PROJECT REPORT & ANALYSIS

B2B Extnesion

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE B-21, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 016

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................3

1.1. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................3 1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT....................................................................5

2. CONSUMER BRAND EXTENSION....................................................6

2.1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................6
2.1.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.4 2.3.1 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.3 Brand Extension Definition...................................................................6 Brand Extension Definition...................................................................6 Benefits...............................................................................................6 Benefits...............................................................................................6 Drawbacks...........................................................................................7 Drawbacks...........................................................................................7 Extension reaction...............................................................................7 Extension reaction...............................................................................7 Spill-over and substitution effect.........................................................8 Spill-over and substitution effect.........................................................8 Categorical and piecemeal evaluation processes..................................8 Categorical and piecemeal evaluation processes..................................8 Brand specific associations..................................................................9 Brand specific associations..................................................................9 Innovativeness..................................................................................10 Innovativeness..................................................................................10 Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR.................................................10 Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR.................................................10 Environment concern.........................................................................11 Environment concern.........................................................................11

2.2. CONCEPTS OF EVALUATION............................................................7

2.3. CORPORATE BRAND EXTENSIONS................................................................10

3. FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING.........................................12

3.1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................12

4. RESEARCH & DESIGN.................................................................14

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. ORIGINAL MODEL........................................................................14 CUURENT MODEL..........................................................................14 METHODOLGY...............................................................................15 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT..................................................15

5. RESEARCH FINDINGS.................................................................16
5.1. ANALYSIS....................................................................................16
5.1.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.2 QUESTION1........................................................................................16 QUESTION1........................................................................................16 QUESTION6........................................................................................20 QUESTION6........................................................................................20

1.
1.1.

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The changing market dynamics and heightened competition of the global economy has amplified the role of brands to an unsurpassed level. Brand marketers seek ways to achieve growth while reducing both the cost of new product introductions as well as the risk of new product failure. A popular way of launching new products has therefore been to leverage the equity of an existing brand into a new sector, market, or product category a so-called brand extension. A brand extension strategy can be beneficial because it reduces the new product introduction costs and also increases the chance of success (Kapferer, 1994). The rationale behind brand extensions is simple: when a strong brand has been established, the brand has moved beyond the functional product into a realm of values. It makes economical sense to try to deliver the same emotional benefits in a different market (Mortimer, 2003). Since awareness of a certain brand already exists, costs of launching a new product will, ceteris paribus, be lower than in the absence of a strong brand. The main objective of brand extensions is hence to leverage the intangible qualities of a brand since the functional benefits can generally be imitated (Urde, 1999). Since brand extensions imply launching new products, a key issue is to what extent these extensions are successful. A theoretical starting point to this discussion is the concept of brand orientation, which can be defined as an approach in which the processes of the organization revolve around the creation, development, and protection of brand identity in an ongoing interaction with target customers with the aim of achieving lasting competitive advantages in the form of brands. Virtually all discussions of branding are structured in a consumer marketing context (Aaker, 1996). That is not to say that industrial or business-to-business branding is not as important and valuable as consumer branding. Some of the worlds most powerful brands are B2B brands: ABB, Caterpillar, Cisco, Dupont, FedEx, GE, Hewlett Packard, Intel, and Siemens1 (Webster & Keller, 2004). An interesting question then is: what if the business-to-business brand wants to make a stretch into the consumer market? This may seem confusing, but many now-famous consumer brands have once been business-to-business brands and now serving both sectors (see tables 1.1 and 1.2). The global mobile phone brand Nokia started out in forestry (B2B) in 1865, and then began selling rubber boots in the 1960s, and it was not until the 1980s when it started making mobile phones, for which it is now famous. Other examples include Philips, Mitsubishi, Microsoft and IBM, three companies that through new innovations began selling new products to consumers. This historical perspective highlights one fact: brands are in constant flux. A stretch from B2B to the consumer market is perhaps not that far-fetched or uncommon. TABLE 1.1 Companies Formerly Operating in Business-to-Business Markets Only
Company name Microsoft IBM Morgan Stanley Country US US US Founded at 1975 1911* 1935 Initial business at year 1 BASIC computer programming language Tabulating machines Investment banking

Company Country name Merrill Lynch US Philips Netherlands Vattenfall Sweden Mitsubishi Japan Nokia Finland Source: Company websites

Founded at 1907 1891 1909 1870 1865

Initial business at year 1 Stocks and bonds brokerage Carbon-filament lamps Hydro-electric powerplants Shipping Forestry

TABLE 1.2 Expansion to Consumer Markets

Company name Microsoft IBM Morgan Stanley Merrill Lynch Year 1975 1981 1977 New offering MS-DOS IBM 5150 Personal computer Private wealth management Cash Management Account Radio Electricity, heating, telephony Automobiles B2B Offering at time BASIC computer programming language Mainframes, industrial computing system Full-service banking Driver for strategic expansion to B2C market Innovation Innovation Diversification and growth Diversification and growth Innovation Deregulation Diversification and decentralization Diversification

1977

Retail brokerage, institutionaland investment banking Lamps, medical X-ray tubes Public utility (domestic electricity) Heavy industries

Philips Vattenfall Mitsubishi

1927 1996 1917

Nokia

1960

Rubber boots

Industrial rubber and cables, radio technology

1.2.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
In order to determine whether a brand extension is able to capitalize on its parent brand whilst avoiding or minimizing potential disadvantages, it is crucial to understand how the extensions are evaluated by consumers. The success of a brand extension is largely determined by how customers evaluate the extension (Klink & Smith, 2001). Numerous academic studies on brand extensions have been made. A landmark study in this area was made by Aaker and Keller in 1990. In the current study, the issue of brand extension evaluation will be investigated in a different context, namely that discussed in the previous section. In other words, this paper tries to answer the problem statement: Can business-to-business brands be extended into the consumer market? The purpose of this research is also to: determine whether a broad replication of Aaker and Kellers (1990) brand extension model is feasible with respect to the current context examine whether concepts of evaluating brand extensions can be successfully combined to form an effective model for predicting extension acceptance in the research context

2.
2.1.

CONSUMER BRAND EXTENSION

INTRODUCTION
New-product introductions can, in turn, be executed in three general ways: (1) as a new brand that is individually designed for the new product; (2) as an application of an existing brand; and (3) as a combination of a new brand with an existing brand. Hence, brand extension is a managerial topic. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the current study, the literature review will be of more theoretical nature, focusing on potential advantages and disadvantages, as well as different theoretical concepts for how consumers evaluate brand extensions:

2.1.1

Brand Extension Definition

According to Keller (2003, p. 577), a brand extension is defined as when a firm uses an established brand name to introduce a new product. This is analogous to approach (2) and (3). Brand extensions are made on an ad hoc basis or according to a strategy to create a range brand (Aaker, 1996)

2.1.2

Benefits

The benefits of brand extensions are a much-discussed subject. Keller (2003) distinguishes two kinds of benefits: benefits that relate to the acceptance of the brand extension, and benefits that relate to the parent brand image. Kapferer (1997) also makes a distinction between brand extensions and their benefits from an operational point of view, and proposes that brand extensions that are intended to boost sales should be distinguished from new products that carry brand image and exist to fuel the brand 2.1.2.1 BENEFITS RELATED TO BRAND EXTENSION ACCEPTANCE

Brand extensions allow consumers to draw conclusions and form expectations about the potential performance of a new product (i.e. the brand extension) based on their existing knowledge about the brand (Keller, 2003). Provided that a strong brand name is present, the perceived risk by consumers is substantially reduced when familiarity and knowledge about the parent brand is present (Keller, 2003; Aaker & Keller,1990). Benefits of introducing new products also include different ways of achieving operational efficiencies. A favorable parent brand reduces costs associated with gaining distribution since retailers are more positive to stock and promote a brand extension (ibid.). Another benefit relates to marketing communications: since brand awareness already exists, promotional activities (including introductory and follow-up advertising and other marketing programs) of a brand extension can be less intensive and thus less costly than those of a totally new brand and product (Keller, 2003; Kapferer, 1997). Other efficiencies includes avoiding costly development of brand names, logos, symbols, packages, characters, slogans, etc. (Keller, 2003).

2.1.2.2

BENEFITS RELATING TO THE PARENT BRAND IMAGE

Brand extensions also have positive spillover effects on the parent brand. Firstly, extensions can clarify the brand meaning to consumers and define the boundaries of the domain in which it competes (Keller, 2003). Second, by improving the favorability of an existing brand association, adding a new brand association, or a combination of these, a brand extension can enhance the parent brand image (ibid.). Consistent with this view are the findings of Morrin (1999), which propose that consumer exposure to brand extensions will increase parent brand awareness in terms of recognition and recall. Similarly, Balachander and Ghose (2003) find evidence of beneficial spillover effects of advertising of a child brand, for example a brand extension, on choice of a parent brand. A third benefit involves brand revitalizationa new or rejuvenated product can be a mean to renew interest and improve attitude towards the parent brand (Keller, 2003; Kapferer, 1997).

2.1.3

Drawbacks

Keller (2003) mentions several drawbacks of brand extensions. First, the image of the parent brand can be hurt irrespective of the success or failure of the extension. This happens when the attributes of the extension are seen as inconsistent or conflicting with the corresponding attributes of the parent brand. Second, brand extensions may obscure the identification of the brand with its original categories, reducing brand awareness (Morrin, 1999) and/or diluting the brand meaning. Third, brand extensions can lead to problems of practical nature, for example a large number of extensions might confuse or frustrate customers, and there might be problems with retailers being unwilling to shelf/store all the different extensions. Similarly, Loken and John (1993, p.79) suggest that unsuccessful brand extensions can dilute brand names by diminishing the favorable attitudes that consumers have learned to associate with the family brand name.

2.2.

CONCEPTS OF EVALUATION
2.2.1 Extension reaction
A principle study in the field of brand extensions is Aaker and Kellers (1990) study on how consumers evaluate brand extensions. The authors hypothesize that evaluations of brand extensions are based on the quality of the original brand, the fit between the parent and extension categories and the interaction between the two (Bottomley & Holden, 2001, p. 494). Despite the fact that this study per se provides no evidence that a direct relationship between the quality of the parent brand and the consumer evaluation of the brand extension exist (Aaker & Keller, 1990; ibid.), the empirical generalizability of Aaker and Kellers (1990) model is well supported in Bottomley and Holdens (2001) secondary analysis, which examines seven replication studies. Based on their findings, Bottomley and Holden (2001) draw three general conclusions:

The quality of the parent brand and the fit between the parent brand and the brand extension are key determinants of consumer evaluations of brand extensions; Consumers brand extension evaluations are also determined by o the dimensions of fit (i.e. the complementarity and transferability of assets and skills) between the parent brand and the brand extension, and o to what extent consumers perceive the brand extension is difficult to produce; Cultural differences influence how brand extensions are evaluated with respect to relative measurement factors

2.2.2

Spill-over and substitution effect

While Aaker and Keller (1990) and consequent replication studies provide a rationale for leveraging parent brand equity through brand extensions, from which economic profits can be extruded, Balachander and Ghose (2003) examine the reciprocal effect of brand extensions on the parent brand. This effect or productivity is measured by brand-choice elasticities, which measure the increase in choice probability that results from increase in exposure (ibid., p. 11). The findings of Balachander and Ghose (2003) provide strong support to positive spillover effects from advertising of a brand extension on choice of a parent brand. This reciprocal spillover effect does, however, not seem to be symmetricalthat is, forward spillover effects from advertising of a parent brand on choice of a brand extension are limited.

2.2.3

Categorical and piecemeal evaluation processes

To understand how consumers evaluate new brand extensions, categorization theory is a useful concept. It aims at identifying the processes by which consumers form categories, and assigns certain objects to one category rather than another (Kapferer, 1997). Mervis and Rosch (1981, p. 89) propose that a category exists whenever two or more distinguishable objects are treated equivalently. When a new brand extension is launched, a set of attributes or beliefs in addition to the already existing family or parent brand image is introduced (Loken & John, 1993). If these attributes or beliefs are consistent with the parent brand image, an extension is considered to be acceptable (Kapferer, 1997) or perceived to fit the category (Boush & Loken, 1991). Another concept for attitude formation towards brand extensions is by so-called piecemeal, analytical or computaional processing (Fiske, 1982; Cohen, 1982; Brooks, 1978), where attitude is computed from specific brand extension attributes. This type of model does not aim to describe conscious evaluation processes (Boush & Loken, 1991). Categorical and computational evaluation processes are not mutually exclusive in any given affective reaction. Fiske and Pavelchak (1986) propose a two-step process of evaluation. In the first step, the consumer attempts to match a brand extension (or some other new object) with the current category. If categorization is successful, in other words, if there is a match, the affect that is associated with the category type is applied to the brand extension and so the evaluation process is complete. If there on the other hand is a poor match between the category and the brand extension, piecemeal processes are initiated. Affect is then evaluated through a weighted combination of attributes. Even if inconsistency implies that the extension is not integrated in the parent category, an inconsistent brand extension can have a negative impact on the parent brand by diluting specific attribute beliefs that consumers have come to hold about an established brand name, rather than diluting the global affect associated with the established brand name (Loken & John, 1993). The negative impact of an inconsistent extension depends on the typicality of the brand attribute at stake. Hence, brand dilution is an important issue when launching new brand or category extensions.

2.2.4

Brand specific associations

A brand-specific association is defined as an attribute or benefit that differentiates a brand from competing brands (MacInnis & Nakamoto, 1990). This means that a brand can be associated with a salient attribute, but this association is per se not strongly associated with competing brands or the product class as a whole (Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994). Since the brand association varies depending on the benefits that are sought within a particular product category, a consumers evaluation of a brand extension need not correspond to evaluation of that brand in its original category (ibid.). Three conclusions can be drawn from Broniarczyk and Albas (1994) research: A perceived lack of fit between the product category of the parent brand and the proposed extension category can be overcome if key parent brand associations are salient and relevant in the extension category; brand-specific associations allow for brand extensions to unrelated product categories. Brand-specific associations moderate the role of product category similarity in brand extension judgments; a brand extension is more preferred in an unrelated category that valued its association than in a similar category that does not value its associations; and the boundaries for the appropriateness of a certain brand extension were determined by knowledge about the incumbent brand

2.3.

CORPORATE BRAND EXTENSIONS

Keller and Aaker (1997) examined how various types of corporate marketing activities (communication activities portraying a firm as innovative, environmentally concerned, and involved with the community) would influence corporate credibility (i.e. perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and likeability) and thus have a positive effect on brand extension evaluation. In their study, four hypothetical corporate brand extensions outside the current brand offering were presented alongside corporate descriptions that emphasized one of the following three types of attributes: A firms reputation of being innovative and philosophy of launching technologically advanced products; a firms policy to offer environmentally friendly products and to manufacture products in an environmentally safe fashion; and a firm's philosophy to improve the quality of life in local communities through various activities and programs.

The findings of Keller and Aaker (1997) suggest that corporate marketing efforts can be beneficial as it improves perceptions and evaluations of a corporate brand extension. Creating a positive corporate image and executing a corporate brand strategy can thus facilitate new product acceptance. The three types of brand attributes mentioned above can be categorized into innovativeness, corporate social responsibility and environmental concern.

2.3.1

Innovativeness

An innovative brand image involves being perceived as being modern and up-todate, investing in research and development, utilizing state-of-the-art manufacturing technologies, and introducing the latest product features (Keller, 2003). Though this suggests that positive brand attributes that signal innovativeness are important, surprisingly little research has been done in this field. Indeed, most research in the topic of innovativeness in marketing has been in the area of consumer innovativeness and the innovation diffusion4 (Roerich, 2004). In this line of research it is argued that different 4 For example, the rate of adopting new technologies. 1974). An important point to make is that although innovative brand attributes is favorable for building brand equity, the extent to which this is successful also depends on how innovative the target audience is. Marketing activities that emphasized innovation have a significant impact on corporate brand extension evaluation as it leads to the favorable perceptions of corporate expertise and to presumptions that the corporate brand extension will also be innovative (Keller & Aaker, 1997). Emphasis on innovation is the only type of marketing activity that enhances the customers perceived fit of the brand extension to the parent brand, as well as evaluations of specific product attributes. Hence, marketing efforts to emphasize innovation significantly increases both perceived quality and purchase likelihood score for the brand extension.

2.3.2

Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR

Much has been written about corporate social responsibility (CSR) in recent years. Kitchen (2003) argues that companies undeniably have responsibilities within their surrounding community, and that these responsibilities must be clarified and aligned with the companies core businesses. Since these responsibilities are relationships and promises, CSR is ultimately a function of the brand (ibid.). Hence, Kitchen (2003) defines CSR as: The brand-specific duties and resultant actions of commercial organizations in relation to their communities of need defined and delivered outside the core transactional context of the business (ibid, p. 10). Similarly, Keller and Aaker (1997) define CSR as a firm's philosophy to improve the quality of life in local communities through various activities and programs.

2.3.3

Environment concern

Keller and Aaker (1997) define environmental concern as a firms policy to sell "environmentally friendly" products and to manufacture products in an environmentally safe fashion. Corporate marketing efforts that emphasize environmental concern enhance perceptions of corporate trustworthiness and likeability as well as inferences that the corporate brand extension is environmentally aware.

3.
3.1.

FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING

INTRODUCTION
Since this study is a broad replication of Aaker and Kellers (1990), the original model will be modified in order to be consistent with the scope of the study. The dependent variable of the model is the overall attitude towards the business-toconsumer brand extension, operationalized as the average of perceived quality of the business-to-consumer brand extension and the likelihood of trial. Below is the listing of all hypotheses which will form the basis of the hypothesized model H1 - Higher degrees of knowledge about the business-to-business parent brand are associated with more favorable attitudes toward the consumer brand extension - Broniarczyk & Alba (1994) H2 - Higher quality perceptions toward the business-to-business parent brand are associated with more favorable attitudes toward the consumer brand extension - Aaker and Keller (1990) H3 - Higher perceptions of innovativeness toward the business-tobusiness parent brand are associated with more favorable attitudes toward the consumer brand extension. Adapted from Keller and Aaker (1997) H4 - Perceptions of corporate social responsibility of the parent business-to- business brand has no effect the on the attitude towards the consumer brand extension - Adapted from Keller and Aaker (1997) H5 - The transfer of a business-to-business parent brands perceived quality is enhanced when the product classes (of the parent brand and the consumer brand extension) in some way fit together. When the fit is weak, the transfer is inhibited - Aaker and Keller (1990) H6 - If the brand associations of the consumer brand extension are consistent with brand concept of the business-to-business parent brand, the attitude toward the brand extension is positive - Adapted from Broniarczyk & Alba -1994 H7 - The relationship between the difficulty of making the consumer product class of the brand extension and the attitude toward the brand extension is positive - Aaker and Keller (1990) H8a - A higher level of perceived parent brand innovativeness weakens the impact of perceived difficulty (to make an extension) on brand extension evaluation - Own construct

H8b - A higher level of perceived parent brand innovativeness strengthens the impact of perceived ease(to make an extension) on brand extension evaluation - Own construct ( H9 - A higher level of perceived extension brand associations strengthens the impact of perceived category fit between the parent brand and the brand extension - Own construct

4.
4.1.

RESEARCH & DESIGN

ORIGINAL MODEL
The original model of Aaker and Keller Aaker and Keller (1990) hypothesized that the consumers attitude towards the brand extension is a positive function of the quality of parent brand, the fit between the parents brand category and the extension category (measured in terms of the transferability of skills and expertise from one category to the other and the complementarity and substitutability of one category and the other), the interactions of quality with three fit variables, and the degree of difficulty in designing and making a product in the extension category (Bottomley & Holden, 2001, p. 495). Formally, the following model was tested: Y = + 1Q + 2T + 3C + 4S + 5QT + 6QC + 7QS + 8D + , where the dependent variable Y = attitude towards the brand extension = [purchase + extension]/2, and where the independent variables Q = quality T = transfer C = complement S = substitute D = difficult = intercept = error term

4.2.

CUURENT MODEL
Aaker and Keller (1990) and subsequent replications operationalize the hypotheses by means of a linear regression model. The model in its original state cannot be used in the current context, but has to be changed. First, following Section 4.2 and hypothesis 1, the variable KNOWLEDGE will be added. Second, the independent variables SUBSTITUTE and COMPLEMENT will be omitted. These will be replaced by the new variable BRAND CONCEPT CONSISTENCY (hypothesis 4). Hence, there will only be two fit variables in the new model TRANSFER and BRAND CONCEPT CONSISTENCY. Furthermore, all three original interaction variables will be omitted from the original model. Third, 2 independent variables corresponding to hypotheses 6, 7 and 8 will be added to the new model. Hypothesis 6 relates to the INNOVATIVENESS of the parent brand, hypothesis 7 relates to CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Y = + 1K + 2Q + 3T + 4B + 5D + 6I + 7C + , Where the dependent variable Y = attitude towards the brand extension = [purchase + extension]/2, and where the independent variables K = PARENT BRAND KNOWLEDGE B = BRAND CONCEPT CONSISTENCY I = INNOVATIVENESS C = CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Adding the the additional interaction terms ID = INNOVATIVENESS DIFFICULT BT = BRAND CONCEPT CONSISTENCY TRANSFER Y = + 1K + 2Q + 3T + 4B + 5D + 6I + 7C + 8ID + 9BT + ,

4.3.

METHODOLGY
The quantitative part tries to formally assess the consumers evaluation of brand extensions through measuring attitude for different variables. In other words, hypotheses 1 to 10 will be operationalized through a new model adapted from Aaker and Keller (1990)

4.4.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
Multiple-item scales were developed for the variables INNOVATIVE, CSR, TRANSFER, BRAND CONCEPT CONSISTENCY, and DIFFICULT by means of 5-point scales.

5.
5.1.

RESEARCH FINDINGS
ANALYSIS
1. Q1 relate to the Parent Brand-specific effects (Parent brand knowledge, Parent brand quality, Innovative & CSR) 2. Q6 relates to the Brand extension specific effects (transfer, brand concept consistency, difficult) 3. Interaction effects Innovativeness X difficult; Transfer X Brand concept consistency

Based on the sample survey, the hypothesis testing yields

5.1.1

QUESTION1

Analysis on question 1: Three fourths (approx) of the sample population in general were satisfied by the products manufactured by Intel

Statistics 1. N Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured by Intel: Valid Missing 340 0

1.

Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured by Intel: Frequency Percent 3.8 74.4 1.2 20.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3.8 78.2 79.4 100.0

Can't Say Mostly Valid Rarely Somewhat Total

13 253 4 70 340

Approximately the same trend was visible across all demographics (age, sex, income and profession). This confirms the visibility and the knowledge about the parent brand viz Intel:

120.00%

Count of 1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured by Intel:

100.00% 15.00% 80.00% 2.50% 3.85% 0.00% 19.23% 14.29% 25.93% 22.56% 0.00% 0.00% 20.83% 0.00%

1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured Somewhat Rarely Mostly Can't Say 70.83%

60.00%

40.00%

77.50% 74.36% 70.37% 75.19%

78.57%

20.00%

0.00%

5.00% Female Under 25

2.56% Male

3.70% Female 26-45 Age Sex

2.26% Male

7.14% Female Above 45

8.33% Male

120.00%

Count of 1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured by Intel:

100.00% 22.22% 80.00% 0.00% 14.47% 1.32% 18.52% 0.00% 2.00% 22.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00%

0.00% 14.29% 27.12% 25.00% 0.00%

1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured Somewhat Rarely Mostly Can't Say

57.14%

40.00%

81.58% 77.78%

77.78%

73.00%

75.00% 71.19%

62.50%

20.00% 28.57% 2.63% Male 3.70% Female 3.00% Male 5.00% Female 12.50% 1.69% Male Female Male

0.00%

0.00% Female

Less than Rs. 5,00,000

Rs. 5,00,000 - Rs. 10,00,000

Rs. 10,00,000 - Rs. 20,00,000

Rs. 20,00,000 and Above

Annual Family Income Sex

120.00%

Count of 1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured by Intel:

100.00%

0.00% 20.00% 15.00% 2.50% 2.26% 0.00% 0.00% Somewhat Rarely Mostly Can't Say 80.00% 77.50% 74.44% 71.05% 73.28% 20.30% 23.68% 22.41%

80.00%

0.00%

1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured 60.00% 100.00% 40.00%

20.00%

0.00%

0.00% Female

0.00% Male

5.00% Female

3.01% Male

5.26% Female

4.31% Male

Secondary and below

Graduation Educational Qualifications Sex

Post-Graduation and Above

120.00%

Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured by Intel:

100.00% 22.73% 80.00% 50.00% 4.55%

0.00% 23.53% 1.96% 0.00% 19.85% 1.53%

5.00% 0.00% 20.99% 0.00% 30.77%

16.67% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00%

1.Are you satisfied with the current products manufactured Somewhat Rarely Mostly Can't Say

60.00% 0.00% 40.00% 100.00% 61.54% 72.55% 74.81% 85.00% 76.54% 66.67% 66.67%

72.73% 50.00%

20.00% 16.67% 2.47% Male Female 8.33% Male

0.00%

0.00% Female

0.00% Male

0.00% Female

7.69% Male

1.96% Female

3.82% Male

10.00% Female

Student / Unemployed

Service - Govt

Service - Private

Professional

Business / Self Employed

Profession Sex

5.1.2

QUESTION6

Reliability Analysis on question 6 (all parts)

Case Processing Summary N Valid Cases Excludeda Total 340 0 340 % 100.0 .0 100.0

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .935 15 N of Items

Item Statistics Mean 6. 1. The extension is very consistent with the parent brand 6.2 [The extension is very related with the parent brand] 6.3 The extension is Very difficult in making extension possible 6.4 The extension is superior 6.5 I like to buy extended product of parent brand 6.6 The Extension is very dissimilar with the parent brand 6.7 I am very positive to extension 6.8 I like this extension 6.9 The usage of the extended product is similar 6.10 The extension is one of the best extension 6.11 The product extension fits with the brand image 6.12 Launching the extension is logical for the company 6.13 Launching the extension is appropriate for the company 6.14 The firms resources are helpful to make the product extension Std. Deviation N

3.53

1.143

340

3.43

1.120

340

3.32

1.100

340

3.35

1.021

340

3.41

1.114

340

3.26

1.091

340

3.46 3.44

1.002 1.083

340 340

3.18

1.095

340

3.24

1.082

340

3.41

1.065

340

3.48

1.017

340

3.45

.984

340

3.56

.965

340

6.15 The extension is too tough to make successful 6.16 The extension is too tough to make successful

3.22

1.152

340

3.22

1.152

340

Scale Statistics Mean 50.74 Variance 134.809 Std. Deviation 11.611 N of Items 15

As per the responses for each sub-question in the 6th question, it was the sum of all the responses for each sub-question were divided by the sample population to get the weighted mean of the responses for that sub-question. The weighted mean of the responses above 3 is an indicator of the strong Brand extension specific effects. SubQuestion in Q6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Score 1199 1166 1129 1139 1161 1108 1177 1170 1082 1100 1160 1183 1172 1210 1094 Sample Size 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340

Average 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.2

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9

Total Score Sample Size Average

The ext ension isThe ext ension is The ext ension isThe ext ension is I dont like t o Extension is very very inc onsistent very unreleated at all dif f ic ult not with parent brand parent brand in making with extension possible inf erior P roduc t of t he parent brand brand

I am very extension

I dislike t he ext ension

t he usage of The ext ension is The P roduct ext ended produc t is dif f erent very worst ext ension

launching the launching the The f irm resour ce extension is the ext ension is are not helpf ul in easy t o make t oo suc cess. company produc t ext ension

buying ext ended similar t o parent negat ive to

extension dosnt ext ension is image company

f it with t he brand illlogic al f or inappropriate f or making t he

Statistics 6.1 The consistent with the parent brand 6.2 The related with the parent brand 6.3 The extension is Very difficult in making extension possible Valid N Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation Range 0 3.53 4.00 1.143 4 0 3.43 4.00 1.120 4 0 3.32 3.00 1.100 4 0 3.35 3.00 1.021 4 0 3.41 3.00 1.114 4 340 340 340 340 340 6.4 The extension is superior 6.5 I like to buy extended product of parent brand

extension is very extension is very

Statistics 6.6 The Extension is very dissimilar with the parent brand Valid N Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation Range 0 3.26 3.00 1.091 4 0 3.46 3.00 1.002 4 0 3.44 3.50 1.083 4 0 3.18 3.00 1.095 4 0 3.24 3.00 1.082 4 340 340 340 340 6.7 I am very positive to extension 6.8 I like this extension 6.9 The usage of the extended product is similar 6.10 The extension is one of the best extension 340

Statistics 6.11 The extension is too tough to make successful 6.12 The product extension fits with the brand image 6.13 Launching the extension is logical for the company 6.14 Launching the extension is appropriate for the company 6.15 The firms resources are helpful to make the product extension Valid N Missing Mean Median Std. Deviation Range 0 3.22 3.00 1.152 4 0 3.41 3.00 1.065 4 0 3.48 4.00 1.017 4 0 3.45 4.00 .984 4 0 3.56 4.00 .965 4 340 340 340 340 340

Frequency Table
6.1 The extension is very consistent with the parent brand Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 103 79 340 30.3 23.2 100.0 30.3 23.2 100.0 76.8 100.0 18 46 94 5.3 13.5 27.6 5.3 13.5 27.6 5.3 18.8 46.5

6.2 The extension is very related with the parent brand Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 112 61 340 32.9 17.9 100.0 32.9 17.9 100.0 82.1 100.0 22 44 101 6.5 12.9 29.7 6.5 12.9 29.7 6.5 19.4 49.1

6.3 The extension is Very difficult in making extension possible Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 97 54 340 28.5 15.9 100.0 28.5 15.9 100.0 84.1 100.0 18 60 111 5.3 17.6 32.6 5.3 17.6 32.6 5.3 22.9 55.6

6.4 The extension is superior Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 2 10 62 2.9 18.2 2.9 18.2 2.9 21.2

3 4 5 Total

113 109 46 340

33.2 32.1 13.5 100.0

33.2 32.1 13.5 100.0

54.4 86.5 100.0

6.5 I like to buy extended product of parent brand Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 108 61 340 31.8 17.9 100.0 31.8 17.9 100.0 82.1 100.0 19 51 101 5.6 15.0 29.7 5.6 15.0 29.7 5.6 20.6 50.3

6.6 Extension is very dissimilar with the parent brand Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 108 42 340 31.8 12.4 100.0 31.8 12.4 100.0 87.6 100.0 23 58 109 6.8 17.1 32.1 6.8 17.1 32.1 6.8 23.8 55.9

6.7 I am very positive to extension Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 110 56 340 32.4 16.5 100.0 32.4 16.5 100.0 83.5 100.0 7 51 116 2.1 15.0 34.1 2.1 15.0 34.1 2.1 17.1 51.2

6.8 I like this extension Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 109 61 340 32.1 17.9 100.0 32.1 17.9 100.0 82.1 100.0 15 51 104 4.4 15.0 30.6 4.4 15.0 30.6 4.4 19.4 50.0

6.9 The usage of the extended product is similar Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total

19 75 117 83 46 340

5.6 22.1 34.4 24.4 13.5 100.0

5.6 22.1 34.4 24.4 13.5 100.0

5.6 27.6 62.1 86.5 100.0

6.10 The extension is one of the best extension Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 95 44 340 27.9 12.9 100.0 27.9 12.9 100.0 87.1 100.0 21 61 119 6.2 17.9 35.0 6.2 17.9 35.0 6.2 24.1 59.1

6.11 The extension is too tough to make successful Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 2 3 4 35 43 123 91 10.3 12.6 36.2 26.8 10.3 12.6 36.2 26.8 10.3 22.9 59.1 85.9

5 Total

48 340

14.1 100.0

14.1 100.0

100.0

6.12 The product extension fits with the brand image Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 107 57 340 31.5 16.8 100.0 31.5 16.8 100.0 83.2 100.0 13 55 108 3.8 16.2 31.8 3.8 16.2 31.8 3.8 20.0 51.8

6.13 Launching the extension is logical for the company Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 127 53 340 37.4 15.6 100.0 37.4 15.6 100.0 84.4 100.0 10 50 100 2.9 14.7 29.4 2.9 14.7 29.4 2.9 17.6 47.1

6.14 Launching the extension is appropriate for the company

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total

13 40 112 132 43 340

3.8 11.8 32.9 38.8 12.6 100.0

3.8 11.8 32.9 38.8 12.6 100.0

3.8 15.6 48.5 87.4 100.0

6.15 The firms resources are helpful to make the product extension Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 2 3 Valid 4 5 Total 128 57 340 37.6 16.8 100.0 37.6 16.8 100.0 83.2 100.0 7 38 110 2.1 11.2 32.4 2.1 11.2 32.4 2.1 13.2 45.6