Advertisement

Increasing Co-Product Evaluations by Using Integrative Logos

Chapter
Part of the European Advertising Academy book series (EAA)

Abstract

Widespread use of the strategy of co-branding: At present, numerous companies introduce co-products into the market that indicate cooperation between two companies. When they refer to the constituent brand names, they use the technique of co-branding. For instance, Gillette and ‘The Art of Shaving’ (men’s shaving products) offer the jointly developed Fusion Chrome Collection that contains a shaver with a kind of torch light in it.

Keywords

Consumer Research Brand Extension Purchase Intent Brand Alliance Partner Brand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baumgartner, H. (1995), “On the Utility of Consumers’ Theories in Judgement of Covariation,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 (4), 634-643.Google Scholar
  2. Broniarczyk, S. M. and J. W. Alba (1994), “The Role of Consumers’ Intuitions in Inference Making”, in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 (3), 393-407.Google Scholar
  3. Cox, D. F. (1967), “The Sorting Rule Model of the Consumer Product Evaluation Process,” in: Cox, D. F. (ed.): Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business, 324-369.Google Scholar
  4. D’Astous, A.; Colbert F. and M. Fournier (2007), “An Experimental Investigation of the Use of Brand Extension and Co-Branding Strategies in the Arts,” in: Journal of Services Marketing Vol. 21 (4), 231-240.Google Scholar
  5. Eagly, A. H. and S. Chaiken (1993), “The Psychology of Attitudes,” Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovic.Google Scholar
  6. Heimbach, A. E.; Johansson J. K. and D. L. MacLachlan (1989), “Product Familiarity, Information Processing, and Country-of-Origin Cues,” in: Srull T. K. (Ed.): Advances of Consumer Research (Vol. 16), Provo: Association for Consumer Research, 460-467.Google Scholar
  7. Kostyra, D. S. and D. Klapper. (2015), “Signaling Teamwork: How Brand Prominence in Brand Alliance Communication Can Influence Customer Perception,” in: Marketing ZFP - Journal of Research and Management, Vol. 37 (2), 69-78.Google Scholar
  8. Mandler, G. P. (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in: Clark, M. S. and S. T. Fiske (Eds.): Affect and Cognition: The 17 th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-36.Google Scholar
  9. McCarthy, M. S. and D. G. Norris (1999), “Improving Competitive Position Using Branded Ingredients,” in: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 (4), 267-285.Google Scholar
  10. Meyers-Levy, J. and A. M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 (1), 39-54.Google Scholar
  11. Meyers-Levy, J.; Louie, T. A. and M. T. Curren (1994), “How Does the Congruity of Brand Names Affect Evaluations of Brand Name Extensions?,” in: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 (1), 46-53.Google Scholar
  12. Olson, J. C. (1977), “Price as an Informational Cue: Effects on Product Evaluations,” in: Woodside A. G.; Sheth J. N.; Bennet P. D. (Eds.): Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, New York: North-Holland, 267-286.Google Scholar
  13. Olson, J. C. (1978), “Inferential Belief Formation in the Cue Utilization Process,” in: Hunt, K. (Ed.): Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 5), Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 706-713.Google Scholar
  14. Olson, J. C. and J. Jacoby (1972), “Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process,” in: Venkatesan, M. (Ed.): Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Iowa City: Association for Consumer Research, 167-179.Google Scholar
  15. Park, C. W.; Jun, S.Y. and A. D. Shocker (1996), “Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects,” in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 (4), 453-466.Google Scholar
  16. Pechmann, C. and S. Ratneshwar (1992), “Consumer Covariation Judgements: Theory or Data Driven,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 (3), 373-386.Google Scholar
  17. Peracchio, L. A. and A. M. Tybout (1996), “The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23 (3), 177-192.Google Scholar
  18. Preacher, K. J. and A. F. Hayes (2004), “SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models,” in: Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36 (4), 717-731.Google Scholar
  19. Rao, A. R. and K. B. Monroe (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 (2), 253-264.Google Scholar
  20. Rao, A. R. and R. W. Ruekert (1994), “Brand Alliances as Signals of Product Quality,” in: Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36 (1), 87-97.Google Scholar
  21. Schellinck, D. A. (1983), “Cue Choice as a Function of Time Pressure and Perceived Risk,” in: Bagozzi R. P.; Tybout A. M. (Eds.): Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 10), Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 470-475.Google Scholar
  22. Shocker A. D. (1995), “Positive and Negative Effects of Brand Extension and Co-Branding,” in: Kardes F. R.; Sujan M. (Eds.): Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 22), Provo: Association for Consumer Research, 432-434.Google Scholar
  23. Simonin, B. L. and J. A. Ruth (1998), “Is a Company Known by the Company it Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes,” in: Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 (1), 30-42.Google Scholar
  24. Van Osselaer, S. M. and C. Janiszewski (2001), “Two Ways of Learning Brand Associations,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 (2), 202-223.Google Scholar
  25. Washburn, J. H.; Till B. D. and R. Priluck (2000), “Co-Branding: Brand Equity and Trial Effects,” in: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 (7), 591-604.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MarketingUniversität AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations