The Effects of Experience with Brand Extensions on Parent Brand Knowledge

The influence of brand extensions on the parent brand is important to seen has explored the effects of actual experience with them despite the fact that perceptions based on experience are imunderstand because they may change its core beliefs and thus either enhance or jeopardize its positioning. However, previous research has focussed on portant determinants of product knowledge (Smith and Swinyard, 1983; Isen, 1984; Oliver, 1993). beliefs about brand extensions not beliefs about the parent brand. We exAs an example, Reebok recently introduced hiking shoes. plore the influence of direct experience with a brand extension on consumers’ Before the introduction, consumers had beliefs about Reebok knowledge about parent brands that differ in familiarity. We find differences (“lightweight” and “comfortable”) and hiking shoes (“in earth in beliefs about unfamiliar parent brands between a positive and negative colors” and “heavyweight”). After the brand extension, would experience but no differences in beliefs about familiar parent brands. Simiconsumers link their beliefs about hiking shoes with Reebok? larly, after experience with a brand extension, consumers changed their beWould they change their initial beliefs about Reebok? This liefs about and attitude toward unfamiliar parent brands more so than with is important, as these beliefs underlie Reeboks’ competitive familiar parent brands. We discuss theoretical and managerial implicaadvantage in athletic shoes. Would consumers’ responses tions, limitations, and future research directions. J BUSN RES 2000. 49.47– change if they had a positive or negative experience with the 55.  2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved hiking shoes? Finally, if a less familiar athletic shoe brand such as New Balance introduced hiking shoes, would its beliefs change in a similar manner as Reebok’s? These are critical questions for brand managers to understand in order to fully An important reason why companies continue to use assess the implications of a hiking shoe launch. brand extensions aggressively is to create excitement In this research, we explore how brand extensions influence for a mature brand (Aaker, 1991). However, that may knowledge about parent brands. Unlike previous research, we not be an appropriate strategic objective if they influence examine how this influence may change with parent brands consumers’ knowledge about the parent brand, which is the differing in familiarity, and positive and negative experiences brand being extended. This influence is possible because conwith brand extensions. We study familiarity because knowlsumers can have different beliefs about a brand extension than edge change should differ between more and less familiar about the parent brand because they are in different categories parent brands. We develop a theoretical framework and derive that represent new product and usage contexts. It is important hypotheses, which we test in an experiment. After the presento understand because knowledge about a parent brand undertation of the results, we discuss theoretical and managerial lies its core equity (Sujan and Bettman, 1989; Aaker, 1991), implications, and limitations and future research directions. and thus any changes brought about by brand extensions could alter its competitive position. Yet, prior research has focussed on knowledge about the Theoretical Framework brand extension itself (e.g., Aaker and Keller, 1990; Boush Research has focussed on how consumers form beliefs about and Loken, 1991). Surprisingly little effort has examined the and attitudes toward brand extensions not on their influence influence of brand extensions on a parent brand (for excepon parent brand knowledge. What little work exists on the tions, see Loken and Roedder John [1993] and Roedder John, topic is inconclusive. A couple of studies document a negative Loken, and Joiner [1998]). Moreover, no research we have influence (Loken and Roedder John, 1993; Roedder John, Loken, and Joiner, 1998), while others indicate no influence Address correspondence to D. A. Sheinin, University of Maryland at College (Romeo, 1991; Keller and Aaker, 1992). Many questions are Park, Robert H. Smith School of Business, College Park, MD 20742. Phone: 301-405-2173; Fax: 301-405-0146; E-mail: dsheinin@rhsmith.umd.edu unresolved, including how direct experience with brand ex-