The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency
Abstract
This article examines two factors that differentiate between successful and unsuccessful brand extensions: product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. The results reveal that, in identifying brand extensions, consumers take into account not only information about the product-level feature similarity between the new product and the products already associated with the brand, but also the concept consistency between the brand concept and the extension. For both function-oriented and prestige-oriented brand names, the most favorable reactions occur when brand extensions are made with high brand concept consistency and high product feature similarity. In addition, the relative impact of these two factors differs to some extent, depending on the nature of the brand-name concept. When a brand's concept is consistent with those of its extension products, the prestige brand seems to have greater extendibility to products with low feature similarity than the functional brand does.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Barsalou, L. W. (1983) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03196968 · Cited by 1,879
Cited by
A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility
Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379403100210 · Cited by 446
Self-citation‘Masstige’ marketing: A review, synthesis and research agenda
Kumar, A., Paul, J., & Unnithan, A. B. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.030 · Cited by 437
Aggarwal, P., Jun, S. Y., & Huh, J. H. (2011) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.2753/joa0091-3367400302 · Cited by 349
Breastfeeding as a public health responsibility: A review of the evidence
Brown, A. (2017) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.12496 · Cited by 181
The Role of Customer Affection and Trust in Loyalty Rebuilding after Service Failure and Recovery
La, S., & Choi, B. (2012) · The Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2011.529438 · Cited by 133
Wasted Positive Intentions: The Role of Affection and Abundance on Household Food Waste
Porpino, G., Wansink, B., & Parente, J. (2016) · Journal of Food Products Marketing · doi:10.1080/10454446.2015.1121433 · Cited by 109
Customer Referral Reward–Brand–Fit: A Schema Congruity Perspective
Stumpf, C., & Baum, M. (2016) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20896 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2063169022
- Cited by
- 1,304
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.