Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회지)

The Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles (한국의류학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Dilution on Beauty Brand Extension Situation -Was Parent Brand's Knowledge Transferred to Brand Extension by Typicality?-

뷰티브랜드 확장상황에서 희석효과 -전형성에 기초한 브랜드 확장 시 모브랜드의 지식이 전이 되었는가?-

  • Choi, Jung-Sun (Dept. of Business Administration, Graduate School, Pukyong National University) ;
  • Jeon, Jung-Ok (Div. of Business Administration, Pukyong National University)
  • 최정선 (부경대학교 대학원 경영학과) ;
  • 전중옥 (부경대학교 경영학부)
  • Received : 2010.10.14
  • Accepted : 2010.12.06
  • Published : 2011.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The potential for brand dilution occurs when new brands merge with an identical image of a parent brand. Despite the significant attention regarding the effects of dilution on brand extension, there is limited research on brand dilution in the beauty industry. This study analyzes the effect of the typicality of extensional type on brand attitude or purchase intention for potential dilution toward beauty brand extension. In addition, we examine the moderating effect of knowledge transfer when customers evaluate the typicality of the extensional type for potential dilution toward beauty brand extensions. For the experiment, 4 description type factorial designs were performed. A total of 219 students participated in the experiment who had experience of visiting a beauty salon. The results are as follows. First, there are significant independent and interaction effects between the typicality and extensional type that reveals differential influences on the attitude or purchase intentions toward extended beauty brands. Second, the knowledge of the parent brand is transferred to extended brands. Third, there is a significant moderating effect of knowledge transfer, as customers evaluate the typicality of the extensional type for the potential dilution toward beauty brand extension. This study provides some theoretical and practical perspectives with some limitations.

Keywords

References

  1. 김석원. (2001). 소비자 점포지각 사이에 관한 연구. 충북대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.
  2. 김재휘, 안은미, 김지호. (2006). 유대강도에 따른 정보방향성과 정보유형이 구전의도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지, 7(1), 93-112.
  3. 나준희. (2006). 사용상황의 전형성이 브랜드 대응확장에 미치는 영향. 마케팅연구, 21(4), 233-256.
  4. 박준 뷰티랩, 수분공급 트리트먼트제품 '쇼부' (2007, 1. 31). 머니투데이. 자료검색일 2010, 4. 26, 자료출처 http://mnb.mt.co.kr.
  5. 성영신, 임성호. (2005). 공동마케팅에서의 브랜드 희석효과 연구-제휴 카드를 중심으로-. 한국심리학회지, 6(2), 1-25.
  6. 여준상, 박종원. (2004). 모브랜드의 폭과 확장제품의 제품 범주 유사성이 확장제품 태도 및 모브랜드 신념에 미치는 영향. 경영학연구, 33(5), 1397-1422.
  7. 이군희. (2002). 사회과학 연구방법론. 서울: 법문사.
  8. 이미영. (2004). 비교광고의 효과 연구: 속성 전형성의 조정역할을 중심으로. 광고학연구, 15(2), 151-176.
  9. 이유재. (1994). 상호작용효과를 포함한 다중회귀분석에서 주 효과의 검증에 대한 연구. 경영학연구, 23(4), 183-208.
  10. 이훈영. (2006). 이훈영교수의 마케팅조사론. 서울: 청람.
  11. 전성률, 주태욱. (2008). 확장제품시장의 주도적 브랜드가 확장제품평가에 미치는 효과: 시장변수의 조절효과를 중심으로. 소비자학연구, 19(4), 19-40.
  12. 전성률, 허종호, 유병선. (2006). 비순차적 상향라인확장에 따른 소비자의 브랜드 범주지각에 관한 연구. 소비자학연구, 19(4), 19-40.
  13. 홍성태, 강동균. (1997). 유사성, 지각된 품질 및 기업의 신뢰도가 상표확장제품의 평가에 미치는 영향. 마케팅연구, 12(1), 1-25.
  14. GS리테일 박준 뷰티랩 헤어케어제품 출시. (2007, 3. 27). 파이낸셜뉴스. 자료검색일 2010, 4. 26, 자료출처 http://www.fnnews.com
  15. Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252171
  16. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 411-454. https://doi.org/10.1086/209080
  17. Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  18. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, 211-227. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968
  19. Broniarczyk, S. M., & Alba, J. W. (1994). The importance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(May), 214-228
  20. Cohen, J., & Basu, K. (1987). Alternative models of categorization: Toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1086/209081
  21. Crocker, J. (1984). A schematic approach to changing consumers' beliefs. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 472-477.
  22. Darr, E., & Kurtzberg, T. (2000). An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2885
  23. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (1999). Comparison effects on preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(December), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1086/209564
  24. Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer behavior (8th ed.). New York: The Dryden Press.
  25. Feick, L., & Higie, R. A. (1992). The effects of preference heterogeneity and source characteristics on Ad processing and judgements about endorsers. Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1992.10673364
  26. Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge and understanding in collaborative action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 513-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<513::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-U
  27. Gregan-Paxton, J., & John, D. R. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(Dec), 266-284. https://doi.org/10.1086/209509
  28. Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Meheswaran, D. (1998). The effects of extensions on brand name dilution and enhancement. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(November), 464-473.
  29. Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(December), 404-420. https://doi.org/10.1086/209123
  30. John, D. R., Loken, B., & Joiner, C. (1998). The negative extensions: Can flagship products be diluted? Journal of Marketing, 62(January), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251800
  31. Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(February), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172491
  32. Krogh, G. (1998). Care in the knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133-145.
  33. Kumar, P. (2005). Brand counterextensions: The impact of brand extension success versus failure. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(May), 13-194.
  34. Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251855
  35. Lutz, R. J. (1977). An experimental investigation of causal relations among cognition, affect and behavioral intention. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1086/208668
  36. Maheswaran, D. (1994). Country of origin as a stereotype: Effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(September), 354-365. https://doi.org/10.1086/209403
  37. Median, D. L., & Smith, E. (1984). Concepts and concept formation. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 113-138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.35.020184.000553
  38. Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89-115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513
  39. Milberg, S. J., Park, C. W., & McCarthy, M. S. (1997). Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extension: The impact of alternative branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0602_01
  40. Nedungadi, P., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1985). The prototypicality of brand: Relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 498-503.
  41. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
  42. Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(September), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1086/209251
  43. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
  44. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(September), 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
  45. Rome, J. B. (1991). The effect of negative information on the evaluations of brand extensions and the family brand. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 399-406.
  46. Sujan, M., & Dekleva, C. (1987). Product categorization and inference making: Some implications for comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(Dec), 372-378. https://doi.org/10.1086/209120
  47. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review,84(4), 327-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
  48. Veryzer, R. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic response to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 374-394. https://doi.org/10.1086/209516
  49. Ward, J., & Loken, B. (1986). The quintessential snack food: Measurement of product prototypes. In R. J. Lutz (Ed.), Advances in consumer research Vol. 13 (pp. 126-131). Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research.