How best to advertise low-fit brand extensions: a construal level theory perspective

Abstract

Purpose Low-fit brand extensions offer several potential benefits, yet their success is challenging. Building on construal level theory, this study aims to investigate how different advertising appeals can improve the evaluations of low-fit brand extensions through two different processes (cognitive and affective). Design/methodology/approach Two experiments were conducted with US consumers. Study 1 used a 2 (extension fit: high, low) × 2 (ad appeal: abstract, concrete) between-subjects design. Study 2 applied a 2 (brand associations: promotion, prevention) × 2 (ad appeal: promotion, prevention) between-subjects design. Multivariate analyses and follow-up means comparisons were used to analyse data. Findings Study 1 found that an abstract ad appeal is more effective for promoting low-fit brand extension because it improves the perception of fit. Study 2 showed promotion vs prevention ad appeals lead to better evaluation of low-fit brand extensions when matched with parent brand associations (promotion vs prevention) in terms of construal level. This matching effect is underpinned by processing fluency. Research limitations/implications Ad appeals can influence low-fit brand extension evaluation by influencing the perception of fit (cognitive process) or processing fluency (affective process). Future research could consider different ad appeals and other construal related factors to generalise these findings. Practical implications Marketers can design different ad appeals to effectively advertise low-fit brand extensions. These findings can guide managers in the development of effective advertising strategies. Originality/value This research offers a new perspective on how ad appeals can enhance low-fit brand extension evaluation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.