Search

The findings of prior research suggest that several factors, including consumer characteristics, parent brand characteristics, and extension characteristics, determine consumers’ acceptance of brand extensions. Our research posits that an extension’s associations, especially the one that transforms a product into a brand extension, are preeminent in determining consumer response to brand extensions. We present findings of five studies which show that the accessibility of the extension’s association with its parent brand is paramount in determining consumer response to brand extensions contingent upon fit, a moderating effect that persists even in the presence of additional highly diagnostic non-parental information. Implications of our findings are presented for brand extension researchers and managers.

Prior research suggests that partially comparative pricing—in which a retailer provides price comparisons for some, but not all, of its products—is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, such pricing improves beliefs about the retailer's competitive price advantage on comparatively priced products for which its prices are compared with a competitor. On the other hand, it has been shown to damage perceptions of the retailer's noncomparatively priced products relative to those charged by the competition. However, this latter outcome is based on evidence examining the influence of partially comparative pricing across different product categories. The authors propose and demonstrate in five studies that price comparisons may actually improve relative price beliefs about the noncomparatively priced brands within the same product category. They further show this improvement to be attenuated as the number of price comparisons increase or when the price comparison is attached to a brand perceived as less typical of the product category. The authors conclude by drawing managerial implications and offer suggestions for further research.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the robustness of effects found by Barone et al. that partially comparative pricing enhances consumers' relative price beliefs about its comparatively priced products, but risks adversely affecting these beliefs about the retailer's non‐comparatively priced products.Design/methodology/approachResearch uses an experimental methodology in which the presence or absence of a price comparison is manipulated and the effects on relative price beliefs about non‐comparatively priced products are assessed.FindingsFour studies replicated Barone et al.'s findings that a competitive price comparison enhances consumers' relative price beliefs about comparatively priced products, but did not replicate their findings that these beliefs about the non‐comparatively priced products are affected adversely unless suspicion was induced experimentally. Otherwise, consumer suspicion about the lack of price comparisons, found to be a driver of the adverse effects in Barone et al., did not spontaneously emerge in the current research.Research limitations/implicationsResearch examines only university students in a controlled setting devoid of real‐world distractions. Like Barone et al., effects focus on non‐comparatively priced products in categories lacking any price comparison rather than the non‐comparatively priced products residing within the same category as the comparatively priced product. Findings reinforce the value of replication.Practical implicationsThe potential risks to retailers of using partially comparative pricing appear far less prevalent than observed previously.Originality/valueThe paper raises questions about the stability of consumer response, particularly those involving consumer suspicion, to pricing tactics.