Journal of Product & Brand Management

Consumer evaluations on brand extensions: B2B brands extended into B2C markets
Sebnem Burnaz Pinar Bilgin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sebnem Burnaz Pinar Bilgin, (2011),"Consumer evaluations on brand extensions: B2B brands extended into B2C markets",
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 256 - 267
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421111148289
Downloaded on: 27 February 2016, At: 04:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5750 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)

Eva Martínez, José M. Pina, (2003),"The negative impact of brand extensions on parent brand image", Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 12 Iss 7 pp. 432-448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420310506001
F. Müge Arslan, Oylum Korkut Altuna, (2010),"The effect of brand extensions on product brand image", Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 19 Iss 3 pp. 170-180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421011046157
Abhishek Dwivedi, Bill Merrilees, (2013),"Brand-extension feedback effects: an Asian branding perspective", Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 Iss 2 pp. 321-340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555851311314086

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:365403 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions:
B2B brands extended into B2C markets
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
Faculty of Management, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine whether companies in business-to-business (B2B) markets can leverage their brands extended into business-to-
consumer (B2C) markets and how consumers evaluate these extensions.
Design/methodology/approach – A model is developed by combining Aaker and Keller’s brand extension model with theories from B2B branding as
well as other consumer branding literature, and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively to have an insight about how consumers evaluate brand
extensions.
Findings – In the context of B2B brand extensions into B2C markets, consumers use brand concept consistency, product-level relatedness and
transferability of skills and resources as major cues to evaluate extensions. Perceived quality, innovativeness and environmental concerns are also
relevant cues.
Practical implications – As a consequence of these findings, branding strategies that stretch B2B brands into the domain of consumer markets can be
successful in cases where consumers perceive a fit with respect to skills and resources, brand concept, and existing products, and when the parent
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)

brand is perceived as being high quality, innovative and environmentally responsible.

Originality/value – The main contribution of the study is to replicate the analysis of brand extension evaluation in a different context, namely B2B
brand extension into the B2C market.

Keywords Brand extension, B2B, B2C, Regression analysis, Business-to-business marketing, Consumer marketing, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
The changing market dynamics and severe competition of the
global economy have amplified the role of brands to an
incomparable level. Brand marketers seek ways to achieve
growth while reducing both the cost of new product
introductions as well as the risk of new product failures. A
popular way of launching new products has been brand
extensions to leverage the equity of an existing brand into a
new product category. The leverage of a strong brand name
can substantially reduce the risk of introducing a product in a
new market by providing consumers the familiarity of and
knowledge about an established brand. Also, brand extensions
can decrease the costs of gaining distribution and increase the
efficiency of promotional expenditures (Aaker and Keller,
1990). Brand extensions implying launching new products, a
key issue is to what extent these extensions are successful.
Keller (2003a) stated that:
[this] is not a question of whether a brand should be extended, but rather
where, when, and how it should be extended. Simply put: extend the brand
– if it is possible.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
20/4 (2011) 256– 267
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610421111148289]
Actually, over 80 percent of all new products are categorized
as brand extensions (Mortimer, 2003). This is not to say that
brand extensions are risk-free – it is crucial to know where the
“boundaries” of the brand are. For instance, whilst the
stretching attempt of deodorant brand Lynx into hair care
market was unsuccessful; Gillette, the razor brand of Procter
& Gamble, was a successful attempt to stretch into after shave
and deodorant markets. Thus, even if the product category of
the extension is intuitively related to the product category of
the parent brand, there can still be a lack of fit. Additionally,
brand extensions do not necessarily have to stick to their
parent category. The famous department store chain Marks &
Spencer launched financial services, although it was a totally
different area than retailing. It worked well, because its
customers associated both the parent brand and the financial
services with trust (Keller, 2003a, b).
Unfortunately, all discussions of branding are structured in
consumer marketing context. However, some of the world’s
most powerful brands are in business-to-business (B2B)
markets; such as ABB, Caterpillar, Cisco, DuPont, FedEx,
GE, Hewlett Packard, Intel and Boeing (Webster and Keller,
2004). The question then could be raised as follows: what if a
company wants to extend its B2B brand into consumer (B2C)
market? There are various examples about powerful B2C
brands, which have once been B2B brands and now serving as
consumer brands. For instance, global mobile phone brand
Nokia started out in forestry industry (B2B) in 1865, and
then began selling rubber boots in 1960s, and it was not
famous until it started making mobile phones in 1980s. Other
examples including Philips, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Caterpillar
and IBM underlines the fact that a stretch from B2B to the
B2C market is not that uncommon (Tang et al., 2008).
In order to determine whether a brand extension is able to
gain profit from its parent brand, it is essential to understand

256
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
how customers evaluate the extensions, since the success is
largely dependent on this evaluation (Klink and Smith, 2001).
A landmark study in this area was conducted by Aaker and
Keller in 1990, followed by various academic researches (Park
et al., 1991; Bottomley and Holden, 2001; Patro and Jaiswal,
2003; Völckner and Sattler, 2007). However, there is a
paucity of research investigating brand extensions into the
B2B markets. Recent researches are more focused on
corporate brand identity and communication of intangible
brand attributes. The study of Tang et al. (2008) on B2B
extension in information and communication technology
(ICT) industry in Taiwan is the major academic research that
the authors were benefited from.
The present study aims to investigate B2B brand extension
evaluation into the B2C market. The objectives of this
research can be stated as follows:
.
to determine whether a replication of Aaker and Keller’s
(1990) brand extension model is feasible in B2B context;
.
to examine whether factors evaluating brand extensions
can be successfully combined to form an effective model
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
for predicting extension acceptance in the research
context; and
.
to determine the relative importance of these factors
affecting the evaluation of brand extensions.
The study consisted of two consecutive research steps. First,
an exploratory research was undertaken and five mini focus
groups were conducted, each comprising a sample of five
people, to get insights of the consumers’ brand extension
evaluations and a take a general picture. The qualitative phase
was followed by a descriptive research using the survey
method and investigating the extent of the relationship
between selected variables. Hence, the quantitative phase
tried to formally assess the consumers’ evaluations of brand
extensions through measuring attitude for different variables.
Hypotheses were operationalized based on a developed model
adapted mainly from Aaker and Keller (1990).
2. Conceptual background
Keller and Aaker (1992) define brand extension as “the use of
an established brand name to enter new product categories or
classes”. Then an important body of empirical evidence was
developed on consumer attitude in respect of brand
extensions.
Studies that were conducted by Boush et al. (1987) and
Aaker and Keller (1990) respectively initiated systematic
research on consumer behavior towards brand extension.
While the research of Aaker and Keller (1990) has always
been showed as the landmark study of the field, many
replication studies followed them (e.g. Park et al., 1991;
Boush and Loken, 1991; Loken and John, 1993; Broniarczyk
and Alba, 1994; Dacin and Smith, 1994; Bottomley and
Holden, 2001; Klink and Smith, 2001; Balachander and
Ghose, 2003; Tang et al., 2008). These research findings have
also been treated from an applied managerial perspective.
Leveraging existing brand equity into new product
categories attempts to avoid the risk associated with
establishing a new brand, through convincing consumers
that the positive attributes associated with the original brand
are relevant to the new product and/or simply benefiting from
the awareness of the original brand. Aaker and Keller (1990)
proposed an attitude-based brand extension model where
257
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
factors influencing the success of the extension were: the
attitude toward the original brand (QUALITY), fit between
the original and extension product classes and perceived
difficulty of making the extension (DIFFICULTY). They also
defined three dimensions of “fit” as: the extent to which
consumers view two product classes as complements
(COMPLEMENT), the extent to which consumers view
two product classes as substitutes (SUBSTITUTE) and how
consumers view relationships (design or making) in product
manufacture (TRANSFER). Finally, the dependent variable
was “the attitude toward the extension, operationalized by the
average of the perceived quality of the extension and the
likelihood of trying the extension measures”.
Aaker and Keller (1990) hypothesized that “the consumer’s
attitude towards the brand extension is a positive function of
the quality of parent brand, the fit between the parent’ s brand
category and the extension category (measured in terms of the
transferability of skills and expertise from one category to the
other and the complementarity and substitutability of one
category and the other), the interactions of quality with three
fit variables, and the degree of difficulty in designing and
making a product in the extension category”. Formally, the
following model was tested:
Y ¼ a þ b1 Q þ b2 T þ b3 C þ b4 S þ b5 QT þ b6 QC þ b7 QS
þ b8 D þ 1
where the independent variables are Q ¼ Quality, T ¼ Transfer,
C ¼ Complement, S ¼ Substitute, D ¼ Difficult, a ¼ Intercept
and 1 ¼ Error term.
The dependent variable Y, as the consumers’ evaluation of
brand extension was measured with two variables: the
perceived overall quality of extension and the likelihood of
purchasing the extension. Average of these two variables was
used to represent the consumer’s evaluation of extension.
Aaker and Keller’s (1990) research provided valuable
insight into which extension constructs influence the attitude
of consumers towards the extended brand. Since, research on
the field has followed the seminal work around the world (e.g.
Sunde and Brodie (1993) in New Zealand; Nijssen and
Hartman (1994) in The Netherlands; Bottomley and Doyle
(1996) in UK; Van Riel et al. (2001) in The Netherlands,
Patro and Jaiswal (2003) in India). Despite the wide
acceptance and diffusion of Aaker and Keller’s (1990)
findings, almost all the replications gave varying results and
thus questioning the empirical generalizability of the original
findings.
2.1 Research motivation and hypotheses
As this study aims to offer a replication, the original model of
Aaker and Keller (1990) is modified in order to be consistent
with the scope of the study. The dependent variable is the
overall attitude towards the B2B brand extension into B2C
markets. It is predicted that “perceived quality”, “perceived
fit” and “perceived difficulty” variables influence brand
extension evaluation. First, the underlying assumptions of
the proposed research are discussed, and then hypotheses are
developed to test the direct and interaction effects of the
variables on consumer extension evaluations.
Perceived quality of parent brand
Zeithaml (1988) defines perceived quality as a global
assessment of a consumer’s judgment about the superiority
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
or excellence of a product. She concludes that perceived
quality is at a higher level of abstraction than a specific
attribute of a product. The impact of perceived quality on the
attitude towards the extension should be unambiguously
positive. If the brand is associated with high quality, the
extension should benefit; if it is associated with inferior
quality, the extension should be harmed (Aaker and Keller,
1990; Boush and Loken, 1991).
Besides, previous research on consumer evaluations of
brand extension – except for Aaker and Keller’s study –
shows that consumers’ brand extension evaluation largely
depends on the perceived quality judgment of the original
brand. Once the product is activated as a category, the
consumer will immediately infer cognitive judgments
associated with the product. If the product is associated
with high-perceived quality, the consumer’s memory rehearsal
about the new brand will center on pleasant thoughts in
relation with his expected value. As one’s perceptions of
quality towards the original brand increase, trust of the new
brand and satisfaction will also increase. Therefore, the
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Higher quality perceptions toward the B2B parent
brand are associated with more favorable attitudes
toward the brand extension into B2C market.
Perceived fit
A brand extension in a new product category is viewed as a
new instance that can be more or less similar to the brand.
The number of shared associations between the extension and
the brand characterizes perceived fit. TRANSFER is the first
dimension of “fit” and it pertains how consumers view
relationships not only in product usage, but also in product
manufacturing. Specifically, TRANSFER reflects the
perceived ability of any firm operating in a given product
class to make a product in another product class. It is
important whether the consumers feel that the people,
facilities, and skills a firm uses to make the original product
would “transfer” and be employed effectively in designing and
making the product extension or not. If not, the perceived
quality of the brand or beliefs about the brand in the original
product class may not transfer to the extension. In fact, if a
firm appears to be stretching excessively beyond its area of
competence, negative reactions might be stimulated and lead
to negative associations (Aaker and Keller, 1990).
Likewise, according to Boush and Loken (1991) that
influence associated with the parent brand is transferred to
the extension when the similarity between two products is
high. In conclusion, if consumers see a “fit” between the
brand and extended product, their quality perception will be
transferred to the extension. Thus, the second hypothesis is as
follows:
H2. The transfer of B2B parent brand’s perceived quality is
enhanced when the product classes fit together. (When
the fit is weak, then the transfer is inhibited.)
Two other dimensions of “fit” are COMPLEMENT and
SUBSTITUTE. If the parent brand product and the
extended product can be consumed or used jointly, then
they “complement” each other. Conversely, if the extended
product can be used instead of the parent brand product, they
“substitute” each other. However, Bottomley and Holden
(2001) state that only a few brand extensions represent true
258
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
substitutes. On the other hand, as B2B extension through
B2C market can be accepted as extra-sectoral movement, it is
not possible for the brand extension to substitute or
complement the original brand, since the customers of
parent B2B brand and extended consumer brand could be
possibly different. Hence, SUBSTITUTE dimension will be
omitted and COMPLEMENT dimension will be modified.
Broniarczyk and Alba (1994) propose an alternative
measure for complementarity stating that, consumer do not
only evaluate the brand extension based on the perceived
product category fit, but also that their assessment are driven
primarily by the associations of the brand. Thus, if consumer
perceives a brand extension to be relevant with the original
brand concept, the attitude towards the extension will be
positive. Park et al. (1991) also reveal that when consumers
evaluate a brand extension, they do not take into account only
information about the product features similarity, but also the
concept consistency between the brand concept and the
extension. The brand concept consistency is more about the
brand image than the physical features. The more the
consumers think the extension is consistent with the parent
brand concept or image, the more favorable their attitudes are
toward the extension. Thus, those extensions that are very
different physically from the parent product category can be
perceived as fitting with the parent brand, as long as they have
consistent images and concepts with the parent brand. Park
et al. (1991) found that rings could be a good extension for
Rolex but a bad extension for Timex, although these two
brands have the same parent product -watches-, but rings
were more consistent with the “luxury and high status” image.
The third hypothesis is put as:
H3. If the brand associations of the consumer brand
extension are consistent with brand concept of B2B
parent brand, the attitude toward the brand extension
is positive.
“Relatedness” is another word used to describe the “fit”
between the extension product and the original brand. Herr
et al. (1996) define it as “the strength of the association
between the brand’s parent category and the target extension
category”. They also indicate that relatedness is a similar
concept to “similarity”; it depends on the similarity of
common features, complementarities in a common-usage
situation, and substitutability in providing a common function
(Farquhar et al., 1990; Herr et al., 1996). On the other hand,
“relatedness” is a more inclusive construct than “similarity”
(Herr et al. (1996), the last one only referring to the common
physical features between the original product category and
the extension category. It does not accommodate the notion
of “conceptual coherence”; that is, sometimes two product
categories are perceived to be related to each other
conceptually but not physically. For example, CD players
and digital cameras can be seen as related to each other, even
though they have very different physical attributes. Thus,
Herr et al. (1996) conclude that “relatedness” offers a broader
view of “similarity”. The forth hypothesis is as follows:
H4. If the brand associations of the consumer brand
extension are related to the existing products of B2B
parent brand, the attitude toward the brand extension
is positive.
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
Perceived difficulty of making the extension
Aaker and Keller (1990) define another factor as the
perceived difficulty in designing or making the extension
product, termed as DIFFICULT. When consumers perceive
the extended product class to be “trivial” or very easy to make
(i.e., DIFFICULT is low), a potential incongruity occurs.
The consumers may view the combination of a quality brand
and a trivial product class as inconsistent or even exploitative.
The incongruity itself may trigger a rejection or might lead to
a judgment that the quality name will add a price higher than
is justified and necessary for such a product. It implies that
firms should avoid extending quality brands to trivial product
classes for fear that the extension is perceived as incongruous
(Aaker and Keller, 1990). Then, the fifth hypothesis
accordingly is:
H5. The relationship between the difficulty of making the
consumer product class of the brand extension and the
attitude toward brand extension is positive.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
Keller and Aaker (1997) observed how various types of
corporate marketing activities would affect corporate
credibility and hence how they can have positive influence
on evaluation of brand extension. They presented four
fictitious corporate brand extensions and corporate
descriptions that focused on one of the following three
attributes:
1 reputation of a firm for being innovative and launching
technologically advanced products;
2 firm’s strategy of offering environmentally friendly
products and manufacturing environmentally safe; and
3 firm’s corporate social responsibility.
The findings show that corporate marketing attempts can be
useful as they improve perceptions and evaluations. Building a
good corporate image and managing an outstanding corporate
brand strategy help new product acceptance (Keller and
Aaker, 1997). Therefore, innovativeness, corporate social
responsibility and environmental concern are also considered
in the context of this study.
Perceived innovativeness of parent brand
An innovative brand image involves being perceived as being
modern and up-to-date, investing in research and
development, utilizing state-of-the-art manufacturing
technologies, and introducing the latest product features
(Keller, 2003a, b). Studies about marketing innovativeness
have focused mostly on the area of consumer innovativeness
and the innovation diffusion (Roerich, 2004). Marketing
activities underlining innovation have a major impact on the
evaluation of corporate brand extension as it leads to positive
corporate expertise perception and beliefs that the corporate
brand extension will also be innovative (Keller and Aaker,
1997). Underlining the innovativeness is an important
marketing activity that improves the perceived similarity of
customer through the brand extension. Thus, emphasizing
innovation in marketing attempts considerably enhances both
perceived quality and likelihood of purchasing for the brand
extension. The sixth hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H6. Higher perceptions of innovativeness toward the B2B
parent brand are associated with more favorable
attitudes toward the brand extension into B2C market.
259
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
Corporate social responsibility of parent brand
Companies unquestionably have responsibilities for their
community and these responsibilities must be elucidated and
adjusted with the core businesses (Kitchin, 2003). As these
responsibilities are affairs and promises, corporate social
responsibility (CSR) is eventually a function of the brand.
Similarly, Keller and Aaker (1997) define CSR as “a firm’s
philosophy to improve the quality of life in local communities
through various activities and programs”. They state that
marketing efforts towards environmental awareness and
community involvement increase the perceived likeability
and trustworthiness, however could not find significant effect
on the extension evaluation. Then the seventh hypothesis is:
H7. Perceptions of CSR of the parent B2B brand has no
effect on the attitudes toward the brand extension into
B2C market.
Parent brand environmental concern
Environmental concern is defined by Keller and Aaker (1997)
as:
[. . .] a firm’s policy to sell “environmentally friendly” products and to
manufacture products in an environmentally safe fashion.
Corporate marketing attempts can improve the perceptions of
corporate credibility, showing that the corporate brand
extension has environmental responsibility. Marketing efforts
emphasizing environmental concern have proved to have only
a modest impact on extension evaluation, leading to the
eighth hypothesis:
H8. Perceptions of environmental concern of the parent
B2B brand has no effect on the attitudes toward the
brand extension into B2C market.
Interaction factors
Aaker and Keller (1990) state that the perceptions toward the
parent brand and the fit between the parent and extension
product classes have an interactive effect on the final
evaluations of a brand extension as well. The fit between
the parent B2B brand and the new B2C extension classes
might also have a positive effect on the attitude toward brand
extensions. Tang et al. (2008) considered the interaction effect
with the factor of brand concept consistency, since a
complementary or substitute relationship between the
parent product and the extension categories is not
applicable in the case of B2B-to-B2C extension. They also
examined the interaction between transferring skills and assets
from B2B-to-B2C products and the perceived quality during
the transfer. The following hypotheses will be examined then
in order to have the opportunity to make comparisons:
H9. The interaction effects of perceived brand quality and
brand concept consistency between the parent B2B
brand and the B2C extension will influence evaluations
on the perceived quality of the parent brand and the
B2C extension product.
H10. The interaction effects of perceived brand quality and
the perceived transferability of the parent B2B brand to
effectively employ its skills and assets in designing and
producing the B2C extension will influence evaluations
on the perceived quality of the parent brand and the
B2C extension product.
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
The above interaction effects state that consumers’
evaluations of the perceived quality will be affected by the
brand concept consistency between the parent B2B brand and
the B2C extension (H9) or perceived transferability of the
parent B2B brand to effectively employ its skills and assets in
designing and producing the B2C extension (H10). These two
hypotheses describe the interaction effects.
3. Methodology
The study uses both exploratory and descriptive approaches
integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. The
objective of the qualitative phase of the research is to see
what types of associations will emerge from a thought-listing
about the original brands and the extensions, and thus gain
insights about why evaluations are more favorable towards
some of the extensions than towards others. First, four B2B
brands and related brand extensions are set, and then focus
groups are conducted to investigate mainly the determining
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
factors on consumer evaluation toward B2B-to-B2C brand
extension. Focus group interviews are made by taking into
consideration different education levels and age ranges in
order to ensure the heterogeneity among the groups and to
determine whether there is a relation between education level
and age ranges and awareness of and attitude toward B2B
brands.
The quantitative part aims to assess the consumer’s
evaluation of brand extensions through measuring attitude
for different variables. H1-H10 were operationalized through
a model adapted mainly from Aaker and Keller (1990) and
other replication studies discussed beforehand. A
questionnaire consisted of various questions on two well-
known global B2B brands and six hypothetical consumer
brand extensions are developed, data collected are analyzed
using the statistical software application SPSS (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences) and multiple regression
analyses are conducted.
3.1 Selection of the stimuli
Since this study aims to analyze B2B brand extensions into
the B2C markets, it was necessary to make a selection among
a variety of valuable B2B brands. In order to include both
service and product brand categories, four brands are selected
as two distinct product brands carrying minimum service
features and two distinct service brands carrying minimum
physical product features. Those B2B brands were chosen
based on the criteria that Aaker and Keller (1990) proposed:
as relevant to the respondents, perceived as high quality,
eliciting relatively specific associations, and not broadly
extended before. Aaker and Keller (1990) also stated that
the use of low quality brands would have tended to generate
extensions that would be less realistic; therefore, industry
leaders perceived as high quality brands were chosen.
After the selection of four B2B brands, next step was to
attempt to select product categories for parent brand and the
extension. However, the hypothesized brand extensions had
to be reasonable, but also providing heterogeneity on the “fit”
measures of the model. To achieve this, some extensions were
consciously chosen “barely related” and “barely consistent”,
thus allowing variance with respect to the perceived quality of
extension. Table I shows the four selected B2B brands and
hypothetical brand extension products.
260
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
3.2 Sample and data collection
In the original Aaker and Keller (1990) study and in most of
the replication studies, the samples were drawn from student
populations. However, this includes an obvious limitation in
terms of the representation of the population and
generalization of the findings. As it was observed during
focus group research, brand awareness levels differentiated
based on the education level; highly educated people were
more eager in understanding the questions and showing
interest to the topic.
Thus, the survey questionnaire of the study was distributed
to high educated people both online and via face to face
method, and it was aimed to cover variety in age, gender and
income levels. Finally, data from 314 respondents on six
product extensions are collected. Respondents varied in age
between 20 and 53 year-old, 50.5 percent were male and 49.5
percent were female, with the average age of 30.
3.3 Variables and measurement
The questionnaire was prepared in two parts (for each parent
brand) and the same questions were asked to the respondents
in the same order. However, an open-ended question was
placed in each part as preliminary question, in order to get
more knowledge about brand awareness levels. Besides, a
multiple-choice question measuring the brand characteristics
and image was created based on the focus groups findings.
Quality perception (Q) indicates consumer’s perception
toward the overall quality of each parent brand (1 ¼ inferior,
5 ¼ superior), which is the overall brand attitude (Aaker and
Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991; Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994;
Tang et al., 2008). Transfer (T) indicates the perceived ability
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree) of the firm
operating in the first product class to another product class
(Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991; Broniarczyk and
Alba, 1994; Tang et al., 2008). Brand concept consistency (B)
measures the extent to which the consumer perceives the
extension to be consistent with the parent brand (1 ¼ very
inconsistent, 5 ¼ very consistent) (Broniarczyk and Alba,
1994; Park et al., 1991). Relatedness (R) shows the strength
of the association between the brand’s parent category and the
target extension category (1 ¼ very unrelated, 5 ¼ very
related) (Farquhar et al., 1990; Herr et al., 1996). Difficulty
(D) presents the perceived difficulty of making the extension
(1 ¼ not at all difficult, 5 ¼ very difficult) (Aaker and Keller,
1990; Park et al., 1991; Tang et al., 2008).
Product innovation (I) denotes the consumer’s perception
of the parent brand as innovator in research, design, new
technology and services (1 ¼ low innovation, 5 ¼ high
innovation) (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Broniarczyk and Alba,
1994; Tang et al., 2008). Corporate social responsibility (C)
presents the marketing activities directed towards
environmental awareness and community involvement
(1 ¼ low responsibility, 5 ¼ high responsibility) (Tang et al.,
2008). Environmental concern (E) refers to the consumer’s
perceptions of the B2B firm’s environmental concern during
the production process and use of material inputs (1 ¼ total
neglect of environmental protection, 5 ¼ emphasis on
environmental protection) (Aaker and Keller, 1990).
Finally, consumers’ evaluation of the brand extension (Y) is
measured by the perceived overall quality of the extension
(1 ¼ inferior, 5 ¼ superior) and the likelihood of purchasing
the extension (1 ¼ not at all likely, 5 ¼ very likely). The
average of these two variables is used to represent the
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
Table I Overview of B2B brands and hypothetical B2C extensions
Original brand Original product/service
Boeing Commercial jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense,
human space flight, and launch systems and services
Intel Advanced integrated digital technology products, primarily
integrated circuits, microprocessors, chipsets, wired and wireless
connectivity, motherboards
Deloitte Audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk management, and tax
services
Ernst & Young Assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services
Sources: www.boeing.com, www.intel.com, www.ey.com, www.deloitte.com
consumers’ evaluation of the extension (Aaker and Keller,
1990; Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994; Tang et al., 2008).
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
4. Findings of the study
4.1 Qualitative phase findings
The data gathered by focus group research were evaluated in
terms of original brand associations and brand extension
evaluations.
Original brand associations
Two of the brands received high quality ratings (Boeing and
Intel), whereas the other two received below the average
(Deloitte and Ernst & Young). The brand awareness and
brand knowledge of B2B service brands were significantly low.
This situation leaded to low quality ratings, because only a
few people knew those brands while they had no experience
with the offering, and no idea about the actual quality.
Participants with higher education levels were familiar with
these brands. Although the original aim was to select one
product brand and one service brand, the level of brand
awareness of Boeing and Intel brands were significantly high
when compared to service brands Deloitte and Ernst &
Young. Well-known brands were selected in case of
inappropriate responses related to the lack of knowledge
about brand. Therefore, questionnaire was designed to
include two product brands (Intel and Boeing) and
concerned extensions.
Brand extension associations
Another aim of the qualitative phase was to test the
recommended brand extensions in terms of differentiation.
Hypothetical brand extensions had to differ from each other
in terms of difficulty, perceived quality, consistency, etc.
One problem with low rated extensions was lack of
perceived similarity or consistency between the original and
extension product classes. For instance, some subjects reacted
to the idea of Boeing manufacturing a digital wristwatch by
stating Boeing should stick to aero-technology and would
have no credibility as a watch. For the same extension, there
was a second problem which was the “huge” association of
Boeing (n ¼ 7). Respondents commented that Boeing made
them think of something big and durable, and watch as an
accessory was supposed to be well-designed and aesthetic.
Thus, Boeing wristwatch made them think of a very ugly
watch that no one would ever want to wear. Challenging
results were also revealed for Intel and extensions. Among the
261
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
Hypothetical extension
Digital wristwatch, flight simulation computer game and travel luggage
Mp3 player, notebook and LCD TV
Finance Academy and finance books
Accounting Academy and account books
chosen B2B brands, Intel was not only the one with highest
level of brand awareness, but also with the highest level of
perceived quality. That brand image of Intel made subjects to
assume that Intel could handle any electronic-technology
related product. Table II summarizes the associations of ten
brand extensions.
4.2 Quantitative phase findings
The regression model developed for consumer evaluations of
B2B-to-B2C brand extensions is as follows:
Y ¼ a þ b1 Q þ b2 T þ b3 B þ b4 R þ b5 D þ b6 I þ b7 C þ b8 E
þ b9 QB þ b10 QT þ 1
where Y (Evaluation) is the average of the perceived quality of
the extension and the likelihood of purchasing the extension,
Q (in relation with H1) is the overall perceived quality toward
the parent brand, T (H2), B (H3) and R (H4) are the fit
measures for transferability of skills and assets, consistency of
brand concept and relatedness respectively. D (H5) is the
perceived difficulty of making the extension, I (H6), C(H7)
and E (H8) are the perceived innovativeness, corporate social
responsibility and environmental concern of the parent brand
company, and QB (H9) and QT (H10) are moderator terms
between the perceived quality and brand concept consistency
or transferability, respectively.
The dependent variable was attitude towards the extension,
operationalized by the average of perceived quality of
extension and the likelihood of purchasing the extension
measures. The use of two indicators provided a more reliable
measure of attitude construct, as the correlation between the
two was 0.52 suggesting a reliability of 0.68.
As some terms interact with one another, the
multicollinearity of regression model was examined at first.
High variance influence factors (VIF . 10) for interaction
terms indicated a high degree of multicollinearity among these
variations. Therefore the “residual centering” approach, as
suggested by Lance (1988), was adopted to diminish the
degree of multicollinearity and then analyses conducted.
Regression model was formally tested by means of linear
regression. The analysis included the data from 314
respondents, giving a total sample size of 1686. The
significance of the regression model as a whole was tested
by SPSS, and F statistic was computed as 211,344 which is
significant at p ¼ 0.000, theoretically indicating that one or
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions Journal of Product & Brand Management
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267

Table II Summary of brand associations for brand extensions: number more regression coefficients have a value different from zero.
of respondents mentioning item The adjusted R2 for the present model is 0.56 which
compares favorably with the original Aaker and Keller (1990)
Brand extension n model and replications studies. Results of regression analyses
Boeing digital wristwatch 2.38 are given in Tables III and IV at both aggregate level and
Complicated 3 brand level.
Expensive 3 A comparison of the present study with the original and
Male watch 1 replication study is displayed in Table V. The coefficients of
Bad or low quality 4 determination for brand extension models in previous studies
Would not buy 5 have been increasing ever since the researchers paid attention
to multicollinearity and started to use residual centering
Boeing flight simulation computer game 3.57
method developed by Lance (1988): Aaker and Keller (0.26),
Professional 11
Sundie and Brodie (0.43) (not adjusted for multicollinearity);
Expensive 11
Nijsen and Hartman (0.49), Bottomley and Doyle (0.43 for
High quality 9
NZ study and 0.48 for UK study), van Riel et al. (0.54) and
Genius 5
Tang et al. (0.63) (adjusted for multicollinearity).
Boeing travel luggage 3.15 Consumers are familiar with new product introductions
Durable 8 through brand extension. In general, the variables that have
Heavy 2 the largest effects in explaining extension attitude are the two
Ugly/not esthetical 6 fit variables “Transfer” and “Brand Concept Consistency”.
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)

Expensive 7 This is in line with previous studies where the effect of fit
Huge 8 variables surpassed those of other variables. However, the
Blue 2 findings of the present study are, however, mixed when
Intel mp3 player 3.13 compared to traditional consumer-based brand extensions.
Would not use 3 At the aggregate level, the fit variables, especially brand
Not user-friendly 5 concept consistency, have the most substantial impact on the
Ugly/not esthetical 8 extendibility for B2B brand to B2C products. This is similar
Cheap 5 to the findings of Völckner and Sattler (2007) which assert
Bad or low quality 5 that consistency of brand concept (B) is more effective on
Intel notebook 3.85 consumer evaluations toward the B2B-to-B2C brand
Professional 7 extensions than is the transferability (T) of skills or assets.
Expensive 5 This contrasts to that of the consumer based brand extension.
Light 4 It appears that brand concept consistency is more important
Small 7 as a dimension of fit than the transferability of skills or assets
Fast 9 in consumer evaluations of B2B-to-B2C brand extensions.
Intel LCD TV 3.38 Besides, the findings indicate that the product-level
Senseless 4 relatedness (R), unlike the previous studies, which was only
Low quality 4 considered in the present study as the third fit variable, has an
No technical knowledge 9 important effect on B2B-to-B2C brand extensions. Thus, if
Would not use 7 the extended B2C product is perceived as related to the
Cheap 1
existing products of parent B2B brand, consumers tend to
accept the extension and product-level relatedness also needs
Deloitte Finance Academy 3.20
to be taken into consideration as a “fit” measure.
Good idea 13
Unlike other studies, the perceived image of quality for the
Expensive 5
parent B2B brand extended to B2C products was found not
Beneficial 6
to be affected when there was a high brand concept
Deloitte finance books 2.12
consistency. Besides, the extent of transferring skills or
Would not buy 13
assets in producing the extension had little effect on the image
Poor content 8
of perceived quality for the parent B2B brand.
Bestseller 3 In addition, parent brand quality (Q), perceived
Ernst & Young acc. books 1.97 innovativeness (I) and environmental concerns (E) have
Poor content 2 effect on the attitude towards the extension. What is
Would not buy 9 surprising is the commitment to environment having higher
Not beneficial 1 effect than parent brand quality and this result differentiates
Bestseller 2 from the ones of the previous studies.
Ernst & Young Accounting Academy 2.90 The difficulty of making the extension (D) has a negative
Good idea 9 beta but is insignificant, which is consistent with other studies
Expensive 4 except for Van Riel et al. (2001) and Tang et al. (2008). While
Notes: Numbers in italics are the average quality ratings; associations and Tang et al. (2008) note that the consumers tend to accept the
ratings are based on four mini focus groups (composed of five persons in cross product-class extension only if the extended consumer
each group) product is easy to produce and to market, this present study
found no such indicator.

262
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions Journal of Product & Brand Management
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267

Table III Aggregate regression model of the consumers’ evaluation of B2B-to-B2C brand extension
Standardized
regression Regression
Independent variables coefficient coefficient t-value
QUALITY (perceived quality of original brand) 0.065 0.082 3.34 * *
INNOVATIVE (perceived ability in product innovation) 0.062 0.060 3.12 * *
CSR (corporate social responsibility) 0.021 0.020 0.97
ENVIRONMENT (commitment to environmental protection) 0.094 0.096 4.52 *
DIFFICULT (perceived difficulty of making extension) -0.021 -0.020 -1.23
RELATEDNESS (relatedness between the existing products of parent brand and extended product) 0.105 0.088 4.69 *
CONSISTENCY (Brand concept consistency between the parent brand and extension) 0.533 0.417 21.94 *
TRANFER (transfer of skills/assets from parent to extension product class) 0.148 0.134 7.01 *
QB[residual] (interaction term between quality perception with consistency) 0.015 0.014 0.72
QT[residual] interaction term between quality perception with transfer 0.044 0.041 2.06 * * *
Notes: Sample size ¼ 1,686; Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.56; *p , 0:001; * *p , 0:002; * * *p , 0:05; italicized values represent highest influential factors
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)

Table IV Standardized regression coefficients full model at brand level

Parent brand Environmental Brand concept
quality Innovative CSR concern Difficult Relatedness consistency Transfer
Brand (Q) (I) (C) (E) (D) (R) (B) (T) Q*B Q*T
BOEINGa 0.023 0.019 0.043 0.118 * 20.001 0.141 * 0.501 * 0.172 * 20.010 0.016
INTELb 0.105 * 0.112 * 20.002 0.075 * * 20.043 0.027 0.608 * 0.109 * 0.040 0.067 * *
Notes: After residual center approach; aSample size ¼ 842, Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.53; bSample size ¼ 825, Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.59; *p , 0:001; * *p , 0:05

Table V Comparison with the original and replication studies

Aaker and Sunde and Nijssen and Bottomley and Bottomley and
Keller Brodie Hartman Doyle Doyle Van Riel et al. Tang et al.
Independent variables (1990) (1993) (1994) (1996) NZ (1996) UK (2001) (2008) Present study
QUALITY 20.01 0.25 * * * 0.24 * * * 0.25 * * * 0.22 * * * 0.16 * 0.116 * 0.065 * *
INNOVATIVE – – – – – – 0.127 * 0.062 * *
CSR – – – – – – – 0.021
ENVIRONMENT – – – – – – 0.002 0.094 *
DIFFICULT 0.12 0.03 Omitted 0.03 0.01 20.16 * 20.157 * 2 0.021
COMPLEMENT 0.17 * * * 0.30 * * * 20.00 0.30 * * 0.31 * * 0.20 * – –
SUBSTITUTE 0.08 * * * 0.18 * * * 0.06 * * * 0.18 * * 0.18 * * 0.19 * – –
RELATEDNESS – – – – – – – 0.105 *
CONSISTENCY – – – – – – 0.541 * 0.533 *
TRANSFER 0.24 * * * 0.26 * * * 0.60 * * * 0.26 * 0.31 * 0.40 0.149 * 0.148 *
Q*B – – – – – – 0.062 * 0.015
Q*T 0.12 0.08 * * * 0.08 * * * 0.08 * * 0.08 * * 0.08 * * * 0.006 0.044 * * *
Q*C 0.25 * * 0.05 * * * 20.02 0.05 * * 0.05 * * * 20.01 – –
Q*S 0.18 * * * 2 0.01 20.07 20.01 0.03 20.01 – –
Sample size 2,140 1,558 693 1,559 1,358 808 1,512 1,686
Adjusted R2 0.26 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.63 0.56
Notes: *p , 0:001; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:05; beta coefficients are taken from the full model. Since the variables of the present model are different from the
variables of the original and replication studies, a formal comparison is not suitable. The comparison is nevertheless interesting on an intuitive level

At the brand’s individual extension level, the brand concept
consistency appears as the dominant factor that affects
consumer evaluations towards the extension. The findings
show that there is an opportunity for industrial companies to
leverage brand equity into consumer markets if the concept of
the extension product is consistent with the parent brand. In
addition, brand concept consistency, the transferability of
assets, and environmental concerns are the only three factors
that influenced respondents’ attitude toward the B2B brand
to B2C extension across two industrial brands.
The present study shows that it is indeed possible to extend
B2B brands into the B2C market. The brand extension model

263
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
of Aaker and Keller (1990) was modified to fit the context of
this study by drawing theories from Farquhar et al. (1990),
Boush and Loken (1991), Park et al. (1991), Broniarczyk and
Alba (1994), Herr et al. (1996), Keller and Aaker (1997) and
Tang et al. (2008). This study provides evidence that in the
context of B2B brand extensions, consumers use the brand
concept consistency with the parent brand category and
transferability of skills and resources as major cues to evaluate
extensions and product level relatedness has a considerable
affect on the attitude towards extension. Besides, corporate
branding attributes such as innovativeness and environmental
concerns also play a major role. The goodness of fit of the
present model seems to be higher than the previous studies
except for Tang et al. (2008).
5. Limitations and directions for future research
The study is not free of limitations. The first concern relates to
the way the variables are measured. As single-item measures
have been the object of serious criticism with respect to their
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
unreliability and low validity (Churchill, 1979), it might be
useful to develop more reliable, multi-item measurement scales
as Bottomley and Doyle (1996) already suggest, although it has
to be taken into account that a high Cronbach’s alpha is not
necessarily a guarantee for generalizability. The second concern
relates to the one-sidedness of the present study; it measured
only consumer acceptance of the brand extensions. A relevant
question could also address the attitudes of existing B2B
customers when launching consumer brand extensions. The
reciprocal impacts of consumer brand extensions on brand
equity can be measured with respect to buyers in both B2C
and B2B markets.
The third limitation relates to the number of brands used in
the study. Only two product brands were used among the
numerous well-known global industrial brands. Differences in
adjusted R2 on a brand level suggest that there are attributes
unique to each brand. A more detailed study on brand
extensions could take into account several factors such as
previous extensions (Keller and Aaker, 1992), effects of
extensions on a company’ s brand portfolio (Dacin and Smith,
1994) or brand architecture.
The fourth concern relates to the fit variables. Because of the
non-applicability of the fit variables Substitute and Complement
used in previous replication studies, three fit variables were used
(Transfer, Relatedness and Brand concept consistency) instead.
As the present study have considered different factors, it was
difficult to make a proper comparison with the previous studies
(in terms of variable by variable). Brand concept consistency
proved to be a useful factor, probably because of its abstractness.
Future studies on brand extensions could include “brand
concept consistency” and “relatedness” as well as the original fit
variables Substitute and Complement to examine whether the
abstractness of the former or the concreteness of the latter three
are superior in attitude formation.
Another limitation is the way the brand extensions were
presented. Since each brand extension is presented only as a
non-branded generic product and without any accompanying
text or visual cues, the extent to which a true assessment of
the quality and likelihood of purchasing by the consumer
might have been limited. Another problem in relation with the
brand extension presentation is the absence of pricing. Van
Riel et al. (2001) suggest that consumers may use “price
clues” to assess (especially service) quality (Zeithaml, 1988).
264
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
6. Implications
The implications of the study may be evaluated both from
theoretical and managerial perspectives.
Bottomley and Doyle (1996) called for further research on
the role of “brand concept consistency” as an important
factor in determining how consumers form attitudes towards
brand extensions. The present study has proven, at least in
this context, that brand-specific associations are more
important than category similarity in consumer attitude
formation toward B2B brand extensions. Hence, Broniarczyk
and Alba’s (1994) claim that the “brand” in brand extension
as superior to category-based similarity is supported by the
present study.
The present study has also proven that variables of Keller
and Aaker’s (1997) corporate brand extension model can be
used in the original model, showing further evidence that the
original model can be contextually adapted. By replacing
irrelevant variables of the model with contextually relevant
concepts and theories as discussed above, the present study
shows that a broad empirical replication of Aaker and Keller’s
(1990) model is both possible and valuable for additional
explanatory power and insight in more specific cases. Finally,
unlike many of previous research, the present study used a
qualitative study and inserted some additional questions in
quantitative research survey to get more data about the brand
images and brand awareness. These data were used to discuss
and interpret the findings more properly.
The decision of extending a B2B brand into the B2C
market remains as a predominantly managerial topic. What
the present study has shown is that it is possible to do so.
Brand extension strategies will be most successful when there
is a “fit” between the parent brand and the extension. This fit
is determined by the extent to which consumers perceive that
the skills and resources of a company are useful in making the
extension, and whether the extension is consistent with the
brand concept of the parent brand. Any extension must
therefore begin with examining the parent brand itself. The
quality of the parent brand plays a less important role in
brand extension acceptance, although quality should not be
sacrificed since consumers can assess brand equity in different
ways than measured by the present study.
Corporate brand attributes such as environmental concerns
are highly important and can be achieved by supporting local
communities through various activities and programs. It is,
however, unclear whether commitment to environment is
treated as a trend or whether it will remain as sustainable
attribute. Nevertheless, a B2B company should be aware of
the difference in perception of ethical values of consumers
and industrial buyers. Another corporate brand attribute that
facilitates brand extension acceptance is innovativeness.
Therefore, a company should strive to build an innovative
reputation and establish a philosophy of constantly launching
advanced products or services.
An important practical constraint with respect to the
present model is that it is only tested on B2B brands. The
validity or importance of the model is hence not confirmed for
cases after a brand makes the transition from B2B to both
B2B and B2C. It may be possible that after a transition is
made, i.e. when the former B2B brand is both a B2B and B2C
brand, consumers would evaluate the brand extensions
anyhow according to the original model by Aaker and
Keller (1990). This pinpoints the context-specificity of the
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
present model. However, the present model is still beneficial
for managers by pointing out the major important factors to
take into consideration in their brand extension efforts.
References
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations
of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Balachander, S. and Ghose, S. (2003), “Reciprocal spillover
effects: a strategic benefit of brand extensions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Bottomley, P.A. and Doyle, J.R. (1996), “The formation of
attitudes towards brand extensions: testing and generalizing
Aaker and Keller’s model”, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 365-77.
Bottomley, P.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (2001), “Do we really
know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical
generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight
studies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 4,
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
pp. 494-500.
Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A process-tracing study
of brand extension evaluation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 16-28.
Boush, D.M., Shipp, S., Loken, B., Genturck, E., Crockett, S.,
Kennedy, E., Minshall, B., Misurell, D., Rochford, L. and
Strobel, J. (1987), “Affect generalization to similar and
dissimilar brand extensions”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 225-37.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The importance of
the brand in brand extension”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 214-39.
Churchill, G. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Dacin, A.P. and Smith, D.C. (1994), “The effect of brand
portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand
extension”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 229-42.
Farquhar, R.H., Herr, P.M. and Fazio, R.H. (1990),
“A relational model for category extensions of brands”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 856.
Herr, R.M., Farquhar, P.H. and Fazio, R.H. (1996), “Impact
of dominance and relatedness on brand extensions”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, p. 135.
Keller, K.L. (2003a), “Brand equity dilution”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 12-14.
Keller, K.L. (2003b), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 575-609.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The effects of
sequential introduction of brand extensions”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1997), Managing the Corporate
Brand: The Effect of Corporate Marketing Activity on
Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Kitchin, T. (2003), “Corporate social responsibility: a brand
explanation”, Brand Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4-5,
pp. 312-26.
Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001), “Threats to the external
validity of brand extension research”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 38, pp. 326-35.
265
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
Lance, C.E. (1988), “Residual centering, exploratory and
confirmatory moderator analysis and decomposition of
effects in path models containing interactions”, Applied
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-75.
Loken, B. and John, R.D. (1993), “Diluting brand beliefs:
when do brand extensions have a negative impact?”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 71-84.
Mortimer, R. (2003), “Fool’s gold for marketers?”, Brand
Strategy, No. 168, pp. 20-2.
Nijssen, E.J. and Hartman, D. (1994), “Consumer evaluation
of brand extensions: an integration of previous research”,
in Bloemer, J., Lemmink, J. and Kasper, H. (Eds), European
Marketing Academy: Proceedings of the 23rd European
Marketing Academy Conference in Maastrich, The Netherlands,
1994, pp. 673-83.
Park, C.W., Milberg, S.J. and Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluation
of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity
and brand concept consistency”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 185-93.
Patro, S.K. and Jaiswal, A.K. (2003), “Consumer evaluations
of brand extension: evidence from India”, Journal of
Academy of Business and Economics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 170-9.
Roerich, G. (2004), “Consumer innovativeness: concepts and
measurements”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 6,
pp. 671-7.
Sunde, L. and Brodie, R.J. (1993), “Consumer evaluations of
brand extensions: further empirical results”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-53.
Tang, Y.C., Liou, F.M. and Peng, S.Y. (2008), “B2B brand
extension to the B2C market – the case of the ICT industry
in Taiwan”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 399-411.
Van Riel, A.C.R., Lemmink, J. and Ouwersloot, H. (2001),
“Consumer evaluations of service brand extensions”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-31.
Völckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2007), “Empirical
generalizability of consumer evaluations of brand
extensions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 149-62.
Webster, F.E. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “A road-map for
branding in industrial markets”, Brand Management, Vol. 11
No. 5, pp. 388-402.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
About the authors
Sebnem Burnaz is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
Istanbul Technical University. She holds a PhD degree in
Management with major in Marketing from Bogazici
University. Her research interests are in the field of
marketing, retailing, decision making, and business ethics.
She has published articles which have appeared in Advances in
International Marketing, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research,
Journal of Business Ethics, and Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis. Sebnem Burnaz is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: burnaz@itu.edu.tr
Pinar Bilgin is an MSc Graduate in the Faculty of
Management, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Continuing expansion of the global economy has served to
increase the significance of brands. Heightened competition
has increased the need for brand marketers to identify new
avenues for growth without experiencing the huge costs and
high failure rates typically associated with the launch of new
products.
Growth through brand extension has been the strategy
adopted by many companies. Leveraging the name and
reputation of a proven brand into a different product category
helps signal to consumers the likely quality of the new
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
offering. The assumption here is that consumers will associate
positive attributes of the established brand with the extension.
Through this approach, marketers are able to substantially
reduce the risk of failure and its consequences. Lower
distribution costs and more efficient use of marketing
expenditures are other benefits of extending a parent brand.
The strategy is inherently risky though and much of the
research conducted in this area has addressed “where, when
and how” brands should be extended. One commonly
acknowledged belief is that brands should only be extended
into categories that are logically related to where the parent
brand operates. Extensions should be compatible with the
parent brand, although sufficient fit is not guaranteed even
when extension and parent brand product categories are
“intuitively related”. Conversely, examples exist where brands
have succeeded when extending into categories totally
dissimilar to the parent one. In such cases, fit between
parent brand and extension may be at the conceptual rather
than at product attribute level.
Seminal research has identified various factors that might
influence consumer attitude towards a brand extension:
.
Consumer perception of the parent brand – essentially, if
parent brand quality is regarded as high, an
“unambiguously positive” attitude towards the extension
should emerge;
.
Perceived fit – a key premise here is that “fit” incorporates
three dimensions. The first dimension is “transfer” and
relates to whether or not a company is perceived to have
the skills and capacity to operate within a product class
different to one where it is normally associated with. The
risk is to venture too far beyond recognized areas of
competence. Another dimension of fit is “complement”,
which refers to situations where parent brand and
extension can be jointly used or consumed. The third fit
term is “substitute”, reflecting when parent brand and
extension are used instead of each other;
.
Relatedness is closely associated with fit and reflects
similarities between brand and extension in terms of
common features, usage situations and common
functions;
.
Perceived difficulty in making an extension product – the
premise here is that firms risk negative perceptions if they
extend a quality brand into “trivial product classes”.
266
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
Consumers may reject the extension or believe that the
firm is exploiting the parent brand name in order to justify
a high price tag for an inferior product; and
.
Corporate marketing activities – some evidence exists that
consumers are influenced by the perceived innovativeness
of the parent brand. More specifically, knowledge that the
company invests heavily in research and development
(R&D) and boasts hi-tech manufacturing capabilities
might lead to favorable evaluation of an extension. A
firm’s corporate social responsibility and concerns for the
environment are other factors to consider, although
indications suggest that their impact may be minimal.
The earlier research examined various interactive effects
between certain consumer perceptions referred to above.
To date, research attention to branding and extensions has
almost exclusively been confined to the consumer marketing
domain. This is in spite of the fact that business-to-business
(B2B) markets play host to many of the world’s most powerful
brands. Microsoft, Philips, IBM and Mitsubishi are among
such B2B brands that have extended into business-to-
consumer (B2C) markets. Nevertheless, B2B brands
extending into B2C markets have attracted only minimal
academic interest.
Burnaz and Bilgin examine the above issues in a study that
extends the earlier research using a combination of qualitative
and quantitative methods. The overall aim is to examine what
factors most influence consumer attitude towards B2B-to-
B2C brand extensions. The aim was to choose brands
considered relevant to respondents, of high quality, evoking
fairly specific associations and previously not overly-extended.
Focus group discussions led to Intel and Boeing brands being
selected because of their high quality ratings and familiarity to
respondents. Discussions led to suitable brand extension
products for both brands being proposed, with the
hypothetical extensions varying with regard to difficulty,
perceived quality and consistency.
Another outcome of the focus group discussions was that
education level influences the degree of brand awareness, with
correlation evident between education level and
understanding. That being the case, the authors chose
highly educated people for the quantitative study. For this
phase, a survey questionnaire was distributed both online and
face-to-face. The 314 subjects recruited were aged between
20 and 53 and almost equally divided by gender.
Analysis of the questionnaire revealed that:
.
Brand concept consistency has the greatest influence on
consumer acceptance of a B2B-to-B2C brand extension.
This shows that industrial firms have the scope to extend
into B2C categories providing the concept of the
extension remains consistent with the parent brand.
.
Transferability of skills and assets was also a significant fit
dimension, albeit less powerful than brand concept
consistency.
.
Product level relatedness was also shown to have an
important impact on these extensions. Essentially,
consumers were likelier to accept extensions when the
extended B2C product was perceived as being related to
existing products of the B2B brand.
.
Parent brand quality, perceived innovativeness and
environmental concerns influence attitude towards the
extension. It was surprising to find environmental concerns
more influential factor than parent brand quality.
 Consumer evaluations on brand extensions
Sebnem Burnaz and Pinar Bilgin
Marketers should realize that brand-specific associations
appear more influential than category similarity in respect of
shaping consumer attitudes towards B2B-to-B2C brand
extensions. In the authors’ opinion, some awareness of
“contextually relevant concepts” will also help predict how
consumers might respond.
Fit between parent brand and extension is necessary,
therefore efforts must be made so that consumers perceive
that a firm’s capabilities and resources are relevant to making
the extension. It is equally vital not to “sacrifice” parent brand
quality, despite its apparently lower impact on acceptance.
A focus on corporate brand attributes is likewise
recommended. Burnaz & Belgin suggest that firms could
engage in programs and events to demonstrate commitment
towards local communities. Whether supporting the
environment is a trend or a “more sustainable attribute” is
Downloaded by Anelis Plus Association At 04:48 27 February 2016 (PT)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
267
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 20 · Number 4 · 2011 · 256 –267
not yet clear though. The significance of innovation leads to
suggestions that companies should regularly introduce
innovative products or services to enhance their reputation
in this area.
Future research might consider a larger number of brands,
both product and service. Different fit variables could be
introduced, while investigating the attitudes of existing B2B
customers is another option. The authors additionally believe
that presenting extensions within a study setting using text
and/or visual cues and pricing information could impact on
consumer response.
(A précis of the article “Consumer evaluations on brand extensions:
B2B brands extended into B2C markets”. Supplied by Marketing
Consultants for Emerald.)