brand extension

Brand trust and brand extension acceptance:the relationship

Jon D. Reast

Leeds University Business School, Leeds University, Leeds, UK

AbstractPurpose – This UK-based research aims to build on the US-based work of Keller and Aaker, which found a significant association between “companycredibility” (via a brand’s “expertise” and “trustworthiness”) and brand extension acceptance, hypothesising that brand trust, measured via twocorrelate dimensions, is significantly related to brand extension acceptance.Design/methodology/approach – Discusses brand extension and various prior, validated influences on its success. Focuses on the construct of trustand develops hypotheses about the relationship of brand trust with brand extension acceptance. The hypotheses are then tested on data collected fromconsumers in the UK.Findings – This paper, using 368 consumer responses to nine, real, low involvement UK product and service brands, finds support for a significantassociation between the variables, comparable in strength with that between media weight and brand share, and greater than that delivered by theperceived quality level of the parent brand.Originality/value – The research findings, which develop a sparse literature in this linkage area, are of significance to marketing practitioners, sincebrand trust, already associated with brand equity and brand loyalty, and now with brand extension, needs to be managed and monitored with care. Thepaper prompts further investigation of the relationship between brand trust and brand extension acceptance in other geographic markets and withother higher involvement categories.

Keywords Brands, Trust, Brand extensions, United Kingdom

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

Brand extensions, “the stretch of the established franchise to a

different product class” (Aaker and Keller, 1990) have

become an increasingly popular way of gaining growth

(Springen and Miller, 1990). Brand extensions, delineated

from “line extensions”, which tend to offer modifications to

existing products or services in the same product class (e.g.

flavour, size), are typified by examples (Webster, 2000) such

as Calvin Klein (from jeans to dishes and bed sheets);

Starbucks (from coffee to ice-cream and CDs); and Ralph

Lauren (from clothing to glasses and house-paint).Although, intuitively, brand trust seems, to the researcher, a

logical influence on the evaluation and usage of brand

extension activities, particularly where there is an increased

level of risk associated with a purchase (Jacoby and Kaplan,

1972; Selnes, 1998), and while a large amount of academic

research, seeking to isolate the key components of successful

brand extension, has taken place over the last 10-15 years, as

yet, only indirect or partial linkages have been made between

brand trust and brand extension (Keller and Aaker, 1992;

McWilliam, 1993; Hem et al., 2000; Smith and Andrews,

1995).The structure of this paper is as follows. First, we discuss

brand extension and various prior, validated, influences on its

success. Next, we discuss the construct of trust, the various

contexts in which it has been emphasised, and consider any

actual or perceived linkages in the two literature bodies. Next,

we develop the hypotheses about the relationship of brand

trust with brand extension acceptance. Then, we describe the

research methodology and test our hypotheses on data

collected from consumers in the UK. Finally, we discuss the

limitations of our research and the implications of our

findings.

Brand extension literature

Given the large literature on brand extension success factors,

and as an aid to review, these various components are grouped

as:. parent brand characteristics;. brand extension characteristics; and. consumer characteristics.

Parent brand characteristics

These specifically include: the level of “affect” which most

customers have in the parent brand (e.g. Fiske and Pavelchak,

1986; Boush and Loken, 1991); the prestige of the parent

brand (Park et al., 1991); perceptions about the breadth of the

parent brand portfolio (Boush and Loken, 1991); any strong

“associations” related to the parent brand (e.g. MacInnis and

Nakamoto, 1990; Park et al., 1991), which might include the

extent to which the brand has strong product level or more

generic associations (Rangaswamy et al., 1993); the parent

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

14/1 (2005) 4–13

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420510583707]

4

brand strength and expertise (Reddy et al., 1994); the parent

brand quality associations (Keller and Aaker, 1992); and the

perceived credibility of the parent brand (Keller and Aaker,1992).

Brand extension characteristics

These factors include: the extent to which the extension is

“similar” to the parent brand category (Aaker, 1990; Aaker

and Keller, 1990; Boush and Loken, 1991). Aaker and Keller(1990), indicate, using fictitious brand extensions and six well

known brands, that “fit” can be split into three dimensions ofvariables: transfer of skills or assets from parent to extension;

the extent to which the two product classes are

complementary; and the extent to which the two productclasses are substitutes. Results suggest that “transfer” and

“complement” are the more important in explaining attitude

towards extensions, this gaining support in replication studiesand reanalysis by Van Riel et al. (2001), and Bottomley and

Holden (2001). Brand extension characteristics also includes:

the extent to which the concept is consistent with the image ofthe parent brand (Bridges, 1990; Park et al., 1991), the extent

to which the extension is launched as part of a sequence oflaunches (Keller and Aaker, 1992); the extent to which the

quality of the extension is consistent with that of the parent

(Wenerfelt, 1988; Aaker, 1991) the extent to which theextension concept is competitive within the newly entered

category (Keller and Aaker, 1992), and the impact of the

chosen communication strategy for the concept, on itsacceptance (e.g. Kim et al., 2001).

Consumer characteristics

These specifically include: customer’s user status (Kirmani

et al., 1999); their brand or category knowledge (e.g. Murphy

and Medin, 1985); whether they are of novice or expert statuswithin a given category (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994); the

extent to which they are considered to be innovative (Klinkand Smith, 2001); and the extent of their involvement level

within a particular category (McWilliam, 1993).

Trust

The trust construct is variously defined as: “a generalised

expectancy held by an individual that the word of another can

be relied on” (Rotter, 1967); “the extent to which a person isconfident in, and willing to act on the basis of the words,

actions, decisions of others” (McAllister, 1995); and,

uniquely in the consumer domain, “the willingness of theaverage consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to

perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,2001). Seen as multidimensional in the majority of marketing

studies (Raimondo, 2000), trust is reported to be: involved, as

part of “brand credibility”, in brand extension acceptance(Keller and Aaker, 1992); fundamental to the development of

loyalty (Berry, 1993; Reicheld and Schefter, 2000); as critical

in maintaining successful agency-client relationships (Labahnand Kohli, 1997); as a component of brand equity (Dyson

et al., 1996); and as essential in building strong customer

relationships on the internet (Urban et al., 2000), and“perhaps the single most powerful relationship marketing tool

available to a company” (Berry, 1995). There is, generally, apaucity of trust-related research in the consumer domain,

although several recent publications focus on the consumer’s

“relationship” with brands (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Fournier,

1998), and some, as yet rare, studies consider the

dimensionality of consumer-brand trust (e.g. Fletcher and

Peters, 1997; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). On these rare

occasions the correlates of brand trust tend, in the main, to be

regarded as two dimensional, and Reast (2003) for example,

provides more support, via factor analysis, for a two

component, cognitive and conative, model of the correlates

of brand trust, founded on “credibility” and “performance

satisfaction”, the model having strong explanatory power,

with an adjusted R2 of 0.670 (see Figure 1).

Perceived linkage between trust and brandextension

While the brand extension literature makes little mention of

brand trust, there are, however, a few direct or implied

exceptions. In a consumer context, Keller and Aaker (1992),

using fictitious brands, report a significant association

between “company credibility” (via its “expertise” and its

“brand trustworthiness”) and brand extension acceptance.Keller and Aaker (1992), conducting laboratory-based

experiments with fictitious brands within the potato chip

(crisp) category (“Crane’s” and “Medallion”) in order to

evaluate the impact of the perceived quality of the core brand,

and the number, success and similarity of intervening brand

extensions, on the evaluations of proposed new extensions,

also evaluate the impact of brand breadth and credibility of

the brand on extension evaluation. The researchers

operationalise credibility as the average of the “perceived

expertise” and the “perceived trustworthiness” of the

company/brand providing the extension. Keller and Aaker

(1992) state that:. . . in particular, a company will appear more expert and trustworthy if italready has successfully introduced new products or brand extensions.

The findings of the Keller and Aaker (1992) study are

summarised as: high quality brands stretch further than

average quality brands; successful intervening extensions

improve evaluation of a proposed extension for average

quality brands; and perceived company credibility (expertise

and trustworthy status) and fit appear to mediate effects of

intervening extensions on evaluations of a proposed

extension. It is interesting to note that the authors find

more support for the “company credibility” dependent

variable than “fit” variable within the experimental setting

Figure 1 Two component model of brand trust correlates

Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship

Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

5

used. In support of Keller and Aaker (1992), McWilliam

(1993) finds that, in the view of marketing practitioners,

consumers are willing to try brand extensions, as long as thebrands are highly trusted and regarded, and the explanations

are sufficiently plausible, and Hem et al. (2000), report that

consumer knowledge of and “belief in strong brands”, when

evaluating brand extensions, may compensate for aconsumer’s lack of direct product knowledge. “Belief in”

these strong brands appears to overlap closely with the many

definitions of trust. Also, Reast (2003) conducting UKresearch on real and fictitious brands within low involvement

products and services categories, finds that brands with higher

trust ratings tended to have significantly higher brandextension ratings for line, related and unrelated extension

concepts, relative to same category lower trust rated rivals.

Smith and Andrews (1995), in a business to business context,find that the relationship between “fit”; and brand extension

evaluation is mediated by “customer certainty”, or, “belief in”

a company’s ability to deliver a product that meets his/herexpectations, and Selnes (1998) notes the importance of trust

in reducing perceived risk and thereby facilitating

“relationship enhancement” in buyer-seller interactions. Onthe basis of the prior research, we hypothesise that:

H1. Brand trust, measured via two correlate dimensions,

“credibility” and “performance satisfaction” will be

significantly and positively associated with measures ofbrand extension acceptance.

H2. Brand trust, measured via two correlate dimensions,

“credibility” and “performance satisfaction”, willproduce closer associations with measures of brand

extension acceptance than will the single item measure

“perceived quality level” of parent brand

Methodology

Sample and data collection

A one-stage area sampling design was adopted, utilising a

random selection of postcode blocks from the Royal MailPostal Address Book (North East of England). We collected

210 completed questionnaires, via door-to-door drop off and

collection, from consumers, of which 204 were useable, aresponse rate or completion rate of 48 per cent of homes

where contact was made. Analysis of response from early and

late respondents could detect no non-response bias.Brand data were collected for brands in five categories of

goods and services:1 grocery retail;2 coffee;3 tea;4 pens; and5 internet retail.

Initial target sub-samples were set at 40 respondents per

category and were collected for each of the five categories,providing a target sample frame of 200 and an actual sample

of 204. Excepting the internet retail category (where one

brand was used), brand data were obtained for two brands

within each of the other four categories, providing a totaltarget sample frame of 360 brand responses (40 respondents

£ two brands £ four categories þ40 responses from one

category), and an actual sample of 368 brand responses. TableI provides a sample breakdown by category, sex, age, and

educational levels.

Data were collected on either one or two real brands in each

category, using a careful selection protocol described below.

The study included more than one brand per category where

possible to overcome delineation issues of brand versus

category effects (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994).

Pre-test process

The process followed here, in common with many studies

regarding brand extension (see Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994;Aaker and Keller, 1990; Keller and Aaker, 1992; Boush and

Loken, 1991), encompassed several pre-test stages. An initial

pool of 46 categories was derived from the Marketing PocketBook (1998) and Yellow Pages (1999), with 16 respondents

completing a pre-test questionnaire for familiarity and usage

(reducing the pool to nine categories) and 51 consumer-

respondents testing for brand familiarity and usage levels.

Five categories were selected to be progressed to the main

sample (grocery shops, tea, coffee, pens, and internet retail)

based on brand familiarity and usage of the brands, and two

real brands were selected for each category, except for internet

retail, where only Amazon.com met the familiarity and usage

criteria. Using a 1-9 scale to define the different types ofextensions, ideas conforming to the descriptions of “line”,

“related” and “unrelated” extensions (see Broniarczyk and

Alba, 1994; Keller and Aaker, 1992), were generated and

validated at this stage. Ten respondent-generators produced

(10-20) extensions for each good/service category, these

screened by eight consumer-respondents and an “expert

panel” of ten marketing academics from two UK Business

Schools, and resulting in three “brand neutral” brand

extension concepts for each of the five categories (Table II).

Development and validation of measuresBrand trust and correlate variablesThe questionnaire instrument contained 16 variables,

operationalised as single measure, seven-point semantic

differential scales (1 ¼ Low, 7 ¼ High), and being

representative of the two correlate dimensions of brand

trust. One item, “Quality level”, used within the

“performance satisfaction” scale, also approximates to the

“parent brand quality” measure utilised by Keller and Aaker

(1992), and will be used as a single item comparator of the

levels of association achieved by the “trust model”. The

variables were randomised within each questionnaire, andtogether with brands, rotated across questionnaires in order to

reduce the impact of any ordering effects. The full list of

variables, generated via literature searching, and used within

earlier research (Reast, 2003), is shown below.1 Credibility:

. Truthfulness (Schlenker et al., 1973);

. Fair-mindedness (Anderson and Weitz, 1989);

. Sincerity (Crosby et al., 1990);

. Concern for customers (Arrow, 1974);

. Similar values (Bidault and Jarillo, 1997);

. Confidence (Moorman et al., 1993);

. Competence (Morgan and Hunt, 1994);

. Expert standing (Madhok, 1995);

. Reputation (Jarillo, 1988).2 Performance satisfaction:

. Personal experience (Scanzoni, 1979);

. Brand purchase duration (Ganesan, 1994);

. Fulfils expectations (Dwyer et al., 1987);

. Quality consistency (Altman and Taylor, 1973);


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

6

. Experience of peers (Zucker, 1985);

. Quality standing (Dwyer et al., 1987);

. Dependability (Rempel et al., 1985).

Measures of brand extension response

“Likely to purchase” had been utilised in a number of

previous brand extension studies (see Aaker and Keller, 1990;

Keller and Aaker, 1992), and respondents, here, recorded

their likely trial of the brand extension using a single measure

“Likely to try?” (LTT), operationalised as a seven-point

semantic differential scale (1 ¼ low, 7 ¼ high). The study also

adopted a second measure of brand extension response, “To

what extent do you trust BRAND X to provide this new

product?” (TTP). Captured via a single seven-point semantic

differential scale (1 ¼ low, 7 ¼ high), TTP, reducing the

impact of personal relevance of the particular extension

concept, was a measure which required the respondent to

consider each particular brand and whether it could be

trusted to provide such an extension. Brand extension

concepts were rotated within the questionnaires to overcome

ordering effects.

Analyses

Standard multiple regression has been utilised to assess the

strength and nature of the association between the brand trust

correlate dimensions and brand extension response.

Results

Two brand trust correlate components and brand

extension response

Analysis, using standard multiple regression, has been

conducted to consider the level of association between the

two component model of brand trust and brand extension

response (LTT and TTP), the association being measured at

an overall aggregate level (Ext. 1 þ 2 þ 3), as well as at each

level of extension relatedness. In the interests of brevity, full

results have only been shown for the aggregated extension

response with summary tables being utilised to depict

associations at each level of extension relatedness.Table III, shows the results of the regression of independent

variables “Credibility” and “Performance satisfaction” with

the aggregated dependent variable “Likely to try extension

1 þ 2 þ 3, where an adjusted R2 of 0.140 is found, and

“Performance satisfaction” is statistically significant within

the equation (Beta 0.536, 0.000). Credibility is not found to

reach significant levels of association. By comparison, at the

aggregated level, “Quality level” (Table not shown) produces

an adjusted R2 of 0.094 (p , 0:001).Table IV, the summary association table for the dependent

variable “Likely to try” (LTT) indicates that association levels

for Extension 1 (line extension) and Extension 2 (related

brand extension) are both statistically significant (p , 0:001)

and are relatively consistent with adjusted R2 of figures of

0.103 and 0.138.Where the extension relatedness is pushed in

a more extreme fashion at Extension 3 (unrelated extension),

association, while still statistically significant (p , 0:001), is

pushed to a low level at an adjusted R2 of 0.031.The two

dimension trust model produces a higher level of association

with the “Likely to try” brand extension response measure, at

all levels of extension relatedness, than does the single item

“quality level” variable.In both the aggregated LTT response (Table III) and in

each of the levels of extension relatedness, “Performance

satisfaction” has been statistically significant (p , 0:001)

within regression equations, which may suggest that within

Table II Pre-tested categories, brands and brand extension concepts

Category Brands Extension 1 line extension Extension 2 related extension Extension 3 unrelated extension

Tea Tetley

Typhoo

Lemon tea Cafe chain Spice range

Coffee Nescafe

Maxwell House

Irish coffee Coffee biscuits Fresh pasta

Pens Parker

Pilot

Fashion pens Writing paper Personal computers

Grocery retail Sainsbury

Co-op

Home delivery Giftware Legal advice

Internet retail Amazon.com Branded clothing Personal computers Pensions

Table I Breakdown of respondents and responses

Category Sample respondents Brands Sample response % Male % Female % # 40 % > 40 % No grad % Grad

Tea 40 Tetley

Typhoo

40 £ 2 ¼ 80 24 76 55 45 62 38

Coffee 41 Nescafe

Maxwell H

41 £ 2 ¼ 82 18 82 51 49 68 32

Grocery retail 39 Sainsbury

Co-op

39 £ 2 ¼ 78 19 81 50 50 47 53

Pens 44 Parker

Pilot

44 £ 2 ¼ 88 42 58 55 45 39 61

Internet retail 40 Amazon.co.uk 40 £ 1 ¼ 40 68 32 67 33 28 72

Total sample 204 9 368 34 66 55 45 49 51


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

7

brand extension decisions this is the more influential element

of brand trust. For the dependent variable “Likely to try”,

while an overall significant association is found between

extension response and the two dimensional “trust model”,

H1 is only partially upheld, since only the “Performance

satisfaction” dimension is consistently positively and

significantly associated with LTT. Given the consistently

higher levels of association for the brand trust model over the

quality level measure for the LTT variable, H2 is upheld.Table V, presents the results of a regression between the

aggregated “Trust brand to provide” (TTP) dependent

variable and brand trust dimensions, shows that the two

component model of brand trust has an adjusted R2 of 0.251,

with both components statistically significant within the

regression equation at the 0.001 level or higher. Again, by

comparison, “Quality level” produces an adjusted R2 of 0.206

(p , 0:001), although a table is not shown for the sake of

brevity.

Table VI, the summary association table for the dependent

variable “Trust brand to provide” (TTP), consistent with

results for the LTT dependent variable, shows that

association levels for Extension 1 (line extension) and

Extension 2 (related brand extension) are both statistically

significant and are very consistent with adjusted R2 of figures

of 0.243 and 0.242 respectively. At Extension 3 (unrelated

brand extension), the association level, whilst statistically

significant, again falls to a very low level, with an adjusted R2

of only 0.039 (p , 0:001). The comparator independent

variable “quality level”, showing a similar pattern, produces

lower levels of association for all levels of extension

relatedness for the “Trust brand to provide” extension

response variable.For the dependent variable TTP, for all but the most

unrelated brand extension (Extension 3), both brand trust

correlate dimensions (credibility and performance

satisfaction) are statistically significantly and positively

Table III Multiple regression – LTT Ext. 1 þ 2 þ 3 and trust model

Unstandardised Standardised

Variable B SEB b T Sig. T

Credibility 0.105 0.120 0.069 0.871 0.384

Performance satisfaction 0.536 0.098 0.433 5.470 0.000�

Multiple R 0.381 Analysis of variance

R2 0.145 DF Sum of squares Mean square

Adj. R square 0.140 Regression 2 106.40 53.20

Standard error 1.314 Residual 363 627.57 1.729

F = 30.773 Sign F¼0.000

Notes: � ¼ p , 0:01; Dependent variable: “Likely to try extensions 1+2+3”; N ¼ 368; Independent variables: two components of brand trust

Table IV Multiple regression: trust dimensions and LTT variable

Extension relatedness

Extension 1 Extension 2 Extension 3

Trust model Adj. R2 0.103� 0.138� 0.031�

Credibility Sig. TPerformance satisfaction Sig. T � � �

Parent quality level Adj. R2 0.058 0.100 0.018

Quality level Sig. T � � ��

Notes: � ¼ p , 0:001; �� ¼ p , 0:01

Table V Multiple regression – TTP Ext. 1 þ 2 þ 3 and trust model

Unstandardised Standardised

Variable B SEB b T Sig. T

Credibility 0.325 0.094 0.254 3.441 0.001�

Performance satisfaction 0.291 0.077 0.279 3.782 0.000�

Multiple R 0.505 Analysis of variance

R2 0.255 DF Sum of squares Mean Square

Adj. R2 0.251 Regression 2 132.34 66.171

Standard error 1.032 Residual 363 386.91 1.061

F = 62.081 Sign F¼0.000

Notes: � ¼ p , 0:01; Dependent variable: Trust brand to provide extensions 1 þ 2 þ 3; N ¼ 368; Independent variables: two components of brand trust

Table VI Multiple regression: trust dimensions and TTP variable

Extension relatedness

Extension 1 Extension 2 Extension 3

Trust model Adj. R2 0.243� 0.242� 0.039�

Credibility Sig. T � ��

Performance satisfaction Sig. T ��

Parent quality level Adj. R2 0.182 0.205 0.038

Quality level Sig. T � � �

Notes: � ¼ p , 0:001; �� ¼ p , 0:01; �� ¼ p , 0:05


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

8

correlated with extension response, and thus H1 is upheld.

Association levels (adjusted R2) for the TTP variable are

consistently higher for the two component “trust model”

relative to “quality level”, and thus H2 is upheld.

Discussion

Association levels between the prior validated two component

model of brand trust and brand extension response measuresare found to be moderate, but significant, and stronger than

those produced by the single item perceived “quality level” of

the parent brand (Keller and Aaker, 1992). Analyses by brandextension relatedness shows that the association levels stay

relatively stable for close in line extensions and moderately

disparate brand extension, but fall to very low (but significant)

levels for wholly unrelated brand extensions. The results,which provide an overall adjusted R2 of 0.140 (p , 0:001) for

the “Likely to try” response (Ext. 1 þ 2 þ 3 aggregated), and

an adjusted R2 of 0.251 (p , 0:001) for the “Trust to

provide” brand extension (Ext. 1 þ 2 þ 3 aggregated), showmoderate but significant associations between the variables in

what is a complex field, with many competing variables. The

association levels for the TTP variable are higher than for theLTT variable, since respondents were merely being asked

about whether the brand could be reasonably trusted to

provide such a product/service, rather than whether they

personally would try the extension. The LTT dependentvariable appears to place more emphasis on “Performance

satisfaction” as a predictor variable, whereas TTP places

equal emphasis on both independent variables.While the association levels might be seen, by some, as

weak, they need to be put into the context of a complex

situation with many variables, such as perceived “qualitylevel” of parent, exerting influence upon the brand extension

evaluation. In a similar but unrelated vein, Pincott (2002), of

Millward Brown, recently analysed, based on a sample of 100

brands over a three-year period, the association level betweenmedia weight (raw GRPs) and brand share, finding an

association level (R2) of only 0.05, this increasing to an R2 of

only 0.20 where “share of voice” is used as the measure of

GRPs. The author does not claim, here, to present the singlemost important variable within the brand extension

evaluation arena, but claim to provide support for an

additional variable, brand trust, of which brand ownersshould be aware. Figure 2 depicts the integration of brand

trust with some of the key brand extension “success” variables

from the literature.

Managerial implications

The results of this study are of relevance to managers involved

in developing brand strategy, since brand trust levels are

associated in past academic studies with brand equity, brandloyalty, and now with brand extension acceptance. The results

suggest that brands with higher trust profiles will benefit in

brand extension strategies relative to less trusted rivals. In an

environment in which new product launch failures can be ashigh as 42 per cent (Barclay and Benson, 1990), and as many

as eight out of ten new product launches undrtaken via brand

extension strategies (Ourusoff et al., 1992), it should bereassuring to brand owners that investments in brands and the

consumer-brand “relationship”, securing higher trust ratings,

should, subject to other criteria being met, deliver a future

pay-off in the ability to leverage the brand name in new

categories. Having considered the broad relevance of this

study to practitioners, and in an effort to provide practitioners

with an insight into the variables relevant to brand trust

development, attention is now drawn to the two correlate

dimensions of brand trust:1 credibility; and2 performance satisfaction.

Emphasis is placed here on the correlate dimensions since

while trust levels have been measured by many brand-owners

for many years, this has generally been a unidimensional

single item measure of brand trust and not a

multidimensional measure as depicted here.Credibility reflects the honesty and standing of the brand in

terms of product or service claims delivered in advertising,

packaging, or other forms of brand communication, including

personal interaction. The dimension also reflects the extent to

which a brand is perceived to be sincere and fair in its dealings

with its customers, showing concern for its customers, and the

extent to which the values portrayed or perceived regarding

the brand (and brand owner) reflect those of the customer.

These variables are seen to relate to the credibility of the

brand in terms of its good (or poor) character, but the

dimension also includes other category-based credibility

measures such as the extent to which the brand is believed

to be “competent” or “expert” in its field. Reputation is

clearly a key element within this dimension.Performance satisfaction reflects many variables concerned

with the “delivery” of the product or service. The extent to

which quality is consistent and meets expectations, and the

extent to which the brand is dependable or can be “relied on”.

The dimension also revolves around the extent to which

customers have had (or consider that they are likely to have)

satisfactory experiences with the brand. These perceptions

regarding satisfaction may come from the customer’s personal

experience, the experiences of “trusted others” (Doney and

Cannon, 1997), and the extent to which customers consider

that their expectations concerning the brand and its products

and services have been fulfilled. This dimension is testimony

to the powerful influence exerted on brand trust by word of

mouth communication, and also the need to manage

customer expectations so as to avoid disappointment with

product or service delivery.

Limitations and future research directions

While this research extends the literature on brand extension

and trust, since prior studies have typically utilised fictitious

brands, a potential limitation of this study is the selection of

low involvement, low risk, low complexity goods and service

categories, to gain high brand familiarity among potential

respondents. Since trust is associated with risk reduction in

decision making (Selnes, 1998), the role and nature of trust

and its correlates may be different in higher involvement, high

risk/complexity goods and services, and the widening of brand

trust research into other product/service categories is

recommended.The research, conducted among 368 northern UK

consumers, may be subject to cultural influence (Harris and

Dibben, 1999) and thus the study of brand trust in other

countries and cultures is an obvious future direction.


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

9

References

Aaker, D.A. (1990), “Brand extensions: the good, the bad andthe ugly”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, Summer,pp. 47-56.

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing onthe Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 August, pp. 247-356.

Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluationsof brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1/90,pp. 27-41.

Altman, I. and Taylor, D.A. (1973), Social Penetration: TheDevelopment of Interpersonal Relationships, Holt Rinehart andWilson, New York, NY.

Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989), “Determinants ofcontinuity in conventional industrial channel dyads”,Marketing Science, Vol. 8, Fall, pp. 310-23.

Arrow, K. (1974), The Limits of Organisation, Norton, NewYork, NY.

Barclay, I. and Benson, M. (1990), “Success in new productdevelopment: lessons form the past”, Leadership andOrganization Development Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 4-12.

Berry, L.L. (1993), “Relationship marketing”, in Berry, L.L.,Shostack, G.L. and Dupah, G. (Eds), Emerging Perspectiveson Services Marketing, AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 25-8.

Berry, L.L. (1995), “Relationship marketing of services.growing interest, emerging perspectives”, Journal ofAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-45.

Bidault, F. and Jarillo, J.C. (1997), “Trust in economictransations”, in Bidault, F., Gomez, P.V. and Marion, G.(Eds), Trust ¼ Firm and Society, Macmillan, London,pp. 81-94.

Bottomley, P.A. and Holden, S.J.S. (2001), “Do we reallyknow how consumers evaluate brand extensions? Empiricalgeneralizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 494-500.

Boush, D.M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A process-tracing studyof brand extension evaluation”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 28, February, pp. 16-28.

Bridges, S. (1990), “A categorization model of brandextensions”, doctoral dissertation, Stanford University,Stanford, CA.

Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The importance ofthe brand in brand extension”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 31 No. 2.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain ofeffects form brand trust and brand effect to brandperformance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.

Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990),“Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonalinfluence perspective”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, July,pp. 68-81.

Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “An examination ofthe nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 61, April, pp. 35-51.

Dwyer, F., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developingbuyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51,April, pp. 11-27.

Dyson, P., Farr, A. and Hollis, N. (1996), “Understanding,measuring, and using brand equity”, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, November/December, pp. 9-21.

Fiske, S.T. and Pavelchak, M. (1986), “Category based vspiecemeal-based affective responses: developements in

Figure 2 Brand extension – success factors and measures of success


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

10

schema triggered affect”, in Sorrentino, R. and Higgins,E.T. (Eds), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Guilford,New York, NY, pp. 167-203.

Fletcher, K.P. and Peters, L.D. (1997), “Trust and directmarketing environments: a consumer perspective”, Journalof Marketing Management, No. 13, pp. 523-39.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands:developing relationship theory in consumer research”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 March, pp. 343-73.

Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientationin buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,April, pp. 1-19.

Harris, S. and Dibben, M. (1999), “Trust and cooperation inbusiness relationship development: exploring the influenceof national values”, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 15, pp. 463-83.

Hem, L., Gronhaug, K. and Lines, R. (2000), “Exploring theimportance of product category similarity and selectedpersonal correlates in brand extensions”, The Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 197-209.

Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L.B. (1972), “The components ofperceived risk”, in Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of theThird Annual Conference of the Association for ConsumerResearch, Association for Consumer Research, CollegePark, MD, pp. 382-93.

Jarillo, J.C. (1988), “On strategic networks”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 31-41.

Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), “The effects ofsequential introduction of brand extensions”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 29 February, pp. 35-50.

Kim, C.K., Lavak, A.M. and Smith, M. (2001), “Consumerevaluations of vertical brand extensions and core brands”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 211-22.

Kirmani, A., Sood, S. and Bridges, S. (1999), “The ownershipeffect in consumer responses to brand line stretches”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 63 January, pp. 88-101.

Klink, R.R. and Smith, D.C. (2001), “Threats to the externalvalidity of brand extension research”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 326-35.

Labahn, D.W. and Kohli, C. (1997), “Maintaining clientcommitment in advertising agency-client relationships”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp. 497-508.

McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect and cognition based trust asfoundations for interpersonal cooperation inorganizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38February, pp. 24-59.

MacInnis, D.J. and Nakamoto, K. (1990), “Examining factorsthat influence the perceived goodness of brand extensions”Working paper no. 54, Karl Eller Graduate School ofManagement, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

McWilliam, G. (1993), “The effect of brand typology onbrand extension fit: commercial and academic researchfindings”, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1,pp. 485-91.

Madhok, A. (1995), “Revisiting multinational firms’ tolerancefor joint ventures: a trust-based approach”, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 117-37.

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1993),“Factor affecting trust in market research relationships”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 81-101.

Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.

Murphy, G.L. and Medin, D.L. (1985), “The role of theoriesin conceptual coherence”, Psychological Review, Vol. 92,July, pp. 289-316.

Ourusoff, A., Ozanian, M., Brown, P. and Starr, J. (1992),“What’s in a name? What the world’s top brands areworth”, Financial World, September, pp. 32-49.

Park, C., Millberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), “Evaluations ofbrand extensions: the role of product level similarity andbrand concept consistency”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-93.

Pincott, G. (2002), “Advertising – how it works: a researchperspective”, presentation to Leeds University BusinessSchool by Millward Brown, 30 October.

Raimondo, M.A. (2000), “The measurement of trust inmarketing studies: a review of models and methodologies”,IMP Conference Papers, Bath University, Bath.

Rangaswamy, A., Burke, R.R. and Oliva, T.A. (1993), “Brandequity and the extendability of brand names”, InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, pp. 61-75.

Reast, J.D. (2003), “The role of brand trust within relatedand unrelated brand extension activities: a consumerperspective”, unpublished PhD thesis, Leeds UniversityBusiness School, Leeds University, Leeds, January.

Reddy, S.K., Holak, S.L. and Bhat, S. (1994), “To extend ornot to extend: success determinants of line extensions”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 243-62.

Reicheld, F.F. and Schefter, P. (2000), “E-loyalty: your secretweapon on the web”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78,July/August, pp. 105-13.

Rempel, J.K., Homes, J.G. and Zanna, M.P. (1985), “Trustin close relationships”, Journal of Peronality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 49, July, pp. 95-112.

Rotter, J.B. (1967), “A new scale for the measurement ofinterpersonal trust”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 35 No. 4,pp. 651-65.

Scanzoni, J. (1979), “Social exchange and behaviouralindependence”, in Burgess, R.L. and Huston, T.L. (Eds),Social Exchange in Developing Relations, Academic Press,New York, NY.

Schlenker, B.R., Helm, R. and Tedeschi, J.T. (1973), “Theeffects of personality and situational variables oninterpersonal trust”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 25, pp. 419-27.

Selnes, F. (1998), “Antecedent and consequences of trust andsatisfaction in buyer-seller relationships”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3/4, pp. 305-22.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumertrust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 66, January, pp. 15-37.

Smith, D.C. and Andrews, J. (1995), “Rethinking the effect ofperceived fit on customers’ perceptions of new products”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, Winter,pp. 115-24.

Springen, K. and Miller, A. (1990), “Sequels for the shelf”,Newsweek, 9 July, pp. 42-3.

Urban, G.L., Sultan, F. and Qualls, W.J. (2000), “Placingtrust at the center of your internet strategy”, SloanManagement Review, Vol. 42, Fall, pp. 39-49.

Van Riel, A.C.R., Lemminto, J. and Ouwersloot, H. (2001),“Consumer evaluations of service brand extensions”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 220-31.

Webster, F.E. (2000), “Understanding the relationshipsamong brands, consumers, and resellers”, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-24.


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

11

Wenerfelt, B. (1988), “Umbrella branding as a signal of newproduct quality: an example of signalling by posting abond”, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, Autumn,pp. 458-66.

Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutionalsources of economic structure, 1840-1920”, Research inOrganizational Behaviour, Vol. 8, pp. 53-111.

Further reading

Buzzell, R.D., Gale, B.T. and Sultan, R.G.M. (1975),“Market share – a key to profitability”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 53, January/February, pp. 97-106.

Cook, V.J. (1985), “The net present value of market share”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer, pp. 49-63.

Hambrick, D.C., Macmillan, I.C. and Day, D.L. (1982),“Strategic attributes and performance in the four cells ofthe BCG matrix”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25,September, pp. 510-31.

Sullivan, M. (1992), “Brand extensions: when to use them”,Management Science, Vol. 38, June, pp. 793-806.

Tauber, E. (1981), “Brand franchise extensions: Newproducts benefit from exiting brand names”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 36-41.

Executive summary

This executive summary has been provided to allow managers andexecutives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Thosewith a particular interest in the topic covered may then read thearticle in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensivedescription of the research undertaken and its results to get the fullbenefit of the material present.

Trusted brands mean successful extensions

The more I read about brand extension the less certain I am

about whether or not it is the right strategy to adopt. I am not

complaining but noticing that, as is often the case with

marketing strategy, the greater amount of information andresearch strips away received wisdom (or possibly sacred

cows) and results in a case-by-case decision-making process

founded on some certainties and a great number of

possibilities.Nevertheless brand extension remains the favoured option

in most situations and as marketers we should try to

understand what goes to make our brand extensions

successful. Here, Reast looks at an important concept inbrand marketing – one that has always proven difficult to pin

down – brand trust.Since we want the consumer to use our brand as a cue for

purchase – cutting out all the assessment and analysis that

might otherwise be needed to inform the purchase decision –

that consumer has to place a considerable degree of trust in

our brand. Without this trust the consumer has no grounds

for using our brand as a shortcut to her purchase.

The argument for brand extension

The strongest argument in favour of brand extension as

opposed to creation of a new brand is that the strength of the

existing brand assists the launch of the extension since the

consumer does not have to learn to love a new brand. We

can expect therefore that some or all of the existing trust that

the consumer places in the brand migrates to the new

extension assisting in the process of trial and adoption by the

consumer.This extension is trust is often taken for granted without us

understanding the factors that contribute to the trust. In

addition, we assume that the migration occurs, that trust inthe parent brand transfers to trust in the extended brand.

Reast examines both these aspects in assessing the

relationship between brand trust and the acceptance ofbrand extensions by the consumer.

Reast’s examination identifies two critical elements in thetransfer of trust to an extended brand – credibility and loyalty.

This suggests that brand trust informs both the degree towhich the extension is believable (brand X fits well with

product category Y) and the extent to which the consumer is

likely to switch within the new product category (brand X ismy preference in category Z so it will also be in category Y).

Credibility – the first test for a brand extension

The first question in considering a new brand extension

should be to ask whether the consumer is likely to find theextension credible. Some of this credibility relates to the

product category in which the parent brand sits at present andis quite easy to grasp (it is easier to see the link between a

biscuit brand and a cake than it is between a soap powder

brand and a biscuit). The second aspect of credibility relatesto the brand itself and the association that sit in the

consumers’ minds when considering the extension. As a resultwe have seen the successful extension of a heavy machinery

brand into boots (Caterpillar) and a record company into an

airline (Virgin).In these latter cases there is no initial and logical association

between the two product areas yet the extension succeeded.The secret lay in what the consumer associated with the brand

itself rather than the narrow limitations of the particularproduct category. Crucially this transfer of associations to the

new product area reflects a consistency in brand image made

possible by the wider affection of the consumer.And, as we now can see, the credibility gap is closed by the

consumers’ confidence in the brand – in the amount of brandtrust. That brand trust lies behind the success of the brand

extension since the consumer’s relationship with the parent

brand provides sufficient confidence for them to try theextended brand.

Loyalty and satisfaction with performance

The loyalty that consumers show to a given brand is, in part,constructed from consistent satisfaction with the performance

of the brand. Over time this satisfaction becomes less

objective since most of us do not compare performance orsatisfaction in any formalized way – hence the term brand

loyalty rather than just brand satisfaction.When the extended brand is launched the expectation is

that this loyalty factor will drive trial – if the consumer is loyal

to the parent brand there is a good chance that they will trythe extended brand (so long as the loyalty is not too stretched

by any lack of fit). Reast demonstrates that, using“performance satisfaction” as a surrogate for loyalty, this

stacks up. The more loyal consumers are to a given brand the

greater credence they give to the extended brand.The upshot of these findings is to confirm that stronger

brands are better bets for extensions especially where thatstrength relates to the brand rather than just to the product’s

strength in its product category. And Reast confirms this by


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

12

concluding that consumers “. . . are willing to try brandextensions as long as the brands are highly trusted andregarded and the explanations are sufficiently plausible”.

In concluding it is worth observing that marketers place lessemphasis on brand trust than they should. We tend to assumethat trust will follow if we get certain images and attributesembedded in the consumer’s mind. We should be looking to

establish the extent to which the level of brand trust affectsbrand performance and supports the extension of successfulbrands into credible new product categories.

(A precis of the article “Brand trust and brand extensionacceptance: the relationship”. Supplied by Marketing Consultantsfor Emerald.)


Jon D. Reast


Volume 14 · Number 1 · 2005 · 4–13

13

brand extension

Documents