Bendik M. Samuelsen

The moderating effects of need for cognition on drivers of customer loyalty

Purpose – While satisfaction, value, image, and credibility are commonly assumed to drive customer loyalty, there is nevertheless reason to question whether their effects vary across groups of consumers. This paper seeks to explore how individuals with contrasting need-for-cognition (NFC) levels differ in using memory-based information when forming behavioral intentions towards a current service provider. Design/methodology/approach – The authors tested the hypotheses by means of survey data from customers of retail banks, and applied two-group analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the moderating effects of NFC. Findings – Satisfaction positively affects loyalty for high NFCs, but not for low NFCs. Image is insignificant in both groups. Value positively affects loyalty for low NFCs, but not for high NFCs. Credibility has a positive effect for low NFCs, but not for high NFCs. Research limitations/implications – The limited sample size affects the power of the test methodology, but Chow-...

Promising Attributes and Experiences

Advertisers face several message options when they position a new brand in well-established categories. Functional benefit claims versus experiential claims represent two options. Functional claims focus on tangible attributes and benefits, whereas experiential claims focus on promises of experiences the consumer should expect from the new brand. In this paper, we present the results from two experiments testing the persuasiveness of ads promising experience versus the persuasiveness of ads promising functional benefits of a new entrant. In the first experiment, we found that involvement moderates the effect of claim type on attitude toward a new category entrant in retail banking. This finding was replicated and extended in a second experiment using ski resorts as the context. Our findings suggest that functional benefit claims outperform experiential claims in high-involvement situations and that the strength of message arguments can be just as important as the framing choice. The research also shows that the two advertising claim types elicit different cognitive responses: functional claims trigger mostly semantic memory, whereas experiential claims trigger more episodic memories.

Brand extension similarity can backfire when you look for something specific

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show that high similarity between a parent brand and an extension category can have a detrimental effect on how a brand extension is perceived to perform on specific attributes. This happens because similarity influences the perceived positioning of a brand extension: lower similarity extensions can be perceived as “specialized” products, whereas high similarity extensions are perceived as “all-in-one” products not performing exceptionally well on any specific attribute. Design/methodology/approach The authors test the hypothesized effect through three experimental studies. The authors manipulate similarity both within subjects (Study 1a) and between subjects (Study 1b and Study 2). Further, the authors test the effect for specific attributes that are physical/concrete in nature (Study 1a and Study 1b) as well as attributes that are abstract/imagery-related in nature (Study 2). Findings High compared to low similarity improves perceptions of overall performance (i.e. performance across all attributes). But as expected, the authors also find that a high similarity brand extension is perceived to perform worse on the attribute on which a low similarity brand extension specializes, even when the parent brands of the extensions possess that attribute to the same extent. This perception of attribute performance carries on to influence brand extension purchase likelihood. Practical implications The degree of brand extension similarity has consequences for how brand extensions are perceived to be positioned in the marketplace. Although high similarity extensions receive positive evaluations, they might not be suitable when a company is trying to instil a perception of exceptional performance on a specific attribute. Originality/value The authors demonstrate a consequential exception to the marketing wisdom that brands should extend to similar categories. Although the degree of brand extension similarity has been repeatedly shown to have a positive effect on brand extension evaluation, the authors document a case when its effect is actually detrimental. This study’s focus on the dependent variable of perceived performance on specific attributes is novel in the brand extension literature.

The Attitudinal Response to Alternative Brand Growth Strategies: The Moderating Role of Brand Stretch

Brand growth is logically a key goal for most brand managers. Brand extension has evolved as one dominant growth strategy, where the brand capitalizes on the strength in its original category to obtain a foothold in a nearby or distant product or service category (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Volckner & Sattler, 2006). In this strategy, the brand makes its move on its own, solely relying on its own strength to succeed in the new category. This has proven to be a risky endeavor for the brand in the original and the extension category (Loken & John, 1993). An alternative strategic approach to brand growth is to forge some sort of alliance, or join forces with other established brands (James, 2006; Rao & Ruekert, 1994; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). In this strategy, the collaborating brands could potentially hope that “the sum is larger than its parts”, and the likelihood of success for both brands could be potentially higher (than if they should make the move alone). Hence, the purpose of the current study is 1) to experimentally test the attitudinal responses to a brand pursuing either the extension or alliance strategy, and 2) assess the extent to which this effect is moderated by the length of category stretch, from short, via medium, to long stretch. The two preceding growth strategies have not been directly compared in the same experiment previously; hence there is limited empirical knowledge about the relative pros and cons of both when seen in direct comparison. James (2006) findings lend support to the basic fit-assumption, i.e., fit is a significant driver of both extension and alliance acceptance. However, relative impact cannot be derived from his study, as extensions and alliances were treated as separate datasets.