J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.
(2015) 43:548–557
DOI 10.1007/s11747-015-0445-6
Understanding the interplay between brand and innovation
management: findings and future research directions
Tim Oliver Brexendorf 1 & Barry Bayus 2 & Kevin Lane Keller 3
Received: 21 February 2015 / Accepted: 20 April 2015 / Published online: 14 May 2015
# Academy of Marketing Science 2015
Abstract Brand and innovation management have become in-
creasingly important priorities for firms over the last few de-
cades. Firms rely on strong brands and product innovations to
gain competitive advantage and fuel growth. Although academ-
ic research has addressed a number of different areas and topics
that have collectively advanced our understanding, the interre-
lationship between branding and innovations is still relatively
under-researched. Brand and innovation management need and
benefit from each other, suggesting a need for a deeper integra-
tion between the two. Towards that goal, this article presents a
conceptual framework to help structure the interrelationship
and suggests a number of future research directions.
Keywords Brand-led innovation management .
Innovation-led brand management . Brand strategy . Brand
management . New product development . Innovation
management
Introduction
A rapidly changing marketplace puts pressure on firms to
develop unique capabilities that create competitive
* Tim Oliver Brexendorf
tim.brexendorf@whu.edu
Barry Bayus
Barry_Bayus@kenan-flagler.unc.edu
Kevin Lane Keller
kevin.l.keller@tuck.dartmouth.edu
1
WHU—Otto Beisheim School of Management, Burgplatz 2,
56179 Vallendar, Germany
2
Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, CB 3490, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
3
Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, 100 Tuck Hall,
Hanover, NH 03755-9000, USA
advantages. Companies increasingly depend on the success
of new products and services to secure those competitive ad-
vantages and drive future growth (Steenkamp et al. 1999;
Keller and Lehmann 2006). Such a strategy does have its
challenges, including the cost of innovating, the risks of new
product failures, and the possibility of relatively short product
life cycles, all posing barriers to achieving the desired returns
on investment (Hoffman et al. 2010; Sorescu and Spanjol
2008). Nevertheless, given how product and service innova-
tions can enhance firms’ value and profitability, they are a top
management priority (Srinivasan et al. 2009).
A rapidly changing marketplace also has implications for
brands and branding. Consumers often must make difficult
choices in situations where they lack the ability to confidently
judge product quality. This uncertainty is especially true in
judging the performance of new products. Brands provide
consumers a means to reduce risk and set their expectations,
an especially valuable function with new products. Given the
importance of positive consumer evaluations of new product
introductions, the ability of brands to influence consumer
choice and trial is critical.
Brands are cues that consumers can use to evaluate product
performance (Maheswaran et al. 1992; Richardson et al.
1994). Strong brands also can reduce the possible damaging
effects of negative product information. If a strong brand (e.g.,
Porsche) is associated with a poorly functioning product or
service, the equity of the strong brand may mitigate con-
sumers’ responses to the product’s less-than-desired charac-
teristics or performance. On the other hand, if a weak brand
(e.g., Pyeonghwa) is associated with poorly functioning prod-
ucts, the lower equity of the weak brand may serve to validate
consumers’ judgments (Page and Herr 2002).
Brand and innovation management are clearly strongly in-
terrelated and mutually dependent. In these and other ways,
brands and product innovations both play an important role in
generating favorable consumer responses (Page and Herr
2002). Strong brands are not only supported by innovation;
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
they are also an important path to and source of innovation.
Brands give new products and services meaning and facilitate
their launch. Brands allow ownership of an innovation, add
credibility and legitimacy, enhance visibility, and support
communication (Aaker 1997). Concurrently, successful prod-
uct and service innovations strengthen brand equity because
they may reinforce—and in some cases broaden—brand
meaning, help to revitalize brands, act as an effective measure
against private labels, and improve brand value and
profitability.
A lot of research is done separately in the fields of brand
management and new product development. Although the
search for brand leadership and innovation excellence are both
clearly important management priorities and points of differ-
entiation for many firms (e.g., Henkel, Procter & Gamble,
Unilever), the relationship between branding and innovation
is still relatively under-researched. Branding has gained little
reference in the innovation literature and vice versa.
Neglecting linkages between branding and innovation, how-
ever, will result in a narrow perspective on factors affecting
the success or failures of market introductions (Aaker 1997;
Calder and Calder 2010; Hultink 2010; Kapferer 2014).
The aim of this article is to provide an overview of some of
the issues involved in the complex relationship between
branding and innovation. We first propose a simple conceptual
framework of brand and innovation interdependency. Based
on this framework, we next identify influential work in key
areas, highlighting what has been learned, outlining some
gaps that exist at the interface of both fields, and formulating
a series of relevant research questions. We conclude with a
discussion of management and research implications.
A conceptual framework of brand and innovation
interdependency
To identify issues at the interface of brand and innovation
management, we conceptualize a simple framework that aims
to integrate the two areas. The proposed framework is de-
signed to help identify the important ways brand and innova-
tion are intertwined and to identify the key challenges at this
interface.
The framework focuses on three key outcomes engendered
by brands and innovations. These outcomes are seen to repre-
sent a virtuous circle: achievement of one outcome or stage
contributes to the success at the next outcome or stage (see
Fig. 1). There is no beginning or end per se, but a constantly
occurring series of events whereby brands and innovations
interact to create value for an organization. The three out-
comes or stages are:
1. Brands provide strategic focus and guidance to
innovations.
549
2. Brands support the introduction and adoption of
innovations.
3. Successful innovations improve brand perceptions, atti-
tude, and usage.
The logic of the virtuous circle is as follows. A well-
established brand has much meaning and a set of expectations
with consumers. That brand meaning and those expectations
are central to the brand’s positioning and provide strategic
focus and guidance to innovations going forward. Ultimately,
consumers will decide, based on what they think and feel
about the brand, where (and how) they believe the brand
should go and grant permission (or not) to any brand innova-
tion. At the same time, all of this consumer brand knowledge
can facilitate the introduction of the right innovations
launched the right way and increase the likelihood of their
success. Finally, a successful innovation, in turn, adds to brand
meaning, strengthens brand expectations, and improves brand
perceptions, attitude, and usage. This updated brand knowl-
edge will have implications for the development and accep-
tance of subsequent innovations, and the virtuous circle thus
begins again.
We next consider relevant academic research in each of
these three stages.
Brands provide strategic focus and guidance
to innovations
Firms need inspiration and values to direct their new product
development activities. Branding gives that strategic focus
and guidance to the development of new product innovations
by helping to: (1) identify brand potential, (2) define brand
boundaries and cohesiveness, and (3) optimize brand timing
and sequence of market entry.
Identifying brand potential
Brands vary in their level of equity and potential to support
innovations. Strong brands establish a solid foundation, which
creates the potential for launching innovations (Ward et al.
1999). Keller and Lehmann (2009) offer a conceptual frame-
work that views the long-term value of a brand as a function of
the recognition and realization of brand potential through
brand vision and brand actualization. Brand vision involves
recognizing the inherent potential of a brand which is based, in
part, on its current brand equity. Brand actualization is how
well a firm is able to maximize brand performance based on its
potential. Brand performance is driven by two key compo-
nents that determine long-term brand value: brand persistence
and brand growth.
According to their framework, long-term brand value is
increased by various firm behaviors that maximize brand
550
Fig. 1 The brand-innovation vir-
tuous cycle
persistence and growth given a firm’s current brand equity and
changes in the marketing environment. Their framework sug-
gests several additional points. Importantly, a brand has dif-
ferent growth prospects depending on which firm owns it.
Different types of brand images—such as those with more
abstract associations (e.g., Virgin with customer orientation
or Apple with design)—are more likely to: (1) retain their
strength, favorability, and uniqueness and (2) be relevant
across a broad range of product and consumer situations. Fi-
nally, as will be developed further below, being a market lead-
er can actually be detrimental if the brand is viewed too nar-
rowly and is overly defined by the current product categories
in which it sells.
Defining brand boundaries and cohesiveness
The brand architecture strategy adopted by a firm will play a
critically important role in defining brand boundaries and co-
hesiveness. Firms can follow different types of branding strat-
egies to structure and manage their brands. Three main brand-
ing strategies can be seen as spanning a continuum, with a
Bbranded house^ at one end, a Bhouse of brands^ at the other
end, and Bmixed branding^ in the middle (Laforet and
Saunders 1994; Rao et al. 2004). With a branded house
strategy, different products within and across categories share
the same brand name (e.g., corporate branding). On the other
hand, with a house of brands strategy, different products or
sets of products receive different brand names (e.g., individual
product branding).
Past research suggests that the type of branding strategy
that a firm adopts can influence the success of innovations
(Rao et al. 2004; Rubera and Droge 2013). A house of brands
strategy requires more investment and effort by the firm, but
it minimizes the chance of negative feedback occurring to
one of their existing brands. For example, because disruptive
or highly technologically intensive innovations are per-
ceived as more risky (Chandy and Tellis 1998), they are typ-
ically introduced within a house of brands strategy via a new
brand with a new identity and new customer target segments
(Rubera and Droge 2013).
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
On the other hand, with a branded house strategy, when a
firm builds a reputation for technological innovation for its
brand, consumers may transfer this ability to new products
and services sharing that brand name (Brown and Dacin
1997). Rao et al. (2004) have proposed that a branded house
strategy in the form of the corporate branding would be the
most advantageous branding strategy financially, whereas a
house of brands strategy would be the least.
Optimizing the timing and sequencing of market entries
Competitive advantages, especially in the FMCG industry, are
often short-lived. Firms must move with speed and vigor to
achieve competitive advantages. Regardless, new brands can
take time to build, and new product and service launches for a
brand are often expensive and risky (Hultink et al. 2000). To
maximize the likelihood of success, firms need to carefully con-
sider how and when they should enter markets in terms of timing
and sequencing (Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Hauser et al. 2006).
Timing of market entry The timing of market entry plays an
important role in gaining sufficient long-term market shares in
industry with fast cycles (Datar et al. 1997). Market pioneers
often receive lower long-term market shares, and sometimes
even fail, whereas Bfast followers^ that enter a market later
can actually outperform market pioneers (Shankar et al. 1999).
In fact, for several different reasons, brands that enter a mar-
ket as fast followers during the growth stage of the product life
cycle have been shown to outsell the market pioneers (Golder
and Tellis 1993; Bayus et al. 1997). For example, late entrants
are able to refine and match customer product preferences with
highly innovative product features (Carpenter and Nakamoto
1989). Additionally, brands that enter the market in the growth
stage generally achieve sales faster than in the pioneer stage.
Pioneers need to consider their branding strategies careful-
ly. In product categories where innovative technologies are
needed, Sullivan (1992) showed that pioneers who introduce
their new product as a brand extension gain smaller market
shares than if the new product were to be launched as a new
brand. These effects, however, may depend on the types of
consumers involved (Wood and Swait 2002).
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
For example, Klink and Athaide (2010) demonstrate that
innovative consumers evaluate new brands comparatively
more favorably than extension brands because these types of
consumer may perceive less risk and greater decision
confidence even when faced with a new brand. On the other
hand, a study by Jhang et al. (2012) show that consumers high
in cognitive flexibility are able to generate new associations
that bridge an incongruent extension with the parent category,
increasing the likelihood of the brand’s extension success.
Sequencing of market entry Although prior research has
largely focused on the launch of one new product at a time,
some researchers, such as Kardes and Kalyanaram (1992),
have examined how order of entry will also affect the adoption
of each subsequent new product. Innovative firms will intro-
duce a whole series of new products and services over time.
Brand marketers and new product and service developers
should systematically examine which brand strategy will most
effectively contribute to market success when introducing a
series of new products and services. Different forms of new
product and service introductions can be distinguished with
different implications for branding.
One type of new product introductions involves successive,
next-generation products that aim to improve a brand’s
existing products. For next-generation products, a wide range
of competing brand name options exists. New product mar-
keters can use the core brand name and add a series of new-
ness indicators that convey the next generation such as a num-
ber (e.g., Playstation 4), a date (e.g., Powerpoint 2012), or a
superlative (e.g., Big Bertha, Great Big Bertha, Biggest Big
Bertha) (brand name continuation), or they can use a new
brand name as a sub-brand (e.g., Gillette Mach, Gillette Fu-
sion) (brand name change) that deviates from the existing
brand name pattern (Bertini et al. 2011).
Bertini et al. (2011) show that the appropriate branding
strategy for a successive generation product partly depends
on what the firm wants to signal as to the perceived similarities
between the existing and new product. If a brand name con-
tinuation strategy is used, consumers expect further improve-
ments of existing features in the new product over its prede-
cessor. On the other hand, consumers tend to associate a
switch from an established brand name to a new brand name
with a higher degree of change in the new product, especially
if the brand has been firmly established over time. These ex-
pected changes are even more evident with product feature
innovations.
More generally, consumers expect greater potential re-
wards (e.g., product quality, product functionality) and risks
(e.g., product failures, learning costs) from a newly branded
product. Their adoption of products under these circumstances
is influenced by the salience of these risks and rewards, as well
as the purchase context, the consumers’ personal disposition,
and other factors (Bertini et al. 2008, 2011).
551
Firms use new or non-sequential brand names in order to
highlight innovations. Several studies have shown that prefer-
ences for innovations and new versus existing brand names
differ by the levels of technological uncertainty. Chang and
Park (2013) show that under conditions of high technological
uncertainty, continuous pioneering with a series of new brands
across successive generations enhances brand preference of a
new innovation over previous generations. New brands bene-
fit from the fact that they more effectively signal or commu-
nicate innovativeness. In contrast, with low technological un-
certainty, using an existing brand across successive genera-
tions leads to higher preferences for previous product
generations.
The brand and new product integration decision is also
important when a radically new product innovation is
launched to the market. A danger with a more unusual or
radical innovation is that it fails to gain necessary aware-
ness, or perhaps is perceived as being too risky, and fades
from view without realizing its potential. Firms can use an
existing brand and brand identity to brand the radically new
product or create and introduce a new brand to market the
radical innovation.
Rivadeneyra and colleagues (2010) argue that the uncer-
tainty associated with radical innovations argue for creat-
ing a new brand which could both increase the perception
of newness and mitigate the possible brand dilution to an
existing brand which might result from any potential fail-
ure of the radical innovation. Moreover, with a new brand,
a more closely aligned marketing strategy and brand posi-
tioning adjusted to the radical innovation could be
developed.
Ma et al. (2014) propose deeper analysis of the adoption
tendencies of product extensions in cases when new brand
names signal radical innovation versus when sub-brands sig-
nal incremental innovation.
Future research directions
Based on the findings of the existing research, further research
could investigate the following directions:
& How can the long-term new product potential of a brand
be more reliably assessed?
& How should a brand be most effectively managed as a
growth platform for innovations?
& What is the effect of different types of brand and product
portfolios on successful product launch strategies?
& What are successful branding strategies to launch different
types of innovation, e.g., incremental new products (INPs)
versus radical new products (RNPs)?
& Which brand name strategy should be used for follow-on
offerings regarding a market leader or follower strategy in
the product category?
552
& How are consumer perceptions of the risks and rewards
associated with a new product influenced by the product
category (e.g., consumer products versus durable consum-
er goods/industrial goods) and other factors?
Brands support the introduction and adoption
of innovations
Branding thus influences where and how a firm goes to
market with its innovations. Branding also influences the
actual consumer response to the innovation and its ultimate
success in the marketplace. Branding plays an important
short-term and long-term supporting role for innovations,
affecting initial introduction and subsequent adoption by
consumers.
Introduction of innovations
Many new products are often introduced as extensions be-
cause of the advantages such a branding strategy can afford.
Consumers can form expectations about whether they think
that they will like a new product based in part on what they
know about its parent brand (Aaker 1996; Keller 2012). Prior
research has shown that by virtue of the positive expectations
they engender, favorably evaluated parent brands improve the
odds of extension success (Aaker and Keller 1990; Keller and
Aaker 1992; Erdem and Swait 1998; Smith and Park 1992).
A strong brand has a number of marketing advantages that
facilitate extending into new product categories (Hoeffler and
Keller 2003). In particular, strong brands improve the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of marketing activities and programs
by helping with both Bpush^ and Bpull^ strategies. Strong
brands gain greater trade cooperation and support and increase
marketing communication effectiveness. For example, brand
names help consumers to recall product information
(Broniarczyk and Alba 1994).
Brands allow the ownership of the innovation, support the
communication, and enhance the visibility of innovations
(Aaker 1997). For instance, the product features of the Apple
iPod and Apple iPad can be widely copied; but the Apple
brand provides the potential to own the uniqueness of usabil-
ity (Aaker 1997).
Moreover, a strong brand also offers an advantage in mit-
igating and offsetting the negative effects of product perfor-
mance failures (e.g., Brady et al. 2008). Note, however, that
research has shown that failures of innovations are more det-
rimental to: (1) strong brands that have preannounced the
innovation and (2) weak brands that do not receive supportive
word-of-mouth from an opinion leader after the failures occur
(Liao and Cheng 2014). Note too that Gammoh et al. (2011)
show that for weak or low equity brands, consumers actually
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
evaluated discontinuous innovations more favorably than con-
tinuous ones.
Adoption of innovations
Innovations require consumers to adopt new behaviors and/or
discontinue past behaviors. The newness of innovations cre-
ates uncertainties and risks that separate these adoption deci-
sions from other types of decision making (Hoeffler 2003).
Previous research has analyzed different reasons why con-
sumers adopt or resist product innovations (e.g., Hoeffler
2003; Gielens and Steenkamp 2007; Claudy et al. 2014). Pre-
vious empirical research (Steenkamp and Gielens 2003;
Gielens and Steenkamp 2007) shows that brand strength in-
creases the trial probability of new products. Both intrinsic
and extrinsic branding factors have been shown to impact
the adoption decision.
Intrinsic considerations One fundamental function of
brands is to transform the actual experience that customers
have with products or services (Keller and Lehmann 2006).
Through this transformation of perceived product perfor-
mance and by adding meaning to new products, brands in-
crease the perceptual distance to commodities. Brands guide
consumers’ quality evaluations of products and services
(Dawar and Parker 1994). Page and Herr (2002) find that
brand strength influences product quality perceptions when
there is a conflict between product design and brand strength.
Extrinsic considerations Research on new product adoption
and resistance has shown that consumers incorporate extrinsic
cue considerations in their decision making about the adoption
of innovations that go beyond intrinsic product performance
(Bearden and Shimp 1982; Gatignon and Robertson 1985),
with brand being one such extrinsic cue.
Brand image perceptions provide an important cue for con-
sumers’ new product and service adoption decisions (Claudy
et al. 2014). Bearden and Shimp (1982) show that the adop-
tion of innovative products is positively facilitated by the in-
novator’s reputation and quality—characteristics often sig-
naled by brands—which help to reduce the inherent risk of
adoption. Prins and Verhoef (2007) show that brand advertis-
ing can shorten new service adoption timing for a brand, but
brand advertising by competitors can lengthen its service
adoption timing. These results suggest that the brand has a
strong influence on product and service adoption behavior of
consumers: consumers that are loyal to the brand adopt inno-
vations earlier than do new customers.
The role of the existing brand franchise in innovation adop-
tion processes is important. For example, research on brand
communities shows that community participants are more
willing to adopt the brand’s new products and services and
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
more reluctant to try the offerings of competitive brands
(Thompson and Sinha 2008).
Future research directions
With reference to the current research, important future re-
search directions could address the following research
questions:
& In what ways do improved brand perceptions positively
affect customers’ new product and service adoption
behavior?
& Which consumer characteristics or other factors facilitate
acceptance of incongruent extensions with the parent
brand category?
& What are the effects of incrementally new products (INPs)
and radically new products (RNPs) supported by brands
with different levels of equity in the consumer adoption
process?
& In what ways does the brand facilitate adoption of simpli-
fying innovations (innovations that make using a product
easier) versus amplifying innovations (innovations that
enhance the degree of what can be done with a product)?
& How do brand architecture strategies influence consumer
adoption of incrementally new products (INPs) vs. radi-
cally new products (RNPs)?
& How does brand equity influence the retailers’ new prod-
uct innovation acceptance decisions?
& How does the breadth of a firm’s brand portfolio influence
its new product development processes?
Successful innovations improve brand perceptions,
attitude, and usage
Brands are built by a variety of means. At the heart of a
successful brand strategy is the value created by products
and services which deliver on the brand promise and meet—
or exceed—customer expectations. Brands embody the value
that products and services create for customers.
Product and service development must therefore be closely
aligned with and connected to the development of the brand.
When a firm offers products and services that are consistent
with the brand strategy and perfectly support the identity of
the brand, new product innovation and branding work in uni-
son to build and sustain competitive advantages.
Innovations benefit when they are transformed into brand
assets and brands are fully leveraged to capture new opportu-
nities of innovations for the firm (Day 2011). Innovations that
consistently update the offerings of the brand and that deliver
value and benefits for customers can carry and enhance the
equity of the brand (Ward et al. 1999). The absence or failure
553
of innovative products and services to deliver on the brand’s
promise will negatively affect the image and the loyalty of
customers toward the brand. No means can overcome prod-
ucts and services that are not aligned and are inconsistent to
the brand promise and that do not underscore and support the
brand values.
Successful major innovations help to fulfill the brand
promise, strengthen brand associations, create and support
the brand’s points-of-difference (Keller and Lehmann 2006),
increase brand attitudes (Aaker and Jacobson 2001), revitalize
the brand (e.g., Beverland et al. 2010), and improve brand
value and profitability in the process (Srinivasan et al. 2009;
Sriram et al. 2007).
Next, we consider the effects of new product introductions
on perceptions of credibility and innovativeness, as well the
effects of design innovations on brand meaning and product
acceptance.
Effects of new product introductions on perceptions
of credibility and innovativeness
The sphere of possible innovations is constrained by the im-
age and promise of the brand (Hauser et al. 2006). Yet, at the
same time, there are many types of associations that can influ-
ence the perceived fit and evaluation of a new product branded
as an extension (Batra et al. 1993; Keller and Lehmann 2006).
Two particularly important brand associations are brand cred-
ibility and brand innovativeness, as described next.
Brand credibility Customers may also form judgments
about the company or organization behind the brand. Brand
credibility measures the extent to which consumers believe a
firm can design and deliver products and services for a brand
that satisfy customer needs and wants. It is the reputation that
the brand has achieved in the marketplace in terms of three
dimensions: perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and likabil-
ity. Is the brand seen as (1) competent, innovative, and a mar-
ket leader (brand expertise); (2) honest, dependable, and keep-
ing customer interests in mind (brand trustworthiness); and
(3) fun, interesting, and worth spending time with (brand
likability)? In other words, credibility measures whether con-
sumers see the company or organization behind the brand as
good at what it does, concerned about its customers, and just
plain likable.
We can identify a number of other characteristics as conse-
quences of these three dimensions, for example, success and
leadership. Perceived brand credibility increases the likeli-
hood of consumer consideration and choice (Erdem and Swait
2004). Being seen as innovative can impact all three dimen-
sions of credibility, especially in terms of brand expertise
(Keller and Aaker 1998). Brands seen as innovative can use
this reputation for successfully introducing a wider range of
product extensions. For example, the 3M brand is strongly
554
associated with innovativeness and a whole host of different
types of products.
The effects of product innovation on brand credibility and
image may depend on the perceived quality of the brands
involved. Gill and Lei (2009) examined how goal congruence
(similar or different goals as the base product) of additional
product functionalities affects the value of high and low qual-
ity brands. The results of their study showed that lower quality
brands gain when a congruent additional functionality is
added, whereas higher quality brands gain from incongruent
additional functionalities. Research has also shown that inno-
vation is more beneficial for brands with low quality (e.g.,
Nowlis and Simonson 1996).
Brand innovativeness Many brands use Binnovativeness^ as
part of their brand personality and in their brand positioning
and claims. Barone and Jewell (2013, p. 120) note that brands
that are seen as innovative earn innovation credit. They define
innovation credit for a brand as an Bintangible asset that in-
volves the equity a brand accumulates with consumers in ap-
preciation of its efforts to develop new products, services, or
other innovative practices for the market.^
Innovation credit is an important component of brand eq-
uity that allows firms to employ marketing strategies for a
brand that might deviate and violate commonly used category
norms (Barone and Jewell 2013). Their study suggests that
successful marketing strategies require an understanding of
the category in which a brand competes and certain key char-
acteristics associated with the brand like its reputation as being
innovative. If an innovation credit applies, brands have the
opportunity to employ a wider range of innovation strategies.
Effects of design innovations on brand meaning
and product acceptance
Product design has both functional and aesthetic aspects.
Fundamentally, it is how a product works, as well as how it
looks and feels. The product innovation and its physical
embodiment in the form of the design of the product or its
packaging are inseparable and merged with each other
(Orth and Malkewitz 2008; Eisenman 2013). Consumers
are able to recognize and elicit images of some brands by
their product design and characteristics (Keller and Leh-
mann 2006; Luchs and Swan 2011). The topics of product
and packaging design thus bridge both branding and inno-
vation. They have the potential to spur new product devel-
opment and fuel brand meaning.
The topic of product design and design innovativeness
as the degree of novelty in the product’s external appear-
ance has recently emerged as an important area of research
in the marketing literature (e.g., Chitturi et al. 2007;
Landwehr et al. 2011; Talke et al. 2009; Rubera 2012).
Most research so far has focused on the design’s constituent
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
elements of functionality and aesthetics (e.g., Bloch et al.
2003; Hoegg and Alba 2011). Although product design has
received increasing research attention, research on brand-
ing and innovation generally reflect a limited view of the
nature of design. Some important research, however, has
considered the effects of design innovation on brand mean-
ing and new product acceptance.
Design innovation and brand meaning Product and pack-
aging design is a core component of every new product de-
velopment and innovation process that supports and pursues
the brand strategy (Townsend et al. 2013). Design plays an
important role in consumers’ buying decisions and influences
the image and meaning of the brand (Bloch 1995; Karjalainen
and Snelders 2010; Luchs and Swan 2011; Srinivasan et al.
2012). Design innovations are often introduced to assign new
meaning and value to brands (Bloch 1995; Rindova and
Petkova 2007). Many firms therefore aim to develop an inim-
itable, distinctive and iconic design for their products (e.g.,
Vitra Eames Chair or Porsche 911) or product packaging
(e.g., Coca-Cola contour bottle or Tiffany’s robin’s egg-blue
box) that is closely aligned with or even central to their brand
identity. Research supports the notion that the social and emo-
tional value of product design affects the consumer-brand re-
lationship (Kumar et al. 2014).
Product and packaging design can thus enhance the mean-
ing of the brand. Design and its attributes may extend the basic
functionalities of the products by highlighting their symbolic
meanings (Orth and Malkewitz 2008; Eisenman 2013) and
trigger positive emotions (Verganti 2006). Brands can use
product design as an important way to differentiate and widen
the distance toward competitor brands.
The identity of a brand needs to be consistently reflected in
the design of the products and product line (Kreuzbauer and
Malter 2005). For many new product categories, a specific
product design evolves that sets the specifications for the en-
tire category, dominates the category, and shapes the genera-
tions for future products within the category (e.g. Dyson vac-
uum cleaner, Apple IPhone) (Utterback 1994).
Design innovation and new product acceptance Firms at-
tempt to introduce continuous innovations and refresh the
brand and brand portfolio. Innovations are not always easily
adapted into the market. Consumers rely on the parent cate-
gory knowledge to draw inferences for new products (e.g.,
Moreau et al. 2001). The product’s newness may be a risk
especially when the visual design is so innovative that it is
difficult for consumers to categorize it into a specific product
category. A salient brand increases the consumers’ certainty in
the identification and categorization of a new product category
membership (Goode et al. 2013).
Srinivasan et al. (2012) outline three constituent elements
of design—functionality (i.e., product features and related
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
benefits), aesthetics (i.e., product’s sensorial characteristics),
and meaning (i.e., product associations in customers’ minds).
The authors note that, BIn our proposed customer-centric view
of product design, we suggest that customers may differ sig-
nificantly both in how they map product characteristics onto
the three design elements and in how those design elements
affect customer experience.^
Landwehr and colleagues (2012) highlight that strong
brands may have the ability to intensify the impact of
aesthetic product designs. Rubera (2012) has shown that
brand strength and brand-related advertising expenditures
negatively influence the effect of design innovativeness
on initial sales, while positively influencing sales growth
rates. This research also finds that design innovativeness
and brand strength act as substitutes in the short term,
but they complement each other in the long run. Rubera
and Droge (2013) find that design innovation impacts
sales and stock performance differently depending on
the chosen branding strategy. Firms with non-corporate
branding strategies can actually benefit more from their
design and technology innovation in terms of consumer
and investor response than firms with corporate branding
strategies.
Future research directions
Research by Chitturi et al. (2010) shows that hedonic product
attributes have a significantly stronger influence on consumer
preference when they are supported by a strong brand, as
compared to a weak brand. However, utilitarian product attri-
butes have a stronger impact on consumers’ preference when
accompanied by a weak versus a strong brand. Although ini-
tial studies on the interrelationship between product and pack-
aging design innovativeness and branding have been conduct-
ed, additional research needs to address the following
priorities:
& Are there any downsides of innovation for brand equity?
Can innovation ever lead to consumer confusion, frustra-
tion, or mistrust?
& What is the impact of new product preannouncements on
brand perceptions?
& How do various launch strategies strengthen brand equity?
& What is the relationship between product design and prod-
uct innovativeness and branding?
& How can product design enhance a firm’s branding
strategy?
& Which of the various elements of design is more important
within the new product introduction? Are simple or com-
plex designs are more promising?
& In how far does the interplay between design and branding
influence the adoption of innovations? Are there dominant
patterns for specific categories?
555
& In how far do more or less Bdesign driven^ brands facili-
tate new product introductions?
& How many branded design attributes are important to the
overall utility and adoption of innovations in different
categories?
& In how far do specific design elements influence the brand
personality and support innovativeness?
& In how far do specific product and packaging designs of a
brand allow future innovations?
Conclusions
Brand and innovation management have become important
management priorities for many firms. Branding and innova-
tion management are interwoven, intertwined, and stay in a
complex interrelationship to each other. Yet, despite decades
of research and a large body of potential generalizations in
both branding and innovation, the interdependency of both
still needs more concerted study. This article highlights some
of the rich interactions among brands and innovations and
some of the key topics that are at the interface of brand and
innovation management.
We began our analysis by presenting a conceptual frame-
work that depicts the brand and innovation interdependency as
a virtuous circle involving three stages: brands provide strate-
gic focus and guidance to innovations, brands support the
introduction and adoption of innovations, and successful in-
novations improve brand perceptions, attitude, and usage. One
important implication of this framework is that by virtue of the
fact that innovations can change consumers’ brand awareness
or brand image in the short run, they can have an indirect
effect on the success of future innovations and other marketing
activities in the long-run.
While in general the topics making up this framework give
a flavor of the nature of the relationship between branding and
innovation, each of these topics has many other subtopics
which we were not able to address that provide even more
texture. Each of these various subtopics may affect each other
and imply a complex relationship among them.
Nevertheless, our discussion and review of the interdepen-
dency between branding and innovation suggests a number of
specific research opportunities and directions that will hope-
fully stimulate future research for years to come. This paper
proposes a research agenda with emphasis needed for research
to examine and explicate the relationship and linkages among
all possible concepts related to brands and innovation. We
hope that brand innovation dependency is an area from which
academics and practitioners alike can begin a useful dialogue
that will lead to further refinements of this important
relationship.
556
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and mar-
kets. California Management Review, 38(3), 102–120.
Aaker, D. A. (1997). Innovation: brand it or lose it. California
Management Review, 50(1), 135–143.
Aaker, D. A., & Jacobson, R. (2001). The value relevance of brand atti-
tude in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(4), 485–493.
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand
extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27–41.
Barone, M. J., & Jewell, R. D. (2013). The innovator’s license: a latitude to
deviate from category norms. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 120–134.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Singh, D. (1993). The brand personality
component of brand goodwill: some antecedents and consequences.
In D. A. Aaker (Ed.), Brand equity and advertising (pp. 83–96).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bayus, B. L., Jain, S., & Rao, A. G. (1997). Too little, too early: intro-
duction timing and new product performance in the personal digital
assistant industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 50–63.
Bearden, W. O., & Shimp, T. A. (1982). The use of extrinsic cues to facilitate
product adoption. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), 229–239.
Bertini, M., Gourville, J., & Ofek, E. (2008). The branding of next-
generation products. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 834.
Bertini, M., Gourville, J., & Ofek, E. (2011). The best way to name your
product 2.0. Harvard Business Review, May, 36.
Beverland, M. B., Napoli, J., & Farrelly, F. (2010). Can all brands inno-
vate in the same way? A typology of brand position and innovation
effort. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 33–48.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer
response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29.
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences
in the centrality of visual product form: concept and measurement.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565.
Brady, M. K., Cronin, J. J., Jr., Fox, G. L., & Roehm, M. L. (2008).
Strategies to offset performance failures: the role of brand equity.
Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 151–164.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in
brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 214–228.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product:
corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of
Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Calder, B. J., & Calder, E. S. (2010). Brand-led innovation. In A. Tybout
& B. J. Calder (Eds.), Kellogg on marketing (2nd ed.) (pp. 332–
347). Hoboken: Wiley.
Carpenter, G. S., & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference forma-
tion and pioneering advantage. Journal of Marketing Research,
26(3), 285–298.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product
innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize.
Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–487.
Chang, D. R., & Park, S. B. (2013). The effects of brand strategy and
technological uncertainty on pioneering advantage in the multigen-
erational product market. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(1), 82–95.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus func-
tion: how the intensities of specific emotions evoked in functional
versus hedonic tradeoffs mediate product preferences. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44(11), 702–714.
Chitturi, R., Chitturi, P., & Raghavarao, D. (2010). Design for synergy
with brand or price information. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7),
679–697.
Claudy, M. C., Garcia, R., & O’Driscoll, A. (2014). Consumer resistance
to innovation - a behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0399-0.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
Datar, S., Jordan, C. C., Kekre, S., Rajiv, S., & Srinivasan, K. (1997).
Advantages of time-based new product development in a fast-cycle
industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 36–49.
Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: consumers’ use of
brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as
signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 81–95.
Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of
Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.
Eisenman, M. (2013). Understanding aesthetic innovation in the context
of technological evolution. Academy of Management Review, 38(3),
332–351.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration and
choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198.
Gammoh, B. S., Voss, K. E., & Skiver, R. (2011). Consumer evaluation of
continuous and discontinuous innovation: the effects of brand equity
and product category knowledge. American Journal of Business,
26(1), 65–79.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985). A propositional inventory for
new diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–
867.
Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm
and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research,
34(1), 77–90.
Gielens, K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2007). Drivers of consumer
acceptance of new packaged goods: an investigation across products
and countries. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
24(2), 97–111.
Gill, T., & Lei, J. (2009). Convergence in the high-technology consumer
markets: not all brands gain equally from adding new functionalities
to products. Marketing Letters, 20(1), 91–103.
Golder, P. N., & Tellis, G. J. (1993). Pioneer advantage: marketing logic
or marketing legend? Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 158–
170.
Goode, M. R., Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2013). Innovation aes-
thetics: the relationship between category cues, categorization cer-
tainty, and newness perceptions. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30(2), 192–208.
Hauser, J. R., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: a
review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25(6),
687–717.
Hoeffler, S. (2003). Measuring preferences for really new products.
Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 406–421.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong
brands. Journal of Brand Management, 10(August), 421–445.
Hoegg, J. J., & Alba, W. (2011). Seeing is believing (too much): the
influence of product form on perceptions of functional performance.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 346–359.
Hoffman, D. L., Kopalle, P. K., & Novak, T. P. (2010). The ‘right’ con-
sumers for better concepts: identifying consumers high in emergent
nature to develop new product concepts. Journal of Marketing
Research, 47(5), 854–865.
Hultink, E. J. (2010). From the special issue guest editor: special issue on
branding and new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 27(1), 3–5.
Hultink, E. J., Hart, S., Robben, H., & Griffin, A. (2000). Launch decision
and new product success: an empirical comparison of consumer and
industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
17(1), 5–23.
Jhang, J. H., Grant, S. J., & Campbell, M. C. (2012). Get it? Got it. Good!
Enhancing new product acceptance by facilitating resolution of ex-
treme incongruity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 247–259.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2014). Brands and innovation. In K. Kompella (Ed.), The
definitive book of branding (pp. 149–170). New Delhi: Sage.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2015) 43:548–557
Kardes, F. R., & Kalyanaram, G. (1992). Order-of-entry effects on con-
sumer memory and judgment: an information integration perspec-
tive. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 343–357.
Karjalainen, T.-M., & Snelders, D. (2010). Designing visual recognition
for the brand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1),
6–22.
Keller, K. L. (2012). Strategic brand management. 3rd Edition, Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduc-
tion of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35–
50.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1998). The impact of corporate marketing
on a company’s brand extensions. Corporate Reputation Review,
1(4), 356–378.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: research
findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2009). Assessing brand potential.
Journal of Brand Management, 17(September), 6–17.
Klink, R. R., & Athaide, G. A. (2010). Consumer innovativeness and the
use of new versus extended brand names for new products. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 23–32.
Kreuzbauer, R., & Malter, A. J. (2005). Embodied cognition and new
product design. Changing product form to influence brand catego-
rization. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 165–
176.
Kumar, M., Townsend, J. D., & Vorhies, D. W. (2014). Enhancing con-
sumers’ affection for a brand using product design. Journal of
Product Innovation Management. doi:10.1111/jpim.12245.
Laforet, S., & Saunders, J. (1994). Managing brand portfolios: how the
leaders do it. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 64–76.
Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It’s got the look:
the effect of friendly and aggressive Bfacial^ expressions on product
liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146.
Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2012). The tipping point
of design: how product design and brands interact to affect con-
sumers’ preferences. Psychology & Marketing, 29(6), 422–433.
Liao, S., & Cheng, C. C. J. (2014). Brand equity and the exacerbating
factors of product innovation failure evaluations: a communication
effect perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2919–2925.
Luchs, M., & Swan, K. S. (2011). Perspective: the emergence of product
design as a field of marketing inquiry. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 28(3), 327–345.
Ma, Z., Yang, Z., & Mourali, M. (2014). Consumer adoption of new
products: independent versus interdependent self-perspectives.
Journal of Marketing, 78(2), 101–117.
Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Brand name as a
heuristic cue: the effects of task importance and expectancy confir-
mation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
1(4), 317–336.
Moreau, C. P., Lehmann, D. R., & Markman, A. B. (2001). Entrenched
knowledge structures and consumer response to new products.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 14–29.
Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1996). The effect of new product features
on brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 36–46.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and con-
sumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 64–81.
Page, C., & Herr, P. M. (2002). An investigation of the processes by
which product design and brand strength interact to determine initial
affect and quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
12(2), 133–147.
Prins, R., & Verhoef, P. C. (2007). Marketing communication drivers of
adoption timing of a new e-service among existing customers.
Journal of Marketing, 71(2), 169–183.
Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest
branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation?
Journal of Marketing, 68(6), 126–141.
557
Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrin-
sic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), 28–36.
Rindova, V., & Petkova, A. (2007). When is a new thing a good thing?
Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of val-
ue for product innovations. Organization Science, 18(2), 217–232.
Rivadeneyra, R., Patel, C., Sorescu, A., Prabhu, J., & Chandy, R. (2010).
Brand and technical integration for radical innovation: Do firms that
integrate do better than firms that do not? In M. K. Brady, M. D.
Hartline (Eds.), Marketing Theory and Application (pp. 226–227).
Proceedings of the 2010 American Marketing Association Winter
Educators’ Conference.
Rubera, G. (2012). Design innovativeness and product sales’ evolution.
Marketing Science. doi:10.1287/mksc.2014.0875.
Rubera, G., & Droge, C. (2013). Technology versus design innovation’s
effects on sales and Tobin’s Q: the moderating role of branding
strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(3), 448–
464.
Shankar, V., Carpenter, G. S., & Krishnamurthi, L. (1999). The advan-
tages of entry in the growth stage of the product life cycle: an em-
pirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 269–276.
Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on
market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing
Research, 29(3), 296–313.
Sorescu, A. B., & Spanjol, J. (2008). Innovation’s effect on firm value and
risk: insights from consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing,
72(2), 114–132.
Srinivasan, S., Pauwels, K., Silva-Risso, J., & Hanssens, D. M. (2009).
Product innovations, advertising, and stock returns. Journal of
Marketing, 73(1), 24–43.
Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., Rangaswamy, A., Pingitore, G. M., &
Seldin, D. (2012). The total product design concept and an applica-
tion to the auto market. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
29(S1), 3–20.
Sriram, S., Balachander, S., & Kalwani, M. U. (2007). Monitoring the
dynamics of brand equity using store-level data. Journal of
Marketing, 71(2), 61–78.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Gielens, K. (2003). Consumer and market
drivers of the trial probability of new consumer packaged goods.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 368–384.
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Hofstede, F. T., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-
national investigation into the individual and national cultural ante-
cedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2),
55–69.
Sullivan, M. W. (1992). Brand extensions: when to use them.
Management Science, 38(6), 793–806.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., Wieringa, J. E., & Lutz, A. (2009). What about
design newness? Investigating the relevance of a neglected dimen-
sion of product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 26(6), 601–615.
Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new
product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional loyalty.
Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 65–80.
Townsend, J. D., Kang, W., Montoya, M. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2013).
Brand‐specific design effects: form and function. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(5), 994–1008.
Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation: How
companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological
change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Verganti, R. (2006). Innovating through design. Harvard Business
Review, 84(12), 114–122.
Ward, S., Goldstine, J., & Light, L. (1999). What high-tech managers
need to know about brands. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 85–95.
Wood, S. L., & Swait, J. (2002). Psychological indicators of innovation
adoption: cross-classification based on need for cognition and need
for change. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(1), 1–13.