Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the Louvre Abu Dhabi as a brand extension of the Louvre in France, focusing on factors influencing brand extension attitude and its impact on visit intention. Data from 934 questionnaires are analyzed using partial least squares in a multi-group study. The research aims to enrich discourse on tourist brands by examining brand image, perceived fit, and perceived brand localness within the context of the Louvre Abu Dhabi project. Results suggest a potential correlation between positive brand extension evaluation and increased future visits, highlighting practical implications for brand management in cultural tourism. The study also raises theoretical questions regarding global marketing research, emphasizing the need for an integrative approach to understand brand extension attitude’s role in enhancing visit intention.

Plain language summary

Unlocking the strength of museum brand expansion: Inspired by the Louvre Abu Dhabi

This study looks at how the Louvre Abu Dhabi, an extension of the famous Louvre in France, influences people’s willingness to visit. It examines factors that shape attitudes toward this brand extension and how they affect the likelihood of future visits. The research involved analyzing responses from 934 questionnaires in a multi-group study. By investigating aspects like brand image, perceived fit, and perceived localness, the study sheds light on tourist brands. Results indicate that a positive evaluation of the brand extension could lead to more visits in the future, which has practical implications for managing cultural tourism brands. The study also raises theoretical questions about global marketing research, stressing the need for a comprehensive approach to understand how attitudes toward brand extensions impact visit intentions.

Keywords

visit intention brand extension attitude perceived fit brand image perceived brand localness

Introduction

The success of iconic museum brands has propelled them into the global arena, driven by innovative marketing strategies geared towards enhancing visitor engagement and boosting arrivals (Camarero et al., 2019; Gombault & Selles, 2018). In today’s fiercely competitive global market, tourism managers are meticulously crafting strategies to leverage brand equity, aiming to establish a distinctive identity while capitalizing on perceptions linked to their geographical origins (Halkias et al., 2016). This pursuit of brand equity not only fosters a competitive edge but also facilitates the expansion of brand portfolios, as evidenced by the exponential growth of brand extensions (Keller & Aaker, 1992; Martínez-Salinas & Piña, 2009).

Despite this trend, the impact of brand extension attitude on visitor intentions remains largely unexplored, representing a significant gap in the existing literature (Hem et al., 2014). Furthermore, while World Heritage Sites are recognized as major tourist attractions, there is a notable absence of research evaluating the influence of brand extension attitude on visit intention within this context (Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2021). To address this gap, our study aims to assess the potential benefits of brand extension for tourism assets, particularly focusing on museums.

The selection of the “Louvre Abu Dhabi” as a case study is deliberate, given its status as a pioneering example of brand extension in the cultural sector, resulting from a ground-breaking collaboration between France and the UAE (Martínez et al., 2009). Central to the research is the examination of the impact of brand extension attitude on visit intention, alongside an exploration of factors influencing this attitude. These factors include brand image, perceived fit, and perceived brand localness. Through an in-depth analysis of these elements within the context of the Louvre Abu Dhabi project, the study aims to enrich the scholarly discourse surrounding tourist brands. Recent findings by Hultman et al. (2021) underscore the significance of a positive evaluation of brand extensions, indicating a potential correlation with increased future visits, even within the hotel industry.

Moreover, our study aims to bridge theoretical insights with practical implications by showcasing the feasibility of implementing brand expansion strategies within the museum domain. By offering valuable insights derived from the Louvre Abu Dhabi project, we endeavor to inform managerial decision-making and advance the field of tourism asset management. Overall, our research underscores the significance of addressing the theoretical and managerial implications of brand extension attitude within the context of global marketing research, advocating for an integrated approach that reconciles local and global linkages in brand-building initiatives.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Brand Extension Attitude Effect on Visit Intention

Brand extension, a prevalent strategy in new product launches and brand development efforts, involves leveraging established brand names to introduce new products (Deng & Messinger, 2022; Keller & Aaker, 1992; H. Kim et al., 2018). It entails expanding the original (parent) brand into a new form while maintaining a strong connection to the original brand identity (Lee & Yoon, 2022). By capitalizing on the familiarity of the parent brand, brand extension facilitates the swift establishment of identity for the new product (Deng & Messinger, 2022; Keller & Aaker, 1992; H. Kim et al., 2018). This strategy aims to enhance the perceived value of the new product by aligning it with the reputation and associations of the parent brand (Shokri & Alavi, 2019). Consequently, consumer perceptions of brand extensions heavily rely on their understanding of the parent brand, influencing their attitudes and opinions towards the extension (Hem et al., 2014).

Brand extension involves leveraging established brand names to introduce new products, creating new memory nodes, and linking them back to the parent brand (Keller & Aaker, 1992; H. Kim et al., 2018; See & Goh, 2018). This strategy aims to capitalize on existing brand knowledge or schema, where each node represents a brand-related concept and linkages among the nodes signify brand associations (Keller & Aaker, 1992; H. Kim et al., 2018). When consumers encounter a brand extension, they evaluate it based on their existing knowledge of the product category and attributes of the parent brand, thus reducing perceived risk for the new product (Ashraf & Merunka, 2013; Deng & Messinger, 2022; See & Goh, 2018; Shokri & Alavi, 2019). However, despite managerial expectations of reduced risk and increased consumer acceptance, empirical evidence suggests that many brand extensions fail to meet their financial and market objectives (Ashraf & Merunka, 2013; Deng & Messinger, 2022; Shokri & Alavi, 2019). Therefore, understanding the impact of brand extension attitude on visit intention becomes crucial, given the potential repercussions for the parent brand, such as market dilution (Ashraf & Merunka, 2013; Deng & Messinger, 2022; Shokri & Alavi, 2019).

Brand equity, described by del Barrio-García and Prados-Peña (2019) and H. Kim et al. (2018), embodies the disparity between consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s value and their responses to the organization’s marketing efforts. It encompasses the additional value provided by a cultural brand, culminating in heightened brand attachment and increased visit intention (Camarero et al., 2012). Research consistently demonstrates a positive and significant association between cultural brand equity and visit intention (Camarero et al., 2012; C. R. Liu et al., 2013).

Past interactions with the parent brand play a pivotal role in shaping perceptions of the brand extension (Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2020). Positive past experiences serve as indicators of visit and return intentions (Carreira et al., 2021). Furthermore, individuals’ attitudes, influenced by their perceptions of the experience, social approval, and resource availability, significantly influence behavioral intentions (See & Goh, 2018).

The evaluation of brand extension attitude holds significant implications for consumer behavior, particularly regarding their intention to visit or revisit a brand. Lee and Yoon (2022) and Martínez-Salinas and Piña (2010) underscore that consumers tend to develop positive brand attribute associations when positive attributes are transferred to a brand extension. This positive association enhances consumers’ evaluation of the extension, leading to a favorable perception of the new brand’s quality or benefits.

While attitudes towards brand status and travel may not directly impact visit intention, brand equity plays a pivotal role in enhancing tourists’ preferences for visiting these sites that have certain brand status (Halpenny et al., 2018). Specifically, in the case of heritage brands, there is a substantial transfer of affect from the parent brand to the extension (H. Kim et al., 2018; Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2021). The established brand equity of certain heritage brands, along with social influence, emerges as critical determinants of visitors’ willingness to visit these areas (Carreira et al., 2021).

Moreover, the literature widely acknowledges the significant impact of value perceptions on purchase and repurchase intentions across various industries (Bues et al., 2017). In essence, customers consider the value they have received when deciding to visit or return to a specific service provider in the future (Hu et al., 2009). If consumers perceive high value from their previous experiences, they are more likely to choose to visit or return to the same provider in the future (W. G. Kim et al., 2008). Recent research by Hultman et al. (2021) further confirms that a favorable evaluation of a hotel brand extension leads to increased future visits. Given the extensive evidence presented above, it is reasonable to hypothesize that:

H1: Brand extension attitude significantly and positively influences visit intention.

Brand Image Influence on Brand Extension Attitude and Perceived Fit

To enhance the clarity and specificity of the hypotheses, the text has been reorganized to provide a more nuanced and targeted statement, explicitly delineating the relationships between brand image, brand extension attitude, and perceived fit:

Brand image, an integral component of brand personality, encompasses subjective perceptions spanning emotive, cognitive, and functional dimensions (Garcia-Madariaga et al., 2020; Recuero-Virto et al., 2021). Leveraging the established brand knowledge of the parent brand, museum brand extensions are anticipated to bolster the perception of the new brand (Martínez-Salinas & Piña, 2009). Within this context, the brand image strategy seeks to capitalize on the extension’s brand image by employing the same brand name as the parent brand (Martínez-Salinas & Piña, 2009), supported by evidence indicating its significant influence on brand preference (Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2020).

Perceived fit, denoting the alignment between the existing brand and its extension, is grounded in brand personality and recognized as a fundamental driver of brand extension success (Deng & Messinger, 2022). It facilitates the transfer of knowledge from the parent brand to its extension by indicating the level of association between them (Dwivedi et al., 2010; Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2020). Research suggests that a positive preconceived brand image fosters favorable expectations for future experiences (C. G. Q. Chi & Qu, 2008; del Bosque & Martín, 2008), influencing attitudes towards the new brand extension (Iversen & Hem, 2011). Moreover, repetitive exposure to brand image stimuli cultivates an affective preference for the brand extension, with positive sentiments reinforced by favorable associations with the parent brand (Dwivedi et al., 2010; Martínez et al., 2009).

Brand image plays a crucial role in shaping consumer decision-making processes, impacting brand preference and purchase or visit intentions (Braun et al., 2014; Jara & Cliquet, 2012). Academic consensus suggests that a stronger brand image correlates with increased brand preference, inherently linked to perceived fit and brand extension attitude (Gómez-Rico et al., 2022). Perceived fit, influenced by brand image according to Martínez-Salinas and Piña (2009), is directly impacted by the parent brand image, with stronger associations between the parent brand and the brand extension resulting in a more robust perceived fit (Dwivedi et al., 2010). Recognition of the brand name on the brand extension reinforces associations with memories, thereby influencing its perceived value. Destination choice heavily relies on destination image, further highlighting the significance of brand image in influencing consumer decisions (Lu and Atadil, 2021; Majeed et al., 2022).

Given this comprehensive discussion, we hypothesize that:

H2: Brand image significantly and positively affects (a) brand extension attitude and (b) perceived fit.

Perceived Fit and Perceived Brand Localness Impact on Brand Extension Attitude

Research has established a significant influence of perceived fit on consumers’ attitudes towards brand extensions (Dwivedi et al., 2010; Hem et al., 2014), with H. Kim et al. (2018) emphasizing its pivotal role as a determinant of brand extension success. This concept is intricately linked to the connection consumers forge between the parent brand and the brand extension, as this connection often shapes attitudes towards the extension (Shokri & Alavi, 2019). Evaluating the transfer of the parent brand’s brand equity to the extension, which encompasses consumer attitudes and behavior, becomes imperative in gauging the extension’s success (H. Kim et al., 2018).

H3: Perceived fit significantly and positively influences brand extension attitude.

Perceived brand localness is defined as a dimension that mirrors the values and traditions of a local community, embodying the essence of the local culture through its unique components that evoke pride (Nguyen & Alcantara, 2020). When a brand becomes recognized as a symbol or icon of a particular culture, this recognition can amplify the brand extension by conveying positive associations such as uniqueness, originality, local pride, and a strong connection between culture and heritage (Mandler et al., 2020).

In our current globalized society transitioning towards an interconnected marketplace, the emergence of global brands promises both functional and symbolic benefits (Sichtmann et al., 2019). Global brands are perceived as such when consumers perceive their presence in multiple countries (Halkias et al., 2016). Conversely, local brands are typically confined to a limited geographical area, resonating with local consumers without necessarily originating from their own country or being owned by a local company or organization (Sichtmann et al., 2019).

The association of the Louvre Abu Dhabi with France and the Louvre Paris is well-established. Research has consistently shown that perceived brand localness positively influences attitudes towards brand extensions. It is reasonable to assume that if respondents associate the Louvre Abu Dhabi with France, they will value the collaboration between the two institutions, recognize their excellence, and express a greater willingness to visit the Louvre Abu Dhabi.

Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that the perception of brand value can significantly enhance consumers’ favorable dispositions towards brands, influencing factors such as purchase intention and customer satisfaction (Li et al., 2024). Thus, based on the comprehensive discussion presented, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: Perceived brand localness significantly and positively affects brand extension attitude.

Methodology

Study Setting

The Persian Gulf region has experienced a remarkable surge in cultural heritage initiatives, marking what some have termed the “Golden Age” of the past decade. This expansion has been particularly evident in the realm of the new global cultural economy, with significant investments made in projects such as the National Museum of Qatar, Art Dubai Fair, and Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, among others (Gombault & Selles, 2018). At the forefront of these endeavors is the Saadiyat Island project, initiated by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), aimed at establishing the region as a vibrant travel destination centered around nature, culture, and the arts. As part of the expansion of the Sasdiyat Cultural District, which already boasts institutions like the Zayed National Museum and Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, the UAE and France collaborated on the inception of the Louvre Abu Dhabi project in 2007.

This strategic collaboration seeks to associate well-known brand names with new museums and cultural initiatives, positioning the destination as a global hub for culture and prestige. The deliberate cultural international marketing strategy not only enhances intercultural relations but also aligns with the political objectives of societal modernization (Ajana, 2015; Gombault & Selles, 2018). In its quest to rival major art cities, the Louvre Abu Dhabi, which officially opened in 2017, aspires to become a premier cultural attraction within the city (Slak Valek, 2021).

The partnership between the UAE and France represents an unprecedented transnational relationship, with major French museums, including those affiliated with the Agence France-Museums, lending their support to the joint effort. This collaboration underscores the exportation of expertise and the cultivation of a unique cultural exchange. Notably, the Louvre Abu Dhabi foundation distinguishes itself from the Guggenheim model, emerging as a global museum shaped by political, cultural, and economic motivations, rather than merely serving as a branch or replica of the Louvre Museum (Gombault & Selles, 2018).

Data Collection and Sample Profile

We grounded our empirical methodology on Kabassi’s (2017) framework, tailored to museum visitor demographics. To ensure comprehensive coverage, we computed representative sample sizes across various age and gender cohorts, leveraging official census data provided by the museums. Toluna, a well-established online panel provider specializing in market research, conducted the panel from May 10 to 20, 2019, utilizing these predefined sampling frames. The survey, available in both English and French, commenced with a concise introduction outlining the study’s purpose and ensuring respondent anonymity, in line with protocols outlined by Podsakoff et al. (2003).

The sampling method employed was quota sampling within the Toluna community. Respondents were selected randomly across age and gender groups, utilizing official and publicly available census data provided by museums, ensuring the study’s breadth. A total of 934 usable questionnaires were collected for the study, with 444 from respondents who visited the Louvre Paris and 490 from those who did not visit the Louvre Abu Dhabi. The sociodemographic profiles of the samples are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Profile of Respondents.

Characteristics	Frequency		Percentage (%)
Characteristics	Visited Louvre Paris (n = 444)	Never visited Louvre Paris (n = 490)	Visited Louvre Paris	Never visited Louvre Paris
Gender
Men	229	236	52	48
Women	215	254	48	52
Age
Under 24	73	66	16	13
25–34	145	150	33	31
35–44	126	137	28	28
45–54	70	84	16	17
Over 55	30	53	7	11
Marital status
Living as a couple/married	295	287	66	59
Separated/divorced	12	27	3	6
Single	132	173	30	35
Widower	5	3	1	1
Education
Primary studies	21	11	5	2
Secondary studies	77	127	17	26
University	326	319	73	65
Without studies	20	33	5	7
Occupation
Employee	313	312	70	64
Freelancer	9	6	2	1
Housewife	25	38	6	8
Retired	24	44	5	9
Self-employed	48	38	11	8
Student	15	21	3	4
Unemployed	10	31	2	6
Household income per month
Under 1,000 euros	70	171	16	35
1,000–1,500 euros	59	103	13	21
1,501–2,000 euros	63	68	14	14
2,001–2,500 euros	59	50	13	10
2,501–3,000 euros	68	30	15	6
Over 3,000 euros	125	68	28	14
Continent origin
Africa	5	9	1	2
Asia	152	250	34	51
Europe	252	174	57	36
North America	27	52	6	11
Oceania	4	1	1	0
South America	4	4	1	1
Have you ever visited Louvre Abu Dhabi?
Yes	235	71	53	14
No	209	419	47	86
With whom did you visited Louvre Abu Dhabi last time?
Alone	44	8	10	2
In an organized tour	6	1	1	0
With family	114	31	26	6
With friends	71	31	16	6
I never visited Louvre Paris	209	419	47	86
How many times have you been in Louvre Abu Dhabi?
Once in my life	156	55	35	11
Between 2 and 4 times	62	16	14	3
More than 4 times	17	0	4	0
Never	209	419	47	86
With whom did you visited Louvre Paris last time?
Alone	54		12
In an organized tour	26		6
With family	224		50
With friends	140		32
How many times have you been in Louvre Paris?
Once in my life	272		61
Between 2 and 4 times	127		29
More than 4 times	45		10

The quota sampling distribution in this research was as follows: 40% were citizens of the United Arab Emirates, while the remaining 60% were international visitors, with a significant portion from India. Additionally, France, Germany, China, the UK, and the US were among the most represented nationalities, along with countries from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

It is noteworthy that 53% of respondents who visited the Louvre Paris had also visited the Louvre Abu Dhabi, while 47% had not. Conversely, 86% of respondents who had not visited the Louvre Paris had not visited the Louvre Abu Dhabi either (Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Analysis.

		Visited Louvre Paris		Never visited Louvre Paris
Construct/associated items		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Functional image (FIM)
1.	Louvre Paris artworks are of high quality.	6.115	1.164	5.839	1.363
2.	Louvre Paris artworks have better characteristics than its competitors.	5.764	1.157	5.484	1.275
3.	Louvre Paris artworks are usually perceived high quality than artworks of other superstar museums.	5.831	1.232	5.653	1.264
4.	Louvre Paris is one of the best brands in the museum sector.	5.919	1.154	5.784	1.253
5.	Louvre Paris is consolidated in the museum market.	5.755	1.208	5.510	1.278
Affective image (AI)
1.	Louvre Paris brand is attractive.	5.984	1.152	5.869	1.232
2.	Louvre Paris has a personality that distinguishes itself from its competitors.	5.928	1.156	5.710	1.389
3.	Louvre Paris does not disappoint its visitors.	5.881	1.270	5.745	1.310
Perceived fit (PIF)
1.	Louvre Abu Dhabi partnership with Louvre Paris makes sense.	5.610	1.364	5.433	1.516
2.	According to me, the decision to launch Louvre Abu Dhabi is unexpected.	5.176	1.593	4.994	1.670
3.	According to me Louvre’s decision to partner Louvre Abu Dhabi seems logical.	5.435	1.450	5.312	1.523
4.	The launch of Louvre Abu Dhabi in the museum market was expected.	5.050	1.616	4.798	1.664
Perceived brand localness (PBL)
1.	I associate Louvre Abu Dhabi with France.	4.973	1.796	4.822	1.777
2.	Louvre Abu Dhabi is part of the French culture.	4.989	1.724	4.708	1.755
Extension attitude (EAT)
1.	Favorability of the partnership between Louvre Paris and Louvre Abu Dhabi.	5.412	1.406	5.229	1.500
2.	Perceived quality of the partnership between Louvre Paris and Louvre Abu Dhabi.	5.444	1.340	5.282	1.442
3.	Likelihood of visiting Louvre Abu Dhabi.	5.196	1.800	4.747	2.114
Visit intention (VIN)
1.	I am willing to visit Louvre Abu Dhabi when traveling to Abu Dhabi.	5.687	1.487	5.324	1.776
2.	I plan to visit Louvre Abu Dhabi when traveling to Abu Dhabi.	5.574	1.570	5.043	1.927
3.	I will make an effort to visit a Louvre Abu Dhabi when traveling to Abu Dhabi.	5.541	1.580	5.027	1.958

The measurement model utilized in this study was derived from previously established scale items, which were adapted and assessed on a seven-point Likert scale. Brand image was operationalized using the first-order dimensions: functional and affective image, as developed by Gómez et al. (2015). Perceived fit and brand extension attitude were assessed using the scale items provided by Dwivedi et al. (2010). The measure of perceived brand localness was adapted from Halkias et al. (2016). Lastly, visit intention was evaluated using the items proposed by Chen and Tung (2014).

Data Evaluation Process

SmartPLS (version 4.0.8.2; Ringle et al., 2022) was employed to conduct Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis and multigroup analysis (MGA). PLS-SEM was selected as a nonparametric SEM method suitable for MGA (Hair et al., 2014; Henseler et al., 2016; Sarstedt et al., 2011), and as a multivariate technique capable of estimating the relationships between variables in a theoretical model, considering both measurement and structural factors (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2016).

G*Power 3 was utilized for power analysis (Faul et al., 2007). The sample sizes were sufficient to validate the strength of the R ² departure from zero test, with results exceeding 95% for the proposed model in both samples (Figure 1) (Cohen, 1988). The sample sizes of 444 and 490 in the respective groups were deemed appropriate, with statistical powers exceeding the required thresholds.

Figure 1.

The proposed model.

Findings

Evaluation of the Measurement Model and the Invariance Dimension

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted prior to analyzing the structural model to rigorously assess the reliability and validity of the scales (Shahzalal & Font, 2018; Zatori et al., 2018). Using PLS-SEM bootstrapping, all loading factors were found to be significant indicators of their respective constructs, consistent with guidelines provided by Hair et al. (2011). These loading factors all exceeded the threshold of .7, indicating acceptable levels of reliability (Hair et al., 2011). Moreover, internal consistency measures, as evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, were consistently above .70 (Hair et al., 2006), further supporting the reliability of the measurement model. The summarized results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Reliability and Convergent Validity of the Final Measurement Model.

Factor	Indicator	Visited Louvre Paris						Never visited Louvre Paris
Factor	Indicator	Standardized loading	t-Value (bootstrap)	CA	rhoA	CR	AVE	Standardized loading	t-Value (bootstrap)	CA	rhoA	CR	AVE
Affective image	AIM1	.929	100.409	.839	.839	.926	.861	.939	93.526	.858	.860	.934	.875
Affective image	AIM2	.927	64.765					.932	84.275
Extension attitude	EAT1	.928	89.345	.844	.844	.928	.865	.960	172.733	.913	.913	.958	.920
Extension attitude	EAT2	.932	102.132					.958	131.648
Functional image	FIM2	.920	77.858	.829	.831	.921	.854	.936	76.052	.860	.860	.934	.877
Functional image	FIM3	.929	83.550					.937	110.445
Perceived brand localness	PBL1	.920	84.930	.829	.831	.921	.854	.932	100.451	.847	.847	.929	.868
Perceived brand localness	PBL2	.928	93.201					.931	101.925
Perceived fit	PIF1	.930	114.034	.839	.839	.925	.861	.951	155.273	.893	.894	.949	.904
Perceived fit	PIF3	.926	98.734					.950	144.713
Visit intention	VIN1	.912	71.870	.913	.917	.945	.852	.941	122.446	.948	.951	.967	.906
	VIN2	.947	157.543					.949	113.753
	VIN3	.909	60.616					.966	248.415
Brand image	Functional image	.939	116.571	.851	.856	.930	.870	.936	104.097	.865	.866	.937	.881
Brand image	Affective image	.926	83.087					.941	121.759

Note. CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

All loadings are significant at p < .01 level.

The composite reliability values, which represent the shared variance across a set of observed items assessing a construct, exceeded .60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This indicates that the observed items collectively evaluated each construct reliably. Additionally, the composite reliability coefficients were greater than .60, further confirming the shared variance among the observed items (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity supported the reliability of the findings (Hair et al., 2011). Convergent validity was established as the average variance extracted (AVE) score for each component exceeded .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the shared variance between pairs of constructs to the corresponding average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), which measures how much each construct differs from other latent variables in the measurement model (Hair et al., 2016). Additionally, the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio approach (Henseler et al., 2016) was employed, with all values found to be below .90 (Teo et al., 2008). Tables 4 and 5 present the discriminant validity indicators for each of the two groups and in relation to the model’s second-order constructs.

Table 4.

Measurement Model Discriminant Validity for the Higher-Order Construct. Visited Louvre Paris.

Factor		1	2	3	4	5
1	Brand extension attitude	.930	.541	.740	.847	.767
2	Brand image	.460	.933	.280	.677	.411
3	Perceived brand localness	.619	.236	.924	.651	.607
4	Perceived fit	.713	.573	.542	.928	.722
5	Visit intention	.675	.362	.528	.632	.923

Note. Diagonal values are AVE square root, values below the diagonal are latent variable correlations values and above the diagonal are HTMT ratios.

Table 5.

Measurement Model Discriminant Validity for the Higher-Order Construct. Never Visited Louvre Paris.

Factor		1	2	3	4	5
1	Brand extension attitude	.959	.683	.777	.897	.747
2	Brand image	.608	.939	.529	.736	.632
3	Perceived brand localness	.684	.453	.931	.730	.617
4	Perceived fit	.810	.647	.635	.951	.695
5	Visit intention	.696	.575	.554	.641	.952

Note. Diagonal values are AVE square root, values below the diagonal are latent variable correlations values and above the diagonal are HTMT ratios.

The application of the measurement models and invariances previously utilized in MGA has been established (Hair et al., 2016; Henseler et al., 2016; Rasoolimanesh et al., 2016, 2017; Sarstedt et al., 2011). The measurement invariance of composites (MICOM) method for assessing measurement invariance has been employed (Henseler et al., 2016). MICOM follows a three-stage procedure, comprising (1) assessing configural invariance, (2) evaluating compositional invariance, and (3) examining equal means and variances (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017).

Configural invariance necessitates three conditions: consistency in the measurement model’s indicators across each sample, uniform treatment of indicators in the data, and the application of the same algorithm and optimization techniques (Hair et al., 2018). Compositional invariance is achieved when the correlation between composite values in each sample is not significantly different from the empirical distribution of correlations’ confidence intervals obtained through permutations. These two conditions result in partial metric invariance, enabling comparison of standardized coefficients of the structural model across groups.

Table 6 illustrates that latent means and variances were not identical across groups, particularly evident in the visit intention scenario. While these findings might preclude data pooling, as previously mentioned, they do not impact the validity of multigroup analysis.

Table 6.

Results of Invariance Measurement Testing Using Permutation Between Visited Louvre Paris and Never Visited Louvre Paris.

Constructs	Configural invariance (same algorithms for both groups)	Compositional invariance (correlation = 1)		Partial measurement invariance established	Equal mean assessment			Equal variance assessment
Constructs	Configural invariance (same algorithms for both groups)	C = 1	5% quantile	Partial measurement invariance established	Differences	Confidence interval	Equal	Differences	Confidence interval	Equal
Brand extension attitude	Yes	1.000	1.000	Yes	0.128	[−0.135, 0.116]	No	−0.199	[−0.217, 0.218]	Yes
Brand image	Yes	1.000	1.000	Yes	0.181	[−0.141, 0.121]	No	−0.217	[−0.281, 0.298]	Yes
Perceived brand localness	Yes	1.000	1.000	Yes	0.132	[−0.131, 0.128]	No	−0.024	[−0.163, 0.169]	Yes
Perceived fit	Yes	1.000	1.000	Yes	0.109	[−0.132, 0.129]	Yes	−0.204	[−0.237, 0.234]	Yes
Visit intention	Yes	1.000	1.000	No	0.283	[−0.134, 0.121]	No	−0.46	[−0.214, 0.215]	No

Structural Model and Multi Group Analysis

R² was computed to elucidate the model’s explanatory power (Hair et al., 2014), revealing that all dependent constructs surpassed the threshold of .10 (Falk & Miller, 1992). Positive Stone-Geisser’s Q² values were evaluated via blindfolding with an omission distance of D = 7 (Henseler et al., 2009). Table 7 displays both indicators, illustrating the predictive relevance of the model for the two samples.

Table 7.

Evaluation of the Estimated Models.

Concept	Visited Louvre Paris		Never visited Louvre Paris
Concept	R ²	Q ²	R ²	Q ²
Brand extension attitude	.591	.489	.711	.635
Perceived fit	.327	.270	.418	.367
Visit intention	.454	.366	.484	.428

Table 8 presents the results of the structural model analysis and hypothesis testing utilizing 5,000 bootstrap replicates and permutations. Additionally, the table juxtaposes findings from two nonparametric techniques: Henseler’s MGA (Henseler et al., 2009) and the permutation test (Chin & Dibbern, 2010). Henseler’s MGA evaluates group bootstrap indicators from each bootstrap sample, with p-values below .05 or above .95 indicating significant differences in specific path coefficients across two samples at the 5% level (Henseler et al., 2009; Sarstedt et al., 2011). Meanwhile, the permutation analysis classifies differences at the 5% level of significance if the p-value is below .05.

Table 8.

Hypotheses Testing Between Visited Louvre Paris and Never Visited Louvre Paris.

Hypothesis	Relationship	Path coefficients		Confidence interval (95%)		Path coefficient difference	p-Value difference (one-tailed)
Hypothesis	Relationship	Visited Louvre Paris	Never visited Louvre Paris	Visited Louvre Paris	Never visited Louvre Paris	Path coefficient difference	Henseler’s MGA	Permutation Test
H1	Brand extension attitude → Visit intention	.696***	.675***	[0.633, 0.748]	[0.601, 0.739]	.022	.680	.632
H2a	Brand image → Brand extension attitude	.124**	.115**	[0.031, 0.228]	[0.015, 0.219]	.009	.548	.901
H2b	Brand image → Perceived fit	.647***	.573***	[0.570, 0.713]	[0.469, 0.662]	.074	.884	.227
H3	Perceived fit → Brand extension attitude	.555***	.462***	[0.418, 0.665]	[0.323, 0.581]	.093	.849	.304
H4	Perceived brand localness → Brand extension attitude	.276***	.342***	[0.192, 0.363]	[0.243, 0.451]	.066	.169	.335

Note: In Hensler’s MGA method, the p value lower than .05 or higher than .95 indicates at the 5% level significant differences between specific path coefficients across groups.

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

The results reveal that brand extension attitude significantly and positively influences visit intention in both samples (H1; visited Louvre Paris β = .696, not visited Louvre Paris β = .675; p < .01). Furthermore, it has been confirmed that brand image significantly affects brand extension attitude in both groups (H2a; visited Louvre Paris β = .124, not visited Louvre Paris β = .115; p < .05). Moreover, brand image demonstrates a significant and positive effect on perceived fit in both samples (H2b; visited Louvre Paris β = .647, not visited Louvre Paris β = .573; p < .01).

Additionally, perceived fit exhibits a significant and positive effect on brand extension attitude in both samples (H3; visited Louvre Paris β = .555, not visited Louvre Paris β = .462; p < .01). Likewise, perceived brand localness has a significant and positive effect on brand extension attitude in both samples (H4; visited Louvre Paris β = .276, not visited Louvre Paris β = .342; p < .01).

However, the results of Henseler’s MGA and permutation tests do not reveal significant differences between the two samples concerning the examined hypotheses.

Conclusions

Theoretical Contributions

A pioneering aspect of this study involves a comparative analysis between two distinct groups: those who have visited the parent brand and those who have not, aimed at scrutinizing the impact of brand extension on visit intention. The model estimation results have revealed four significant and noteworthy findings. The primary contribution lies in demonstrating, for the first time, the positive and substantial effect of brand extension attitude on visit intention, an aspect often overlooked or underestimated in previous studies. While existing literature has explored the influence of cultural brand equity on visit intention (Camarero et al., 2012; C. R. Liu et al., 2013) and underscored the positive impact of previous experiences with the parent brand on brand extension attitudes (Carreira et al., 2021; Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2020), research on heritage brands has been relatively limited (del Barrio-García & Prados-Peña, 2019; Mariani & Guizzardi, 2019). Notably, Halpenny et al. (2018) investigated the effect of brand attitude on brand-related travel but deemed it statistically insignificant. Hence, this study’s finding substantiates the influence of brand extension attitude on visit intention.

The second significant contribution is the validation of all tested relationships in the model as positive and statistically significant. Drawing on H. Kim et al.’s (2018) proposition that parent brand equity likely transfers to the brand extension through perceived fit, it was anticipated that the parent brand image would positively and significantly impact brand extension attitude and perceived fit (H2a and H2b). Extant literature suggests that brands with a positive image possess the potential to extend their brand with new products (Martínez et al., 2009). The findings affirm the significant and positive effects of brand image and perceived fit on brand extension attitude (H2a and H3), corroborating their significance as critical factors contributing to the success of brand extension (Martínez et al., 2009).

Furthermore, in line with Martínez-Salinas and Piña’s (2009) observations, it was noted that a low-fit brand extension does not negatively impact brand extension attitude, indicating that perceived fit might exert a significant and positive effect. Previous studies have identified fit as pivotal in explaining brand extension success (Dwivedi et al., 2010). Hence, the relationship between perceived fit and brand extension attitude (H3) was scrutinized, emphasizing the importance of launching extensions perceived to fit well to safeguard the parent brand’s reputation (Martínez-Salinas & Piña, 2009). This finding aligns with prior literature, including Hem et al. (2014) and Dwivedi et al. (2010).

Given the internationalization of the museum sector, investigating the effect of perceived brand localness on brand extension attitude became imperative. Particularly intriguing was the examination of the influence of perceived brand localness on brand extension attitude in the case of Louvre Abu Dhabi, associable with both France and Louvre Paris. The findings revealed a significant and positive effect, consistent with previous studies conducted in diverse contexts (Halkias et al., 2016).

The third notable contribution is the absence of differences between the two samples, indicating that the effects of the tested hypotheses remain consistent regardless of respondents’ visitation to the parent brand, Louvre Paris. This finding is significant as it suggests that the parent brand’s influence transcends the physical museum, challenging the notion that its power is solely tied to the “brick and mortar” establishment. The positive and significant relationships identified in both samples, including the subset that has not visited Louvre Paris, underscored the broader impact and reached of the parent brand.

Finally, this research significantly advances our understanding of international marketing and brand extension within the museum sector. While international marketing in the museum field is not novel, and temporary exhibitions of renowned artworks have a historical presence, specific research on the impact of brand extension on visit intentions for a superstar museum brand, such as the Louvre, has been lacking. Despite the prevalence of internationalization in the museum industry, with the establishment of global museum branches like the Guggenheim or the Hermitage (Gombault & Selles, 2018), prior research has not explored the effects of brand extension on visit intentions for a superstar museum brand. Considering the substantial value of superstar museum brands, it is crucial to investigate the impact of brand extensions on visit willingness to make informed decisions regarding internationalization, identifying extensions that are both suitable and less risky (Martínez-Salinas & Piña, 2009).

Managerial Implications

This research also carries significant managerial implications. Firstly, the study suggests that strong parent brands tend to elicit a favorable market response, with the image of the parent brand playing a crucial role. Therefore, it is recommended for managers to make prior investments in positioning and enhancing the image of the parent brand before considering the launch of a brand extension. It is essential for the brand extension to align consistently with the parent brand (Dwivedi et al., 2010).

Secondly, and in line with the previous implication, this research reveals that previous experiences with the physical parent brand do not directly influence the success of the brand extension. Thus, museum managers should focus on enhancing the online presence of the parent brand through various initiatives such as gamification, video games, social media campaigns, and other actions that strengthen the brand image. Additionally, incorporating storytelling techniques to explain the partnership between Louvre and Louvre Abu Dhabi can enhance understanding and increase visitors’ willingness to explore the brand extension.

Thirdly, the study underscores the importance of integrating both local and global brand expansion strategies, anchored in local initiatives but with a global outlook. Managers at Louvre Abu Dhabi can augment local efforts by implementing the following initiatives: (1) Collaboration with local artists: By curating special exhibitions or installations that showcase the talent and creativity of the Louvre Paris, Louvre Abu Dhabi can strengthen its connection to the parent brand’s identity and cultural heritage. This brand expansion initiative serves to reinforce the brand’s legacy and fosters a sense of cultural affinity among visitors. (2) Cultural exchange programs: Louvre Abu Dhabi can orchestrate cultural exchange programs with Louvre Paris, facilitating collaborations between artists, curators, and experts from diverse backgrounds alongside UAE artists. Through these initiatives, cultural diversity is celebrated, and avenues for cross-cultural learning and artistic dialogue are created, enriching the museum’s offerings and global appeal. (3) Local artisan workshops: Collaborating with artisans from Louvre Paris, Louvre Abu Dhabi can organize workshops and training programs aimed at promoting the artworks and traditional craftsmanship associated with the parent brand. These initiatives not only showcase the artistic heritage of Louvre Paris but also provide valuable support to local artisans, further reinforcing the museum’s commitment to preserving and promoting cultural traditions.

Additionally, the Louvre brand can encourage global endeavors, including: (1) Louvre Abu Dhabi Pop-Up Exhibitions: Louvre Abu Dhabi can organize temporary exhibitions in major cities worldwide, showcasing selected artworks from its collection. These exhibitions can travel to different countries and serve as ambassadors for the museum, displaying its diverse collection and attracting international visitors; (2) Louvre Abu Dhabi Merchandise: Louvre Abu Dhabi can develop a range of branded products, such as books, accessories, and home decor items, featuring iconic artworks from the museum’s collection. These products can be globally sold through online platforms and museum shops, enabling individuals from various parts of the world to establish a connection with the brand.

Lastly, like integrated resorts, museums could broaden their brand reach by offering diverse experiences, amenities, and connections to different markets. By emphasizing emotional and cognitive aspects tied to the brand, museums can establish a strong connection with visitors, ultimately contributing to the long-term success of the museum brand (Ahn & Back, 2017).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

It is important to note that this research focuses specifically on the Louvre brand extension, and therefore, the findings may not be directly generalizable to other contexts. As previously mentioned, the Louvre Abu Dhabi emerged from a unique trinational partnership between the UAE and France, with the intention of creating a distinct entity rather than a replica or branch of the Louvre Paris (Gombault & Selles, 2018). Consequently, there are several limitations to this study, which provide directions for future research.

To begin with, due to the nature of the transnational partnership between France and the UAE, it would be of interest to measure the effect of political influences on destination branding (Ryan & Silvanto, 2010). Furthermore, given the contrast between the Louvre’s brand expansion and the Guggenheim approach, it would be captivating to explore the presented hypotheses within other contexts of renowned museums to identify which approach generates a greater inclination for visitation. Taking inspiration from Halkias et al.’s (2016) recommendations, but tailored to the museum setting, scholars are prompted to investigate the implications of brand rootedness. Therefore, it would be valuable for scholars to replicate this study using other well-known tourism brands such as Legoland, Disney, or Super Nintendo World, which could provide additional insights and comparisons.

Secondly, it would be very revealing to examine the impact of museum branding on destination competitiveness, particularly on cities (Miličević et al., 2016). Additionally, it would be valuable to analyze the impact of the Mona Lisa’s endorsement on how tourists perceive the museum experience (S. S. Kim et al., 2014). Future studies could explore other dimensions that contribute to brand extension equity, such as authenticity (del Barrio-García & Prados-Peña, 2019) and perceived value (Hwang et al., 2022), the inspirational museum effect on wellness experiences (B. Kim & Yang, 2021), the impact of community support on image (X. Chi et al., 2022), or even the influence of happiness with the parent brand museum influences behavioral intentions with the category extension (Lv & Wu, 2021). Besides, it would be very interesting to examine the effects of brand experience (measured in sensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral terms) on brand engagement for the Louvre brand (Kumar & Kaushik, 2020) in a PLS-MGA.

Thirdly, incorporating variables for control, such as prior interactions with the main brand or gauging familiarity, could contribute to a deeper comprehension of the elements that impact the achievement of brand extension (Prados-Peña & del Barrio-García, 2020). Given that situational factors might influence familiarity, investigating the impact of a positive reputation (assessed through the dimensions of favorability and familiarity) on tourists’ viewpoints could yield intriguing insights (M. Liu & Xiong, 2023).

These considerations highlight potential avenues for future research to expand the knowledge and understanding of brand extensions in various contexts and with different dimensions of analysis.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Faculty of Commerce and Tourism at the Complutense University of Madrid for their generous financial support. This work would not have been possible without their invaluable assistance, which greatly contributed to the advancement of our research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Faculty of Commerce and Tourism at the Complutense University of Madrid.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Ahn

Back

K.-J.

(2017). Influence of brand relationship on customer attitude toward integrated resort brands: A cognitive, affective, and conative perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1358239

Ajana

(2015). Branding, legitimation and the power of museums: The case of the Louvre Abu Dhabi. Museum and Society, 13(3), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.v13i3.333

Ashraf

Merunka

(2013). The impact of customer-company identification on consumer reactions to new corporate initiatives. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(5), 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip-04-2013-0065

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02723327

Braun

Eshuis

Klijn

E. H.

(2014). The effectiveness of place brand communication. Cities, 41, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.05.007

Bues

Steiner

Stafflage

Krafft

(2017). How mobile in-store advertising influences purchase intention: Value drivers and mediating effects from a consumer perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 34(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20981

Camarero

Garrido-Samaniego

M. J.

Vicente

(2012). Determinants of brand equity in cultural organizations: The case of an art exhibition. The Service Industries Journal, 32(9), 1527–1549. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.567414

Camarero

Garrido-Samaniego

M. J.

Vicente

(2019). Does it pay off for museums to foster creativity? The complementary effect of innovative visitor experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(2), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1497567

Carreira

González-Rodríguez

M. R.

Díaz-Fernández

M. C.

(2021). The relevance of motivation, authenticity and destination image to explain future behavioural intention in a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(4), 650–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1905617

10.

Chen

M. F.

Tung

P. J.

(2014). Developing an extended theory of planned behaviour model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006

11.

Chi

C. G. Q.

(2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29(4), 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007

12.

Chi

Meng

Zhou

Han

(2022). Cultivating and disseminating a festival image: The case of the Qingdao International Beer Festival. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 39(4), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2022.2105474

13.

Chin

W. W.

Dibbern

(2010). A permutation-based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis: Results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross-cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system services between Germany and the USA. In Vinzi

V. E.

Chin

W. W.

Henseler

Wang

(Eds.). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 171–193). Springer.

14.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15.

del Barrio-García

Prados-Peña

M. B

. (2019). Do brand authenticity and brand credibility facilitate brand equity? The case of heritage destination brand extension. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 13, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.05.002

16.

del Bosque

I. R.

Martín

H. S

. (2008). Tourist satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.02.006

17.

Deng

Q. C.

Messinger

P. R.

(2022). Dimensions of brand-extension fit. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39(3), 764–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.013

18.

Dwivedi

Merrilees

Sweeney

(2010). Brand extension feedback effects: A holistic framework. Journal of Brand Management, 17(5), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2009.26

19.

Falk

R. F.

Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modelling. University of Akron Press.

20.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146

21.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

22.

Garcia-Madariaga

Recuero Virto

Blasco López

M. F.

(2020). Scanning museumgoers’ willingness to pay more. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 23(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2019.1708222

23.

Gombault

Selles

(2018). Company profile: Louvre Abu Dhabi: A radical innovation, but what future for French cultural influence? International Journal of Arts Management, 20(3), 83–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44989739

24.

Gómez

Lopez

Molina

(2015). A model of tourism destination brand equity: The case of wine tourism destinations in Spain. Tourism Management, 51, 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.019

25.

Gómez-Rico

Molina-Collado

Santos-Vijande

M. L.

Molina-Collado

M. V.

Imhoff

(2022). The role of novel instruments of brand communication and brand image in building consumers’ brand preference and intention to visit wineries. Current Psychology, 42(15), 12711–12727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02656-w

26.

Hair

J. F.

Black

Babin

Anderson

Tatham

(2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.

27.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

28.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202

29.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Sarstedt

Matthews

L. M.

Ringle

C. M.

(2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I – Method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-09-2015-0094

30.

Hair

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Gudergan

S. P.

(2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

31.

Halkias

Davvetas

Diamantopoulos

(2016). The interplay between country stereotypes and perceived brand globalness/localness as drivers of brand preference. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3621–3628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.022

32.

Halpenny

Kono

Moghimehfar

(2018). Predicting World Heritage Site visitation intentions of North American park visitors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 9(3), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhtt-10-2017-0109

33.

Hem

L. E.

Iversen

N. M.

Olsen

L. E.

(2014). Category characteristics’ effects on brand extension attitudes: A research note. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1589–1594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.002

34.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/imr-09-2014-0304

35.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

(2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1474-7979(2009)0000020014

36.

H. H. S.

Kandampully

Juwaheer

T. D.

(2009). Relationships and impacts of service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: An empirical study. The Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264206080229293

37.

Hultman

Papadopoulou

Oghazi

Opoku

(2021). Branding the hotel industry: The effect of step-up versus step-down brand extensions. Journal of Business Research, 124, 560–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.047

38.

Hwang

Kim

H. M.

Joo

K.-H.

Kim

J. J.

(2022). The antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity in the restaurant industry: Robot service employees versus human service employees. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 39(2), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2022.2061678

39.

Iversen

N. M.

Hem

L. E.

(2011). Reciprocal transfer effects for brand extensions of global or local origin: Evidence from Norway. International Marketing Review, 28(4), 365–411. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111149949

40.

Jara

Cliquet

(2012). Retail brand equity: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(1), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.11.003

41.

Kabassi

(2017). Evaluating websites of museums: State of the art. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 24, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.10.016

42.

Keller

K. L.

Aaker

D. A.

(1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900104

43.

Kim

Yang

(2021). “I’m here for recovery”: The eudaimonic wellness experiences at the Le Monastère des Augustines Wellness hotel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(8), 802–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2021.19210

44.

Kim

Stepchenkova

Yilmaz

(2018). Destination extension: A faster route to fame for the emerging destination brands? Journal of Travel Research, 58(3), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518754407

45.

Kim

S. S.

Lee

Prideaux

(2014). Effect of celebrity endorsement on tourists’ perception of corporate image, corporate credibility and corporate loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.11.003

46.

Kim

W. G.

Jin-Sun

Kim

H. J.

(2008). Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348007313265

47.

Kumar

Kaushik

A. K.

(2020). Does experience affect engagement? Role of destination brand engagement in developing brand advocacy and revisit intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.17575

48.

Lee

Yoon

(2022, April 9). Effects of parent brand equity on perceived fit and customer behavior of extended brand—Focused on MICE destination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4540. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084540

49.

Tan

Jiao

(2024, February). Research on the formation mechanism of brand identification in cross-border e-commerce platforms—Based on the perspective of perceived brand globalness/localness. Heliyon, 10(3), e25155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25155

50.

Liu

C. R.

Liu

H. K.

Lin

W. R.

(2013). Constructing customer-based museums brand equity model: The mediating role of brand value. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1979

51.

Liu

Xiong

(2023). Well-known or well-liked? The effects of brand reputation on customers’ responses to service failure. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 40(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2023.2236634

52.

Atadil

H. A.

(2021). Do you dare to travel to China? An examination of China’s destination image amid the COVID-19. Tourism Management Perspectives, 40, 100881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100881

53.

(2021). The role of extraordinary sensory experiences in shaping destination brand love: An empirical study. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2021.1889447

54.

Majeed

Zhou

Kim

W. G.

(2022). Destination brand image and destination brand choice in the context of health crisis: Scale development. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 24(1), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221126798

55.

Mandler

Bartsch

Han

C. M.

(2020). Brand credibility and marketplace globalization: The role of perceived brand globalness and localness. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(8), 1559–1590. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00312-2

56.

Mariani

M. M.

Guizzardi

(2019). Does designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site influence tourist evaluation of a local destination? Journal of Travel Research, 59(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518821737

57.

Martínez

Montaner

Pina

J. M.

(2009). Brand extension feedback: The role of advertising. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.009

58.

Martínez-Salinas

Piña

J. M.

(2009). Modeling the brand extensions’ influence on brand image. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.006

59.

Martínez-Salinas

Piña

J. M.

(2010). Consumer responses to brand extensions: A comprehensive model. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 1182–1205. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011047580

60.

Miličević

Mihalič

Sever

(2016). An investigation of the relationship between destination branding and destination competitiveness. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.11566

61.

Nguyen

A. H. M.

Alcantara

L. L.

(2020). The interplay between country-of-origin image and perceived brand localness: An examination of local consumers’ response to brand acquisitions by emerging market firms. Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2020.1840422

62.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

63.

Prados-Peña

M. B.

del Barrio-García

(2020). How does parent heritage brand preference affect brand extension loyalty? A moderated mediation analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, 100755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100755

64.

Prados-Peña

M. B.

del Barrio-García

(2021). Key antecedents of brand equity in heritage brand extensions: The moderating role of tourist heritage experience. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 27(3), 100153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100153

65.

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Jaafar

Ramayah

(2017). Urban vs. Rural destinations: Residents’ perceptions, community participation and support for tourism development. Tourism Management, 60, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.019

66.

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

Roldán

J. L.

Jaafar

Ramayah

(2016). Factors influencing residents’ perceptions toward tourism development: Differences across rural and urban World Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287516662354

67.

Recuero-Virto

Blasco López

M. F.

Mondejar

J. A.

(2021). Willingness to pay more: The quest for superstar museums. Academica Turistica, 14(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.14.101-114

68.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

(2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS, Boenningstedt. https://www.smartpls.com

69.

Ryan

Silvanto

(2010). World Heritage Sites: The purposes and politics of destination branding. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(5), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2010.499064

70.

Sarstedt

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

(2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing, 22, 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1474-7979(2011)0000022012

71.

See

G. T.

Goh

Y. N.

(2018). Tourists’ intention to visit heritage hotels at George Town World Heritage Site. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873x.2018.1458853

72.

Shahzalal

Font

(2018). Influencing altruistic tourist behaviour: Persuasive communication to affect attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(3), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2184

73.

Shokri

Alavi

(2019). The relationship between consumer-brand identification and brand extension. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 18(2), 124–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2018.1534064

74.

Sichtmann

Davvetas

Diamantopoulos

(2019). The relational value of perceived brand globalness and localness. Journal of Business Research, 104, 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.025

75.

Slak Valek

. (2021). Art tourism: Definitions, opportunities, and discussions based on a case study from Abu Dhabi. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 20(1–2), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2021.1962892

76.

Teo

T. S. H.

Srivastava

S. C.

Jiang

(2008). Trust and electronic government success: An empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222250303

77.

Zatori

Smith

M. K.

Puczko

(2018). Experience-involvement, memorability and authenticity: The service provider’s effect on tourist experience. Tourism Management, 67, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.013

Exploring the Power of Brand Extension in Museums. Insights from the Louvre Abu Dhabi

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Brand Extension Attitude Effect on Visit Intention

Brand Image Influence on Brand Extension Attitude and Perceived Fit

Perceived Fit and Perceived Brand Localness Impact on Brand Extension Attitude

Methodology

Study Setting

Data Collection and Sample Profile

Data Evaluation Process

Findings

Evaluation of the Measurement Model and the Invariance Dimension

Structural Model and Multi Group Analysis

Conclusions

Theoretical Contributions

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Data Availability Statement

References