1. Cooperative Brand Alliances: How to Generate Positive Evaluations Name: Chi-Che Yuri Liang ID#:9722616 Instructor: Kate Chen

2. Cooperative Brand Alliances: How to Generate Positive Evaluations, S. Dickinson & T. Heath Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (2), 22-38, 2008

3. Page  3 Introduction  This paper examines consumer evaluations of cooperative branding alliances (co branding) in a consumer marketing context.  Data was gathered from qualitative and quantitative methods shows that in order to achieve positive consumer evaluations of co-branding offerings, brand partner independents require positive parent brand attitudes as a precondition.

4. Page  4 Background  Cooperative branding (co branding) is a branding strategy used by marketers to transfer positive associations from brand partners to a new offering (Spethman and Benezra 1994)  Broadly defined, co branding occurs when there is a pairing of at least two partner brands and they cooperative in a marketing context,such as advertising, product development, product placement or distribution (Gorssman and Priluck 1997; Leuthesser, Kohli and Suri 2003; Kumar 2005)

5. Page  5 Background  If the consumer evaluation of the co brand is not favourable, it may result in a failed co branded offering and may also damage original parent brand associations (Roedder, Loken and Joiner 1998; Edelman 2003; Leuthesser et al. 2003)  To date, much research regarding co branding has focused either on managerial relationships (Bucklin and Sengupta 1993), a large amount of research is still needed in terms of consumer processing and how to create favourable consumer evaluations.

6. Page  6 Research concentration  The authors concentrates on the empirical validation that successful co branding relationships are a result of (1)strong parent brands, (2)“fit” between parent brands, and that (3)the alliance is perceived to be worthwhile whereby shared skills are needed to develop the co brand.

7. Page  7 Hypothesis  H1: More (less) favourable parent brand attitudes are associated with more (less) favourable co branding evaulations  H2: The relationship between more (less) favourable parent brand attitudes and more (less) favourable to brand evalations is moderated by „fit“ between the two parent brands  H3: More (less) favourable „fit“ between parent brands is associated with more (less) favourable co brand evaluations.  H4: More (less) difficulty of making co branding offering is associated with more (less) favourable co brand evaluations.

8. Page  8 (1)Brands and product categories should be varied. (2) Use real brands. (3)The brands used in the research was based on a study conducted by Chen and Chen (2000) Qualitative data Pre-test: focus group testing-to ensure that the brands selected were matched to the target respondents. 12 brand pairs were used in the questionnaire. (i.e. Mercedes/ Goodyear, Mercedes/Honda, Mercedes/Rolex) Method

9. Page  9

10. Page  10 (1)Data collection began with two focus groups to obtain relevant brands to use in the study, respondents matched the same demographic profile as the main sample population. This information allowed development of both the pre-test questionnaire and the main study questionnaire. (2)A pretest study was using convenience sampling—students attending a first year business unit lecture. Of the 72 students present, 58 useful responses( 81% repsonse rate) (3)These students completed a questionnaire included both open-ended and sacled respnses, in relation to paired brands. (1)The main study conducted by means of self administration and consisited of a list of qualitative and quantitative scaled response questions. (2)Participants were first year commerce students. (3)These students filled in a self administered questionnaire that included the brand pairs. A total 194 questionnaire were collected, with 9 responses being unusable, a total of 185 responses were usable ( 85% response rate) Method

11. Page  11

12. Page  12 There were no significant differences across these descriptors(generalisations) in relation to brand familiarity, parent brand attitude, parent brand fit, difficulty of manufacture or co brand evaluations. ※ Reliability measurement for this study have been based on item non- response testing and scale reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. (1)Across the 12 brand pairs presented to participants, they had a favourable attitude towards parent brands, but had a mixed response about parent brand fit (M= 3.96, SD=.664) (2) Furthermore, these co branded offerings are to be moderately difficult to make (M=3.62, SD=.646) (3) There were favourable evaluations of co brands overall (M=4.21, SD=.765)  Co brand attitude (M= 4.56, SD =.092) and co brand purchase intent (M= 3.9, SD =.092), were positive. Finding( University students were the targets responses)

13. Page  13

14. Page  14 Quantitative Results

15. Page  15 (1)All brands have ratings above four on the seven point Likert scale, resulting in favourable attitudes towards all parent brands (2) The most fitted parent brands were Mercedes and Honda in relation to motorbikes (M = 5.79, SD = 1.36) (3) The most positive co brand evaluations were for the Mercedes Goodyear tyre (M =5.57, SD = 1.20) (4) Looking at the results, the two highest co brand evaluations are towards the Mercedes/Honda and Mercedes/Good Year offerings. Both of these offerings received a high parent brand rating and a high fit rating because both products and brands belong to the motoring category, so have perceived ‘fit’. (5) Interesting results were shown through the Reebok/Rip Curl brand as fit was high (M = 5.30, SD = 1.46), however, the co brand evaluation was moderate(M = 4.62, SD = 1.41). ‘ fit’ is an important construct in determining co brand evaluations. There is no clear relationship between difficulty of making the co brand and consumer co brand evaluations Quantitative Results

16. Page  16 Thanks for your listening………… ……………