IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v42y2015i1p45-58..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How, When, and Why Do Attribute-Complementary versus Attribute-Similar Cobrands Affect Brand Evaluations: A Concept Combination Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Vanitha Swaminathan
  • Zeynep Gürhan-Canli
  • Umut KubatVanitha Swaminathan
  • Ceren Hayran

Abstract

Extant research on cobranding does not examine when and why complementarity or similarity between cobranding partners can be more effective. This research examines consumers’ reactions to cobranded partnerships that feature brands with either complementary or similar attribute levels, both of which are common in the marketplace. The results of six experiments show that consumers’ evaluations vary as a function of concept combination interpretation strategy (property mapping or relational linking) and whether cobranded partners have complementary or similar attributes. Specifically, when consumers use property mapping, they evaluate cobranded partnerships with complementary (vs. similar) attribute levels more favorably. In contrast, when using relational linking, they evaluate cobranded partnerships with complementary (vs. similar) attribute levels less favorably. The results also reveal that the breadth of the host brand (broad vs. narrow) and the type of advertising influence the extent to which consumers are likely to use property mapping or relational linking in evaluating cobranded partnerships.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanitha Swaminathan & Zeynep Gürhan-Canli & Umut KubatVanitha Swaminathan & Ceren Hayran, 2015. "How, When, and Why Do Attribute-Complementary versus Attribute-Similar Cobrands Affect Brand Evaluations: A Concept Combination Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 42(1), pages 45-58.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:42:y:2015:i:1:p:45-58.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucv006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vanitha Swaminathan, 2016. "Branding in the digital era: new directions for research on customer-based brand equity," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 33-38, June.
    2. Koschmann, Anthony & Bowman, Douglas, 2018. "Evaluating marketplace synergies of ingredient brand alliances," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 575-590.
    3. Han, Jie & Wang, Desheng & Yang, Zhihao, 2023. "Acting like an interpersonal relationship: Cobrand anthropomorphism increases product evaluation and purchase intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. Vaidyanathan, Rajiv & Aggarwal, Praveen, 2022. "Asymmetric brand alliances: When joint promotions with strong brands hurt," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-228.
    5. Ferdian Hendrasto & Bagus Ibnu Utama, 2019. "Incongruence in Brand Names and Its Effect on Consumer Preference," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 31(1), pages 83-96.
    6. Kim, Pielah & Vaidyanathan, Rajiv & Chang, Hua & Stoel, Leslie, 2018. "Using brand alliances with artists to expand retail brand personality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 424-433.
    7. Carolin Decker & Annika Baade, 2016. "Consumer perceptions of co-branding alliances: Organizational dissimilarity signals and brand fit," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(6), pages 648-665, November.
    8. Kevin Lane Keller, 2016. "Reflections on customer-based brand equity: perspectives, progress, and priorities," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:42:y:2015:i:1:p:45-58.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.