Companies often extend product lines with the goal of increasing demand for their products and responding to competitive threats. Although line extensions may lead to cannibalization and reduction of overall profit, the bulk of theoretical and empirical research has suggested that product line extensions result in a net gain of overall demand and market share. To mitigate cannibalization, the extant literature prescribes the addition of premium versions of products, or “upward line extensions,” with the intention of achieving gains not only in demand and market share but also in overall profit. In this research, the authors employ analytical and empirical methods to make the case that upward line extensions aimed at matching a competing product's attribute may lead consumers to reassess their perceptions about the brand and the attributes of products in the market in a way that erodes the advantages of the extending firm. Ultimately, this can result in a loss of demand, market share, and profit for the extending firm.
AakerDavid A. and KellerKevin L. (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 27–41.
2.
AllenbyGreg M., RossiPeter E., and McCullochRobert E. (2005) “Hierarchical Bayes Models: A Practitioners Guide,” working paper, (accessed September 3, 2015), [available at http://www.econ.umn.edu/∼bajari/iosp07/rossi1.pdf].
3.
AllenbyGreg M., ShivelyThomas S., YangSha, and GarrattMark J. (2004), “A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts,”Marketing Science, 23 (1), 95–108.
4.
AribargAnocha and AroraNeeraj (2008), “Interbrand Variant Overlap: Impact on Brand Preference and Portfolio Profit,”Marketing Science, 27 (3), 474–91.
5.
AxarloglouKostas (2008), “Product Line Extensions: Causes and Effects,”Managerial and Decision Economics, 29 (1), 9–21.
6.
BalachanderSubramanian and GhoseSanjoy (2003), “Reciprocal Spillover Effects: A Strategic Benefit of Brand Extensions,”Journal of Marketing, 67 (January), 4–13.
7.
BayusBarry L. and PutsisWilliam P.Jr. (1999), “Product Proliferation: An Empirical Analysis of Product Line Determinants and Market Outcomes,”Marketing Science, 18 (2), 137–53.
8.
BruceNorris, DesaiPreyas S., and StaelinRichard (2005), “The Better They Are, the More They Give: Trade Promotions of Consumer Durables,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (February), 54–66.
9.
CarpenterGregory S. and NakamotoKent (1990), “Competitive Strategies for Late Entry into a Market with a Dominant Brand,”Management Science, 36 (10), 1268–78.
10.
ChintaguntaPradeep K. (1996), “Investigating the Effects of a Line Extension or New Brand Introduction on Market Structure,”Marketing Letters, 7 (4), 319–28.
11.
ChintaguntaPradeep K., BonfrerAndre, and SongInseong (2002), “Investigating the Effects of Store-Brand Introduction on Retailer Demand and Pricing Behavior,”Management Science, 48 (10), 1242–67.
12.
CookeAlan D.J., JaniszewskiChris, CunhaMarcusJr., NascoSuzanne A., and De WildeEls (2004), “Stimulus Context and the Formation of Consumer Ideals,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 112–24.
13.
CunhaMarcusJr. and ShulmanJeffrey D. (2011), “Assimilation and Contrast in Price Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (5), 822–35.
14.
DesaiPreyas S. (2001), “Quality Segmentation in Spatial Markets: When Does Cannibalization Affect Product Line Design?”Marketing Science, 20 (3), 265–83.
15.
DesirajuRamarao and ShuganSteven M. (1999), “Strategic Service Pricing and Yield Management,”Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 44–56.
16.
DraganskaMichaela and JainDipak C. (2005), “Product-Line Length as a Competitive Tool,”Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14 (1), 1–28.
17.
ErdemTülin (1998), “An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding,”Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (August), 339–51.
18.
ErdemTülin and SunBaohong (2002), “An Empirical Investigation of the Spillover Effects of Advertising and Sales Promotions in Umbrella Branding,”Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (November), 408–420.
19.
HeathTimothy B., DelVecchioDevon, and McCarthyMichael S. (2011), “The Asymmetric Effects of Extending Brands to Lower and Higher Quality,”Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 3–20.
20.
HenardDavid H. and SzymanskiDavid M. (2001), “Why Some New Products Are More Successful Than Others,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August), 362–75.
21.
HorskyDan and NelsonPaul (1992), “New Brand Positioning and Pricing in an Oligopolistic Market,”Marketing Science, 11 (2), 133–53.
22.
JanakiramanRamkumar, SismeiroCatarina, and DuttaShantanu (2009), “Perception Spillovers Across Competing Brands: A Disaggregate Model of How and When,”Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (August), 467–81.
23.
KadiyaliVrinda, VilcassimNaufel, and ChintaguntaPradeep (1998), “Product Line Extensions and Competitive Market Interactions: An Empirical Analysis,”Journal of Econometrics, 89 (1/2), 339–63.
24.
KekreSunder and SrinivasanKannan (1990), “Broader Product Line: A Necessity to Achieve Success?”Management Science, 36 (10), 1216–31.
25.
KimByung-Do, ShiMengze, and SrinivasanKannan (2001), “Reward Programs and Tacit Collusion,”Marketing Science, 20 (2), 99–120.
26.
KleinschmidtElko J. and CooperRobert G. (1991), “The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8 (4), 240–51.
27.
KopallePraveen K. and LehmannDonald R. (2006), “Setting Quality Expectations When Entering a Market: What Should the Promise Be?”Marketing Science, 25 (1), 8–24.
28.
KotlerPhilip and ArmstrongGary (2011), Principles of Marketing, 14th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
LeiJing, DawarNiraj, and LemminkJos (2008), “Negative Spillover in Brand Portfolios: Exploring the Antecedents of Asymmetric Effects,”Journal of Marketing, 72 (July), 111–23.
30.
LoudonDavid, StevensRobert, and WrennBruce (2005), Marketing Management: Text and Cases. Binghamton, NY: Best Business Books.
Montoya‐WeissMitzi M. and CalantoneRoger (1994), “Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta‐Analysis,”Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11 (5), 397–417.
33.
MoorthyK. Sridhar (1984), “Market Segmentation, Self-Selection, and Product Line Design,”Marketing Science, 3 (4), 288–307.
ReddySrinivas K., HolakSusan L., and BhatSubodh (1994), “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 243–62.
39.
SalinasEva M. and PérezJosé M.P. (2009), “Modeling the Brand Extensions’ Influence on Brand Image,”Journal of Business Research, 62 (1), 50–60.
40.
SmithDaniel C. and Whan ParkC. (1992), “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,”Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 296–313.
41.
SullivanMary (1990), “Measuring Image Spillovers in Umbrella-Branded Products,”Journal of Business, 63 (3), 309–329.
42.
Villas-BoasJ. Miguel (2004), “Consumer Learning, Brand Loyalty, and Competition,”Marketing Science, 23 (1), 134–45.
43.
WedellDouglas H. (2008), “A Similarity-Based Range−Frequency Model for Two-Category Rating Data,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (3), 638–43.
44.
WernerfeltBirger (1988), “Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signaling by Posting a Bond,”RAND Journal of Economics, 19 (3), 458–66.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
