سلام
این متن را پاراگراف به پاراگراف خلاصه کن به انگلیسی و البته تیترهای هر بخش را هم بنویس   
Brand Attitudes
	
Another consumer-based concept, brand attitudes, is an important sub- ject in traditional consumer behavior, marketing, and advertising disci- plines (Gardner, 1985; Mitchell & Olsen, 1981). Many studies in advertising effectiveness have focused on investigating the relationships between brand attitudes, attitudes toward advertising, and purchase intention (Heath & Gaeth, 1994; Kalwani & Silk, 1982; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Brand attitudes can be defined as consumers’ overall evalu- ations of a brand, which can be influenced by experience as well as marketing programs (Wilkie, 1990). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) exam- ined brand attitudes as a predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular brand.
Understandably, such a definition implies significant consequences for both consumers’ formation of brand image and purchasing behav- ior. Katz (1960) proposed that consumers actually form brand attitudes based on what the brands can do to help them achieve what they desire. He listed four major functions that consumers often seek from a prod- uct: to satisfy their needs, to allow them to express themselves, to sim-
 	
plify decision making, or to eliminate threats or insecurity. Here we are dealing with the multiplicative result of both the functions that are per- ceived to be embedded in a product and personal beliefs of the impor- tance of these functions. To capture the meaning of these abstract attitudinal concepts in a marketing context, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) proposed a famous expectancy-value model to assess brand attitudes. They stated that brand attitudes are a function of (a) salient beliefs about the attitude object, defined as the subjective probability that the attitude object has each attribute (i.e., strength of association between the brand and the salient attributes or benefits), and (b) the evaluative aspect of these beliefs, defined as the evaluation of each attribute (i.e., the favorability of the salient attributes or benefits). It was also sug- gested that brand attitudes that were formed based on direct behavior or experience are often more influential in the purchasing decision process (Farquhar, 1989).
How does the concept of brand attitudes work in the context of media products? The functional theory of attitudes proposed by Katz (1960) is useful to explain the dynamics of consumption choices for media prod- ucts. In fact, it is similar to the utility notions as suggested by the uses and gratification theory in mass communication. A media brand may seek to create associations with certain product-related attributes such as the extensive amount of information offered (e.g., Discovery), non-product-related attributes such as a user (audience) imagery of be- ing young and hip (e.g., MTV), functional benefits such as knowledge obtainment (e.g., PBS), symbolic benefits such as being socially visible and accepted (e.g., ESPN), and experiential benefits such as high sensory entertainment (e.g., a digital cable service). By investigating the func- tions desired by a target audience and how the product delivers that function as perceived by the group, a media firm can assess the effective- ness of its product offering and marketing programs in associating the attributes and benefits with its brand.

Brand Extension, Hierarchy, and Portfolio

When a brand has acquired a strong, favorable brand image, it is logical that its firm will want to extend the brand’s value to its other busi- nesses. Brand extension is defined as the use of an established brand name for a new product to capitalize on the equity of the existing brand name. Successful brand extensions require marketing strategies that reasonably establish a connection between the new and the old product and transfer the perceived benefit from the old to the new in a meaning- ful continuation of brand identity. Note that established brands are most valuable in those extensions where the perceptions of brand iden- tity are relevant to the potential consumer of the new product. For in- stance, NBC’s extensions to the cable network business, MSNBC and CNBC, seem to provide the consistent content images (upscale and ur-
 
ban) that appeal to the core audience of NBC. Nevertheless, overextensions or wrong extensions of a successful brand can also dam- age the existing brand. Research has shown that a brand extension strategy may lead to cannibalization or dilution of the parent brand (Chakravarti, MacInnis, & Nakamoto, 1990; John, Loken, & Joiner, 1998; Loken & John, 1993).
Brand extensions can be grouped into two different categories: line ex- tensions, which extend a brand name vertically by introducing a new product of modifying features (e.g., different attributes, pricing points, or qualities) into the same product category as the parent brand, and cate- gory extensions, which extend a brand name horizontally by introducing a new product into a product category different from that of the parent brand (Kirmani, Sood, & Bridges, 1999). For example, it is a line extension when the Discovery Channel set up another cable network, Discovery Health, whereas it is a category extension when Discovery entered the magazine-publishing business by introducing its Discovery magazine.
Several factors have been suggested to motivate line extension strate- gies: customer segmentation, consumer desires, pricing breadth and flexibility (e.g., encouraging customers to trade up to premium prod- ucts), excess capacity, competitive intensity, trade pressure, and short-term sales gain. Kapferer (1992) suggested that the high cost of advertising, a main-brand building tool, has prevented many firms from launching new brands and to opt for brand maintenance instead. In general, a firm may adopt a brand extension strategy to facilitate new-product acceptance and/or provide feedback benefits to the parent brand (Quelch & Kenny, 1999). Specifically, brand extensions may re- duce risk perceived by customers, increase the probability of gaining distribution and trial, increase promotional efficiency, reduce costs of marketing programs, avoid cost of developing a new brand, allow for packaging and labeling efficiencies, and permit consumer variety seek- ing. From the perspective of the parent brand, brand extensions can clar- ify brand meaning, enhance the parent brand image, revitalize the brand, bring new customers into the brand franchise and increase mar- ket coverage, and permit subsequent extensions (Keller, 1998).
There are various problems that might be associated with line exten- sions, including lower brand loyalty, oversegmentation (i.e., weaker lines), underexploited product ideas (i.e., the product might warrant a new brand), stagnant category demand, more opportunities for com- petitors, increased costs, and poorer trade relations (Quelch & Kenny, 1999). Keller (1998) also suggested that brand extensions can confuse or frustrate consumers, encounter retailer resistance, hurt the  parent brand image, cannibalize sales of the parent brand, diminish identifica- tion with any one product category, dilute brand meaning, or cause the firm to forgo the chance to develop a new, profitable brand.
Many studies in this area have focused on finding the factors contrib- uting to successful brand extensions (e.g., Aaker & Keller, 1990; Barwise, 1993; Keller & Aaker, 1992; Rangaswamy, Burke, & Oliva, 1993; Shocker, 
Srivastava, & Ruekert, 1994; Sunde & Brodie, 1993; Uncles, 1996). Gen- erally, past research related to the role of the parent brand seems to indi- cate that the number of products associated to a brand, the variability among product types represented by a brand name (brand breadth), and the quality variance of products associated to a brand are major explana- tory variables regarding brand extension evaluations (Chang, 2005). There are also studies that emphasize the aspect of the parent-extended brand relationship. It was found that the more common and fewer dis- tinctive associations that exist, the greater the perception of overall simi- larity between the parent and extended brands. Although these similarity judgments could be based on product-related attributes or benefits as well as non-product-related attributes or benefits, they also provide the foundation for value transfer from the parent brand to the extended brand (MacInnis & Nakamoto, 1990).
Brand extension is an increasingly popular branding strategy in me- dia industries. Beginning with the practices of movie sequels (e.g., Home Alone 2, the Star Wars trilogy), it is also widely applied in television pro- gramming development and cable network expansions. For example, the success of the program Law and Order prompted the introductions of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and Law and Order: Criminal Intent. HBO, the Discovery Channel, CNN, and ESPN all have adopted both line and category brand extension strategies. In fact, studies have shown that in 2004, among the 312 cable television networks, approximately 37% of them were brand extensions. In addition, it was found that the use of the brand extension strategy has become very popular since the mid-1990s (Chang, 2005). In essence, the deregulatory environment as well as technological advances have enabled the growth of multiple me- dia outlets (both content and distribution), which offers the opportu- nity of additional brand development. As advertising costs continue to escalate and consumers are bombarded by proliferated media choices, brand extensions seem to be an effective strategy of expansion for many media firms.
Brand hierarchy refers to the graphical ordering of brands to examine the number and nature of common and distinctive brand components across a firm’s products, thus identifying the branding relationships and corporate brand portfolios. A brand hierarchy may be composed of a corporate brand (e.g., Time Warner), family brand (e.g., Turner Broad- casting), individual brand (CNN), and modifier (individual item or model; e.g., CNNfn). A number of factors need to be contemplated while designing a brand hierarchy. A firm has to find the best combination of hierarchy levels, the similarities and distinctions between brands, and how these brands should be related so a new brand might leverage the associations with more established brands in the hierarchy while also creating its own meanings (Keller, 1998).
Another relevant concept to brand extension is brand portfolio. Simi- lar to corporate strategies, a brand portfolio is a set of brands that a firm offers to consumers in a product category or in the overall market.
 
Brand portfolio strategy is closely related to the type and size of con- sumer segments available in a market. The management of a brand portfolio encompasses the development and monitoring of a firm’s brand holdings over time along a conceptual matrix to achieve the best overall profitability for its stakeholders. Matrix analytical frameworks utilizing aspects such as market share, sales volume, and brand images to map the trends of an individual brand’s positions and thus its subse- quent resource commitments are often adopted in this process. Aaker (2004) stated that a brand portfolio strategy should create relevance, clarity, differentiation, energy, and leverage. Nevertheless, Kumar (2003) argued that companies can often achieve greater economies of scale, corporate growth, and profitability by reducing the number of brands in their portfolios because once any unprofitable brands have been killed off, companies are left with more freedom to invest in the growth of their remaining brands. In the context of media products, the brand portfolio concept is another valuable tool for analyzing the strat- egies of media conglomerates because digitization increasingly offers more expansion opportunities for these media firms.
THE VALUE OF BRANDING
Brand Equity
The goal of branding is to create something of value that would other- wise be unattainable. Brand equity is typically the “value” that a firm aims to generate with its marketing programs for a brand. Brand equity is therefore defined as the accrued marketing and financial value, both tangible and intangible, that a brand adds to a product or service as a re- sult of a combination of factors such as the awareness, loyalty, per- ceived quality, images, and emotions that consumers associate with the brand name. Keller (1991) provided a conceptual framework of what brands mean to consumers and what this implies for marketing strate- gies. He conceptualized brand equity from the perspective of the individ- ual consumer. This customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory. Keller proposed that brand equity is closely related to two dimensions of a brand: brand awareness or familiarity, which includes brand recall and brand recognition; and brand image, which is a combination of the types of brand association and favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand associations. To clarify the nature of branding, Aaker (1991) also stressed that brand eq- uity can go both ways because it is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand and its name and symbol that adds to or subtracts from the value provided by a product or service to a customer. The assets and liabilities can be classified into five categories: brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets such as patents and trademarks.
 
Brand equity brings forth a variety of values. First of all, it allows a brand to charge a premium price compared to competitors with less brand equity, thus contributing to profitability. Brand equity also maintains higher awareness of the product, reduces perceived risk, sim- plifies the decision process for low-involvement products, helps brand extension efforts, increases the probability of being included in a con- sumer’s set of brand considerations, and offers a strong defense against new products and new competitors. For example, the strong brand eq- uity of the Wall Street Journal has contributed to its financial perfor- mance, subscription rates, and defense against new financial news competitors. The fact that the Discovery Channel was ranked as the top brand for overall quality by the EquiTrend brand study for eight consec- utive years since 1997 may explain some of Discovery’s expansions into retailing and additional cable networks.
Brand equity has been the focus of marketing research and advertis- ing research since the early 1990s (Aaker, 1991; Aaker & Biel, 1992; Aaker & Jacobson, 1994; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995). In general, the topic of brand equity is investigated from either a customer- or firm-based perspective. Whereas customer-based brand equity stud- ies examine the theories and practices that address how consumers de- velop their brand awareness and knowledge, how different marketing programs impact these consumer mindsets, and the relationship be- tween brand awareness/image and behavior, firm-based equity studies emphasize the relationship between marketing programs and equity, the management of brand portfolios or hierarchy, and the evaluation of brand equity with financial valuation such as return on investment (ROI). As discussed earlier, the financial evaluation of brands is a diffi- cult subject because of the current accounting practices that regard brands as expenses rather than assets. The typical financial reporting principle is also inconsistent with the sometimes subjective evaluations of brand value, which are inherently rooted in brand concepts such as identities and images. Nevertheless, Kapferer (1992) suggested that fi- nancial evaluations of brands can be based on costs, comparable market value, or potential earnings. Specifically, a brand’s value may be deter- mined by (a) historical costs, which include all developments, market- ing, advertising, and other communication costs, and (b) replacement costs, which are the estimated costs of re-creating the brand of focus. As we can see, there are a lot of assumptions that would have to be made on the sources of brand value and performance with such an approach. The market value method, on the other hand, determines the value of a brand in reference to the value of similar brands up for purchase. Al- though it might be a useful way of gauging a media brand’s value given that there are many mergers and acquisitions of media properties now- adays, it is important to note that the purchase value is not really the current value of the brand but the anticipated value of the brand when the purchaser uses it. In terms of valuating by potential earnings, Kapferer explained that a firm would have to first isolate the net revenue
 
brought in by the brand and then predict its future cash flows. Because of the difficulties of evaluating brand equity using these firm-based ap- proaches, the value of most media brands are assessed from a cus- tomer-based perspective such as the evaluation of brand knowledge (brand awareness and/or image)(e.g., radio stations’ perceptual/posi- tioning studies), brand attitude (e.g., focus group assessment of atti- tudes), or even the resultant brand behavior (e.g., ratings).