Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,304

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

Park, C. Whan, Milberg, Sandra, Lawson, Robert·1991·Journal of Consumer Research

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/209251

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 1,304

Metadata

Authors
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R.
Venue
Journal of Consumer Research
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.