complementary to each other. We discussed two possible hypotheses regarding the factors that underlie the effects we identified: the attributeaccessibility hypothesis and the set-completion hypothesis. The presence of one extension might increase consumers attention to desirable features of other, complementary extensions that might otherwise not come to mind, leading the extensions to be evaluated more favorably for this reason. However, the feature-activation processes implied by the attribute-accessibility hypothesis should occur even when different manufacturers make the two extensions, provided that they are considered in combination. As Experiment 2 indicates, this was not the case. Thus, this hypothesis does not provide a viable explanation of the effects we observed in this research. Instead, the results are more consistent with the setcompletion hypothesis. That is, people evaluate complementary extensions from the same manufacturer more favorably than comparable extensions from different manufacturers, suggesting that a related set of products from a single manufacturer is viewed as inherently appealing. Experiment 2 provided support for this contention. That is, participants evaluated the target extension more favorably in the complementary-extension conditions than in other conditions. At the same time, they did not perceive the manufacturer as any more committed to making products in the area to which the extensions pertain. Thus, although the effect of synergy on judgments of multiple extensions is evident only when the same manufacturer makes the extensions, the effect is not due to perceptions of the manufacturer per se. This does not mean that the mutual influence of extensions on the salience of their features never contributes to synergy effects. However, the processes implied by the set-completion hypothesis are sufficient to account for them in the situations we investigated. It might be speculated that the synergy effect we obtained in the complementary conditions is simply due to stylistic similarity between the two extensions in the advertisement rather than to the complementary nature between them. Although this possibility cannot be entirely dismissed, we believe that it is unlikely. First, participants in Experiment 2 evaluated the target extension more favorably only in the same-parent conditions, though the advertisement in these conditions was identical to that in different-parent conditions, except for the brand names. Second, participants in Experiment 3 showed the synergy effect only in the complementary-extension conditions, though the two extensions in were more stylistically similar in the same-category extension conditions. Nonetheless, further research that manipulates the stylistic similarity of extensions independently of other factors may ultimately be useful. Finally, synergy effects are evident only when people are promotion focused. Such people are most likely to find a set of complementary extensions from the same manufacturer to be intrinsically appealing. Furthermore, this disposition can be either chronic or situationally induced. In either case, however, inducing participants to focus on negative consequences of a decision appears to override this disposition. Consequently, synergy effects are not apparent. This finding could explain why the synergy effect (i.e., the difference in extension evaluations under complementary-extension and single-extension conditions) that we identified in Experiments 1 and 2 (though statistically significant) was relatively small (M diff =.41 and.53 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). These experiments presumably included both prevention-focused and promotionfocused participants. When pooling these groups of participants, the overall synergy effect is likely to be diluted. Note that the synergy effect we observed in Experiment 3, averaged over promotion-focus conditions (M diff = 1.54) and prevention-focus conditions (M diff =.49), is.52, which is comparable to the difference observed in Experiments 1 and 2. An unexplained finding deserves particular mention. Although complementary extensions had a positive synergy effect on each other that was restricted to promotionfocused participants, unrelated extensions had a negative impact on evaluations of each other that was restricted to prevention-focused participants. The reason for this is unclear. However, perhaps prevention-focused participants, unlike promotion-focused participants, were primarily concerned with ensuring that the extensions were not incompatible. Thus, they responded negatively to unrelated products, which were most likely to have this characteristic. Several notable questions are made salient by the results of Experiment 3. First, although consumers promotion or prevention focus can be influenced by situational and individual difference variables of the sort we considered, these orientations could also be affected by the type of product being advertised and the features that are emphasized. In the current research, the products advertised were ones that consumers would normally evaluate on the basis of the benefits they would derive from owning and using them, and this may have induced an implicit promotion focus. Thus, the joint promotion of complementary extensions may be particularly likely to have the synergy effects we observed. However, some types of products (e.g., insurance, alarm systems) are often evaluated on the basis of their effectiveness in avoiding negative consequences. Advertisements for these products and features are likely to induce an

8 670 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, NOVEMBER 2007 implicit prevention focus. To this extent, Experiment 3 suggests that the joint advertising of complementary products of this type (e.g., burglar alarm versus fire alarm systems, health insurance versus home insurance) might not exhibit synergy effects. Second, a question arises as to how situational inductions of a promotion focus would influence the effects of advertisements for complementary extensions of this sort. If synergy effects result from the inherent appeal of having a set of products from the same company, and if inducing a promotion focus increases the tendency to consider this appeal, this focus should increase synergy effects even if the product s specific features are evaluated on the basis of prevention considerations. However, it is conceivable that inducing a promotion focus will decrease consumers general interest in products that emphasize prevention goals, and this could offset any influence that might result from synergy per se. These possibilities are of both theoretical and practical interest, and an empirical investigation of them would be worthwhile. Other considerations come into play in evaluating the generalizability of our findings. Practical considerations (e.g., the need to purchase a product with a specific feature) play a greater role in decisions in actual purchase situations than they do in laboratory simulations. Note also that though the products we considered in the unrelatedextension conditions were in different domains (e.g., photo products versus snowboard equipment), they were all relatively high tech. The extent to which similar results will occur when a manufacturer known for high-tech products develops a product line of a grossly different type (e.g., clothing, soft drinks) or a clothing manufacturer develops a product line in computer products is unclear. Nonetheless, the evidence that complementary product extensions can have a substantial impact on evaluations of each other, even when they are outside the range of apparent expertise of the company that manufactures them, is of both theoretical and practical importance. Further implications of this possibility are worth investigating. REFERENCES Aaker, David A. (2002), Building Strong Brands. London: Simon & Schuster. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions, Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), Barone, Michael J., Paul W. Miniard, and Jean B. Romeo (2000), The Influence of Positive Mood on Brand Extension Evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March), Bottomley, Paul A. and Stephen J.S. Holden (2001), De We Really Know How Consumers Evaluate Brand Extensions? Empirical Generalizations Based on Secondary Analysis of Eight Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (November), Boush, David M. and Barbara Loken (1991), A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (February), Briley, Donnel A., Michael W. Morris, and Itamar Simonson (2000), Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic Versus Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), ,, and (2005), Biculturals and Shifting Strategies: The Role of Language and Audience in Eliciting Cultural Styles of Decision-Making, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (4), and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2002), The Effect of Group Membership Salience on the Avoidance of Negative Outcomes: Implications for Social and Consumer Decisions, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Joseph W. Alba (1994), The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), Chakravarti, Dipankar, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Kent Nakamoto (1991), Product Category Perception, Elaborative Processing and Brand Name Extension Strategies, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Marvin Goldberg, Gerry Gorn, and Rick Pollay, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Higgins, E. Tory (1997), Beyond Pleasure and Pain, American Psychologist, 52 (12), , Christopher J.R. Roney, Ellen Crowe, and Charles Hymes (1994), Ideal Versus Ought Predictions for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (2), , James Shah, and Ronald Friedman (1997), Emotional Responses to Goal Attainment: Strength of Regulatory Focus as Moderator, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), Martin, Ingrid M. and David W. Stewart (2001), The Differential Impact of Goal Congruency on Attitudes, Intentions, and the Transfer of Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (November), Meyers-Levy, Joan, Therese A. Louie, and Mary T. Curren (1994), How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (February), Park, C. Whan, Sandra Milberg, and Robert Lawson (1991), Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September), Park, Jongwon, Kyeong-Heui Kim, and JungKeun Kim (2002), Acceptance of Brand Extensions: Interactive Influence of Product Category Similarity, Typicality of Claimed Benefits, and Brand Relationship Quality, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto, eds. Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, Yeo, Junsang and Jongwon Park (2006), Effects of Parent Extension Similarity and Self Regulatory Focus on Evaluations of Brand Extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (3),

9