The aim of this article is to understand the impact of a brand name substitution on the evaluation and purchase intention of the product. To achieve this, we present various types of brand name substitutions. Then, drawing on work relating to brand extension and co-branding, we propose variables that are likely to explain the evolution of the evaluation and purchase intention of the product whose brand name has changed. The empirical study demonstrates that five variables influence the evolution of the evaluation and purchase intention of the product under a different brand name: (1) the similarity between the substitution brand and the initial brand, (2) the fit between the substitution brand and the product, (3) the difference in awareness of the two brands, (4) the difference in image of the two brands and (5) consumer attachment to the initial brand.
AakerD. A.KellerK. L. (1990), Consumer evaluations of brand extensions, Journal of Marketing, 54, 1, 27–41.
2.
AhluwaliaR.Gurhan-CanliY. Z. (2000), The effects of extensions on the family brand name: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 3, 371–381.
3.
AiméI. (2006), l'impact des différentes stratégies de changements de nom de marque sur la représentation de la marque et l'attitude des consommateurs, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of the French Marketing Association (AFM), Nantes, CD-Rom
4.
AlbaJ. W.HutchinsonJ. W. (1987), Dimensions of consumer expertise, Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 4, 411–453.
5.
BagozziR. (1981), Attitudes, intentions and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 607–627.
6.
BakerW.HutchinsonJ. W.MooreD.NedungadiP. (1986), Brand familiarity and advertising: Effect on the evoked set and brand preference, Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 637–642.
7.
BhatS.ReddyS. K. (2001), The impact of parental brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation, Journal of Business Research, 53, 3, 111–122.
8.
BottomleyP. A.DoyleJ. R. (1996), The formation of attitudes towards brand extensions: Testing and generalising Aaker and Keller's model, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 4, 365–377.
9.
BottomleyP. A.HoldenS.J.S. (2001), Do we really know how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 4, 494–500.
10.
BottonM.CegarraJ.-J. (1990), Le nom de marque: création et stratégie de marque, Paris, McGraw-Hill.
11.
BoushD.LokenB. (1991), A process-tracing study of brand extension evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 1, 16–28.
12.
BoushD.ShippS.LokenB.GencturkE.CrockettS.KennedyE.MinshallB.MisurellD.RochfordL.StrobelJ. (1987), Affect generalization to similar and dissimilar brand extensions, Psychology and Marketing, 4, 3, 225–237.
13.
BroniarczykS. M.AlbaJ. W. (1994), The importance of the brand in brand extension, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 2, 214–228.
14.
BrucksM. (1985), The effect of product class knowledge on information search behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1–15.
15.
CegarraJ.-J. (1994), Gérer un portefeuille de marques, Décisions Marketing, 3, Sept/Dec., 81–91.
16.
CegarraJ.-J.MerunkaD. (1993), Les extensions de marques: Concepts et modèles, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 8, 1, 53–76.
17.
CegarraJ.-J.MichelG. (2001), Co-branding: Clarification du concept, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 16, 4, 57–69.
18.
ChakravartiD.MacInnisD. J.NakamotoK. (1990), Product perceptions, elaborative processing and brand name extension strategies, Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 910–916.
19.
ChangeurS. (2004), Stratégies de marque et richesse des actionnaires: Une approche financière du capital-marque, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19, 4, 23–38.
20.
ChangeurS.ChandonJ.-L. (1995), Le territoire-produit: étude des frontières cognitives de la marque, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 10, 2, 31–51.
21.
CollinsL. (1992), The psychology of names, in MurphyJ. (Ed.), Branding: a key marketing tool, 2nd Edition, London, Macmillan, 22–31.
22.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 1, 39–50.
23.
GalanJ.-P.VernetteE. (2000), Vers une 4e génération: les études de marché on line, Décisions Marketing, 19, 39–52.
24.
GanassaliS.MoscarolaJ. (2004), Protocoles d'enquête et efficacité des sondages par Internet, Décisions Marketing, 33, 1, 63–75.
25.
HairJ.AndersonR.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1995), Multivariate data analysis with readings, 4th Edition, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
26.
HerrP. M.FarquharP. H.FazioR. H. (1996), Impact of dominance and relatedness on brand extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 2, 35–159.
27.
KapfererJ.-N. (2007), Les marques: capital de l'entreprise, 4th Edition, Paris, Les Éditions d'Organisation.
28.
KardesF. R.AllenC. T. (1991), Perceived variability and inferences about brand extensions, Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 392–398.
29.
KellerK. L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, 1–22.
30.
KellerK. L.AakerD. A. (1992), The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 1, 35–50.
31.
KellerK. L.HecklerS. E.HoustonM. J. (1998), The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall, Journal of Marketing, 62, 1, 48–57.
32.
KimH. M. (2006), Evaluation of moderately typical products: The role of within- versus cross- manufacturer comparisons, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 1, 70–78.
33.
KlinkR. R. (2000), Creating brand names with meaning: The use of sound symbolism, Marketing Letters, 11, 1, 5–20.
34.
LacoeuilheJ. (2000), l'attachement à la marque: Proposition d'une échelle de mesure, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 15, 4, 61–77.
35.
LadweinR. (1993), Extension de marque et catégories cognitives, Doctoral Dissertation in Management Science, Lille University of Science and Technology.
36.
LafranceS.CoderreF.DupuisC. (1995), Les effets de la pratique de l'extension de marque: l'impact du niveau de fidélité des consommateurs, Proceedings of the French Marketing Association Conference (AFM), Reims, 533–556.
37.
LaiC. (2002), Les déterminants de l'attitude envers les extensions de marque: Modèle conceptuel et validation empirique, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 17, 1, 21–40.
38.
LaiC. (2005), La marque, Paris, Dunod.
39.
LaneV.JacobsonR. (1995), Stockmarket reactions to brand extension announcement, the effect of brand attitude and familiarity, Journal of Marketing, 59, 1, 63–77.
40.
LeclercF.SchmittB. H.DubéL. (1994), Foreign branding and its effects on product perception and attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 2, 263–270.
41.
LeongS. M.AngS. H.LiauJ. (1997), Dominance and dilution: The effects of extending master brands, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14, 5, 380–390.
42.
LowreyT. M.ShrumL. J. (2007), Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference, Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 4, 406–414.
43.
LutzR. J. (1991), The role of attitude theory in marketing, in KassarjianH.RobertsonT. (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behavior, 4th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 317–339.
44.
MaozE.TyboutA. M. (2002), The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 2, 119–131.
45.
MartinG. S.BrownT. J. (1991), In search of brand equity: the conceptualization and measurement of the brand impression construct, Proceedings of the AMA Winter Conference, 431–438.
46.
MartinI. M.StewartD. W. (2001), The differential impact of goal congruency on attitudes, intentions, and the transfer of brand equity, Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 4, 471–484.
47.
MervisC. B.RoschE. (1981), Categorization of natural objets, in RozenweigM.R.PorterL.W. (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Palo Alto, 32, 89–115.
48.
MichelG. (1999), l'évolution des marques: Approche par la théorie du noyau central, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 14, 4, 33–53.
49.
MichelG.CegarraJ.-J. (2002), Co-branding: les conditions de succès du produit comarqué, Proceedings of the French Marketing Association (AFM) Conference, Lille, 493–516.
50.
MorrinM. (1999), The impact of brand extension on parent brand memory structures and retrieval processes, Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 4, 517–525.
51.
MuthukrishnanA. V.WeitzB. A. (1991), Role of product knowledge in evaluation of brand extension, Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 407–413.
52.
NijssenE.UijlR.BucklinP. (1995), The effect of involvement on brand extensions, Proceedings of the EMAC Conference, 867–870.
53.
ParkC. W.JunS. Y.ShockerA. D. (1996), Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects, Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 4, 453–466.
54.
ParkC. W.MilbergS. J.LawsonR. (1991), Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 2, 185–193.
55.
PaviaT. M.CostaJ. A. (1993), The winning number: Consumer perceptions of alpha-numeric brand names, Journal of Marketing, 57, 3, 85–98.
56.
PeterJ. P.ChurchillG. A.BrownT. J. (1993), Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 4, 655–662.
57.
PetersonR. A.RossI. (1972), How to name new brands, Journal of Advertising Research, 12, 6, 29–34.
58.
RangaswamyA.BurkeR. R.OlivaT. A. (1993), Brand equity and the extendibility of brand names, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 1, 61–75.
59.
ReddyS. K.HolakS.BhatS. (1994), To extend or not to extend: Success determinants of line extensions, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 2, 243–262.
60.
RomeoJ. B. (1991), The effect of negative information on the evaluations of brand extensions and the family brand, Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 399–406.
RoschE.MervisC. (1975), Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories, Cognitive Psychology, 7, 4, 573–605.
63.
RouxE. (1995), Consumer evaluation of luxury brand extensions, Proceedings of the EMAC Conference, 2, 1971–1980.
64.
RouxE.BoushD. (1996), The role of familiarity and expertise in luxury brand extension evaluation, Proceedings of the EMAC Conference, 2, 2053–2063.
65.
SelteneM. (2004), Processus d'évaluation de l'extension de marque par le consommateur: Conception et validation d'un modèle de décomposition, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19, 1, 3–24.
66.
SheininD. A.SchmittB. H. (1994), Extending brands with new product concepts: The role of category attribute congruity, brand affect, and brand breath, Journal of Business Research, 31, 1, 1–10.
67.
SimoninB. L.RuthJ. A. (1998), Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 1, 30–42.
68.
SundeL.BrodieR. J. (1993), Consumer evaluations of brand extensions: Further empirical results, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10, 1, 47–53.
69.
TauberE. (1981), Brand franchise extensions: New products benefits from exiting brand names, Business Horizons, 24, 2, 36–41.
70.
VanhonackerW. (2007), Brand extension naming strategies: An exploratory study of the impact of brand traits, Marketing Letters, 18, 1–2, 61–72.
71.
VillemusP. (1996), La fin des marques ? Vers un retour au produit, Paris, Les Éditions d'Organisation.
72.
VölcknerF.SattlerH. (2007), Empirical generalizability of consumer evaluation of brand extensions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 2, 149–162.
73.
WashburnJ. H.TillB. D.PriluckR. (2000), Co-branding: Brand equity and trial effects, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 7, 591–604.
74.
YorkstonE.MenonG. (2004), A sound idea: Phonetic effects of brand names on consumer judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1, 43–51.
