Tüketicilerin ortak markaları değerlendirmelerinde prestijli ve işlevsel markaların rolü

Abstract

Ortak markalama, yaygın olarak kullanılan bir marka pazarlama stratejisi ve akademik araştırmalarda genişçe incelenmiş bir konudur. Ortak markalama araştırmaları, marka ortaklıklarının tüketiciler tarafından değerlendirilmesinde biraraya gelen markalar ve ürün kategorileri arasındaki algılanan uyumun önemini vurgulamıştır. Mevcut çalışma, ortak markalama stratejisinde biraraya gelen markaların prestij ve işlevsel marka konseptleri ile ürün kategorileri uyumunun etkileşimini araştırır. Bulgular, iki prestijli markanın biraraya geldiğinde, aralarında kategori uyumu olmasa bile, bu işbirliğinin olumlu tüketici tutumları ve satın alma niyetleri oluşturduğunu gösterir. Prestijli marka kavramları arasında ortak bağlantılar bulmanın kolay olması nedeniyle, prestijli marka işbirliklerinde marka kavramı uyumu, kategori uyumunun önüne geçer. Ancak, işlevsel markalar somut ve fonksiyonel özellikleri üzerinden değerlendirildikleri için, kategorik uyumlar işlevsel marka işbirliklerinde daha önemlidir. Bu nedenle, işlevsel marka içeren marka ortaklıklarında, olumlu tüketici tutum ve satın alma niyetlerinin oluşması için markalar arasında kategori uyumu olması önemlidir. Bulguların teorik ve pratik çıkarımları tartışılmış, mevcut çalışmayı takip edebilecek potansiyel araştırma soruları önerilmiştir.

Keywords

• Ortak markalama
• marka işbirlikleri
• marka yönetimi
• prestijli marka
• işlevsel marka
• Co-branding
• brand alliances
• brand management
• prestigious brands
• functional brands

THE ROLE OF PRESTIGIOUS AND FUNCTIONAL BRAND CONCEPTS IN CONSUMERS’ EVALUATIONS OF CO-BRANDED PARTNERSHIPS

Abstract

Co-branding is an extensively employed brand marketing strategy as well as a broadly investigated topic in academic research. Extant co-branding research has emphasized the importance of perceived fit between the partnering brands and product categories in evaluations of a co-branded partnership. The current work seeks to advance this research stream by exploring the interplay of partnering brands’ prestige and functional brand concept fit with their product fit. Specifically, it shows that when two prestigious brands collaborate, they induce favorable consumer attitudes and purchase intentions even in the absence of product fit. Due to ease of finding superordinate common links between the prestige brand concepts, brand fit overrides product fit in evaluations of prestigious brand collaborations. However, because functional brands are evaluated predominantly on their concrete functional attributes, categorical associations become more important. Therefore, presence of product fit is crucial in inducing favorable attitudes and purchase intentions in co-branded partnerships that include functional brands. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed, potential future research avenues are proposed.

Keywords

• Co-branding
• brand alliances
• brand management
• prestigious brands
• functional brands

References

1. Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. The Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.
2. Ashdown, K. 2017. 7 Successful Examples of Automotive Co-Branding. Available at: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/7-successful-examples-of-automotive-co-branding/
3. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32-43.
4. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (2001). The impact of parent brand attribute associations and affect on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 53(3), 111-122.
5. Bottomley, P. A., & Holden, S. 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.
6. Bouten, L. M., Snelders, D., & Hultink, E. J. (2011). The impact of fit measures on the consumer evaluation of new Co‐Branded products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(4), 455-469.
7. Chemev, A. (2004). The goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1/2), 141-150.
8. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.

9. Dacin, P. A., & Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 229-242.
10. Dickinson, S., & Heath, T. (2006). A comparison of qualitative and quantitative results concerning evaluations of co-branded offerings. Journal of Brand Management, 13(6), 393-406.
11. Dickinson, S. J., & Heath, T. (2008). Cooperative brand alliances: How to generate positive evaluations. Australasian Marketing Journal, 16(2), 22-38.
12. Helmig, B., Huber, J. A., & Leeflang, P. (2007). Explaining behavioural intentions toward co-branded products. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(3-4), 285-304.
13. James, D. O. (2006). Extension to alliance: Aaker and Keller’s model revisited. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(1), 15–22.
14. Johnson, M. D. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3), 741-753.
15. Judith H. W., Brian D. T., & Randi, P. (2004). Brand alliance and customer-based brand-equity effects. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 487-508.
16. Kalvapalle, R. (2014). 21 Examples of Auto Co-Branding. Available at: https://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/cobranding
17. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., & Rose, R. L. (1990). On the formation and relationship of ad and brand attitudes: An experimental and causal analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 290-303.
18. Pappu, R., Quester, PG, & Cooksey, R.W. (2005). Consumer based brand equity: Improving the measurement- empirical evidence. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(3), 143-154.
19. Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.
20. Park, C. W., Millberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluations of brand extensions: the role of product level similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 185-93.
21. Pinello, C., Picone, P. M., & Destri, A. M. L. (2022). Co-branding research: where we are and where we could go from here. European Journal of Marketing.
22. Romagnoli, R. (2020). Co-branding in the luxury industry. Available at: https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2020/07/01/co-branding-the-luxury-industry
23. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382-439.
24. Ruekert, R. W., & Rao, A. (1994). Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 87-97.
25. Samu, S., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, R. E. (1999). Using advertising alliances for new product introduction: interactions between product complementarity and promotional strategies. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 57-74.
26. Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. 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.
27. Spethman, B. K., & Benezra, K. (1994). Co-brand or be damned. Brandweek, 35(45), 20-25.
28. Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2- 22.