The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence

By Adamantios Diamantopoulos, G. Smith, Ian Grime. 2005

232 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose – To investigate empirically the impact of brand extensions on brand personality, using Aaker's scale to measure the latter.Design/methodology/approach – Experimental study manipulating extension fit (good/poor fit), controlling for brand familiarity and including a control group.Findings – No adverse impact on brand personality of core brand as a result of introducing extensions (irrespective of fit).Research limitations/implications – Cross‐sectional study not capturing potential long‐term effects of extensions with poor fit. Longitudinal research is needed, as are replications with different brands, types of extensions and consumer segments.Practical implications – Preliminary support for introducing extension for a quality brand without fear of adversely affecting its brand personality.Originality/value – First study explicitly investigating impact of brand extensions on brand personality.

Subfields: Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a9504fd8edba152c8b55a3a3acfe02ea47fa3299

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

Citations in the corpus

Brand management in higher education: The University Brand Personality Scale (2016, background): “Drawing on Diamantopoulos, Smith, and Grime (2005), assessing the role of different brand personalities through the lens of brand extension theories could provide valuable insights to marketing academia and practice.”
Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences (2013, background): “…of BP in isolation (i.e., communication variables, product characteristics, consumer demographics and psychographics and consumer brand experiences; Diamantopoulos et al. 2005; Orth and Malkewitz 2008; Yoo et al. 2009) and neglected their relative influences on BP. Additionally, although much…”
Modeling the brand extensions' influence on brand image (2009, background): “Diamantopoulos et al. (2005) find no evidence that extensions modify those perceptions related to brand personality.”
The Malleable Brand: The Role of Implicit Theories in Evaluating Brand Extensions (2010, background): “Research by Plaks, Grant, and Dweck (2005) suggests that core beliefs are more important than marginal traits.”
Brand extension feedback: The role of advertising (2009, background): “Moreover, intangible associations are more resistant to negative spillover effects on the extended brand image (Diamantopoulos et al., 2005; Loken and John, 1993).”
Destination image and destination personality. (2007, background): “study and recent research on brand personality ( Diamantopoulos et al. , 2005”
The effect of brand extensions on product brand image (2010, background): “, 1994), effects of brand extensions on brand alliances (James, 2006), the impacts of brand extensions on brand personality (Diamantopoulos et al., 2005), the effects of brand concept consistency and product feature similarity on the success of extensions (Park et al.”
Are Consumers Really Willing to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of Country-of-Origin Effects on Willingness to Pay (2012, background): “In addition to indicating their WTP, study participants subsequently completed a questionnaire with measures of country image (Roth and Romeo 1992) and brand familiarity (Diamantopoulos, Smith, and Grime 2005), which enabled us to perform manipulation checks on the experimental conditions.”