Research Project

Anders Bengtsson

Institute of Economic Research

LIFS – Lund International Food Studies

Consumer Images of
Brand Alliances
 Abstract

The focal question addressed in this study concerns consumer images of brand alliances. Brand alliance is a
strategy that has emerged as increasingly important to brand owners. Consequently, there is a demand for
improved knowledge of the consumers with regards to brand alliances. However, the field of research on
consumer behaviour with regards to brands has been dominated by a focus on consumers’ brand choice. This
traditional focus gives a rather narrow understanding of consumer behaviour since brand choice is only one
aspect of consumer behaviour. This study adopts a consumption approach to understand consumer behaviour
with regards to brand alliances. Furthermore, by studying the brand building process from the consumers’
perspective and thus view the process as it occurs in their minds will generate a better understanding of the
consumers. Ethnographic interviews will be used to gather data in order to ensure closeness to the consumers and
their everyday-life context.
 Brand Alliances

A New Approach to Managers and Consumers

The importance of brands for a company’s success has attracted extensive attention during the last decade. By the
end of the 1980s, brand equity became the new concept to brand managers in their attempt to build strong brands.
As a consequence, company management started successively to handle brands as strategic assets. The strategic
resource that an established brand can constitute has also been emphasised among researchers in brand
management (Aaker, 1991, 1996; de Chernatony & McDonald, 1998; Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 1998; Melin, 1997;
Urde, 1997).

In the literature, several different factors are referred to why brands have become so important for the companies.
The most important factor that can explain why established brands are so valuable, is the difficulty of establishing
new brands. Very few new brands are launched to the market nowadays and instead, existing brands are used to a
larger extent when new products are being introduced. The reason why established brands are used instead of
new brands depends on the enormous costs and risks that the introduction of a new brand may cause. To use an
established brand, as a shortcut to the market, can be a cost efficient alternative that also may increase the
probability of market success. A survey of leading consumer product companies found that 89 % of new product
introductions were line extensions (such as a new flavour or package size), 6% were brand extension (extending
the brand to a new product category), and only 5% were new brands (Aaker, 1991).

So far, brand or line extensions and licensing have been common strategies when companies have exploited the
value of established brands. An alternative strategy that permits the brand owner to take advantage of established
brands is the use of a brand alliance. Brand alliances1, in which two (or more) brands are integrated or presented
simultaneously to the consumers, have experienced enormous growth in the 1990s (Simonin & Ruth, 1998).
Häagen-Dazs (ice cream) with taste of Baileys (Irish cream) is an example of a brand alliance. Instead of
launching a line extension of the Häagen-Dazs brand or a category extension of the Baileys brand, a brand
alliance has been entered between the two brands. In this case, the Häagen-Dazs brand may serve as a primary
brand and identifier of the product category, whereas Baileys, the secondary brand, may add functional as well as
emotional attributes.

The potential benefits of brand alliances are several. The most important benefit for a company may perhaps be
synergies that can be experienced in the brand building process and the increased probability of market success.
Brand alliance is a strategy that is expected to become even more important for brand owners in the future

1
Many different terms have been used when referring to co-operative brand activities (e.g. co-branding, joint branding, ingredient
branding, composite branding alliances). To be as consistent as possible with previous research, I have chosen to use the terminology used
by Rao & Ruekert (1994) and Simonin & Ruth (1998) “in which brand alliances involve the short- or long-term association or combination
of two or more individual brands, products, and/or other distinctive proprietary assets (Simonin & Ruth, 1998 p. 30).

1
(Stewart, 1995). In the food industry this matter will probably become most apparent due to the concentrated
retail structure and the consumers’ dynamic consumption behaviour.

To launch a new food brand in Sweden it is necessary to get acceptance from at least one or two of the major
chains operating in the retail business. Otherwise the market share will be very limited since the three major
wholesalers control over 70 % of the total market (Supermarket, no. 6-7, 1998). In recent years, Swedish food
retailers’ have also made considerable investments in private brands (Supermarket, no. 9, 1998). Some national
brands have, as a consequence of the retailers’ building of private brands, already disappeared from the food
stores’ shelves whereas other national brand owners have been forced to cut prices. Pellegrini (1996) argues that
“the scope of brand management is reduced because retailers have occupied some of the marketing functions
once reserved to manufacturers… [The] national brands can survive only through innovation and where this
innovation will be shorter lived due to the imitative strategies that support retailer brands” (Pellegrini, 1996, p.
16). Innovation, as discussed by Pellegrini, is referred as product development innovation. However, the
emergence of brand alliances in the food industry may be regarded as a brand innovation that may give the brand
owners a unique differential effect that can keep up the competition with the retailers’ brands.

It is not only the manufacturers that may be interested in brand alliances. Also the retailers could benefit from the
strategy. As mentioned previously, a brand alliance can be an effective strategy when national brand owners
strive to build strong brands. The same can also be true for retailers who intend to build strong private brands that
can compete on equal conditions with national brands. A study conducted by Vaidyanathan & Brown (1997)
reveals that consumers may perceive a private brand combined with a national brand as an ingredient more
positively than a private brand without a national brand as a component. In the actual study, consumer
evaluations of a potential private brand for cereals with SunMaid raisins as an ingredient were evaluated.

Also the dynamic consumption behaviour can be expected to cause considerable implications for companies in
the food industry. The market conditions for many traditional staple commodities like grain, dairy, and meat
products are threatened when consumers change their consumption behaviour towards refined products like
ready-made meals. When the consumer market volume for a brand diminishes, established brand awareness is
also likely to be weakened, since the consumers are not exposed to the brand. In the long run, food manufacturers
that offer commodity brands, run the risk of being degraded to subcontractors to other food manufacturers who
produce refined products. To only be a subcontractor to other manufacturers is however not a desirable situation
for a former brand owner since the price competition is often more intense between generic products than
between branded products. The Intel and Gore-Tex brands are two examples of subcontractors who managed to
create brand awareness among the consumers for their components. In these cases, the result of established brand
awareness was increasing market shares as well as a possibility of charging higher prices (Bengtsson, 1996). To
avoid being degraded to subcontractors, food manufacturers must retain brand awareness among consumers.
Brand awareness is difficult to retain if the volume and number of products in which the brand is represented is
diminishing. Food manufacturers of less refined products must therefore extend their brands into categories of

2
more refined products. However, it can be difficult for a food manufacturer to launch a category extension on
their own since the competition from both national brands and private brands can be too intense. Instead of
launching category extensions, brand alliances may be an interesting strategy that may retain brand awareness.
By entering a brand alliance with a partner operating closer to the consumers, the possibility of acceptance from
both retailers and consumers may be higher. When for example a producer of meat experiences diminishing
demand, a possible strategy could be to enter a brand alliance with a manufacturer of ready made meals.

At first, brand alliances may be regarded as a strategy that is possible to use with participation from at least two
different companies. However, brand alliances can be entered also within companies. Häagen-Dazs and Baileys is
an example of such an intra organisational brand alliance since the two brands after the merger between Grand
Met and Guiness belong to the same group of companies. Even though the Häagen-Dazs and Baileys alliance is
an intra-organisational activity, it still has to be regarded as a brand alliance. The determining factor if it is an
alliance or not is if the joint activity from the consumers’ point of view is perceived as concerning two different
and individual branded products. The possibility of entering brand alliances within organisations widens the
potential of the strategy, since brand alliances can become a useful tool in the co-ordination of a brand portfolio.

Brand Alliances – Success or Failure

Brand alliance is a strategy that can bring both success and failure. Some examples of brands that have become
successful through brand alliances (successful in terms of market share and profit margin) include Gore-Tex,
Intel, and NutraSweet. Some recent examples of brand alliances in the food industry include Häagen-Dazs ice
cream either with Baileys Irish cream or with Malibu, Beech-Nut baby food with Chiquita bananas, Felix frozen
pizza with Tine cheese, and Sia ice cream with Grand Marnier. Some of these brand alliances have been
successful on the market whereas some others can be characterised as true failures. Given the fact that there do
exist both successful and less successful brand alliances it is justified to ask why this is the case. Why are some
alliances received positively by the consumers whereas others are rejected? To answer this question it could be
feasible to analyse some current examples of brand alliances and explore the possible reasons to why some
alliances are successful and others are not. Some information on why a specific brand alliance becomes
successful is certainly to be found within a company since company management is always part of the
implementation of a successful brand alliance. However, in a previous study it was observed that knowledge
among brand owners of how to enter brand alliances were sometimes insufficient (Bengtsson & Moll, 1997). In
the study it was observed that the implementation of brand alliances sometimes could be characterised as a trial
and error process. The main problem to brand managers was that they had only limited knowledge on how
consumers would respond to initiatives taken. Consequently, the usage of brand alliances was a risky project
since an unsuccessful launch of a brand alliance could jeopardise brand equity.

Improved knowledge of the consumers and how they relate to brand alliances could give a better understanding
of how brand alliances can be used in order to build successful brands. Brand alliances could be a useful strategy
that increases value both for companies and consumers. The difficulty brand managers are facing is that their

3
efforts not always are received by the consumers as intended. What a brand manger needs to know is how to
communicate the brand alliance to the consumers in order to achieve a brand image that correspond to the brand’s
identity. By asking company management about their experiences from brand alliances would therefore only give
us knowledge of the intended message as perceived from the sender. That knowledge would only partly improve
the understanding for brand alliances. What the companies also need is improved knowledge on how consumers
perceive the intended message, i.e. how the consumers perceive brand alliances. To increase the knowledge of the
consumers it is necessary to change perspective and understand the brand building process as it takes place in
consumers’ minds.

Brand Alliances – From the Consumers Point of View

By starting from the consumers’ point of view and ask what consumers do with brand alliances it is possible to
improve the understanding of consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances. To understand how consumers
behave towards brand alliances it is important to understand how the brand building process takes place in
consumers’ minds. The focal question addressed in this study concerns consumers’ formations of images of brand
alliances. Images and the process of which images from brand alliances come up in consumers’ minds are
interesting and important to understand since it can be expected that different images might bring different
behaviour as Papadopoulos (1993, p. 7) states: “Generally, organizational and end-buyers hold images of
products, brands, and the companies associated with them, and these images affect their behavior.”

The image concept may be regarded as confusing since there is no generally accepted definition of image in the
consumer behaviour literature (Poiesz, 1989). I will not present all definitions that are used in previous research.
Instead, I agree with Askegaard & Ger (1997, p. 1) and view image as:

…a holistic impression with sensory (imagery), cognitive and affective aspects. Image, then, as a mental representation, is a

network of meanings stored in the memory, in a particular structure and along with affective, motivational and sensory aspects.”

Formation of images can thus be considered as a process where consumers may form different images of brands
in different situations and by different kind of stimuli. The perceptual process can be a good starting point
towards an understanding of consumers’ formation of images to brands. The perceptual process as defined by
Solomon (1996) involves consumers’ selection and interpretation of stimuli. Throughout the perceptual process
consumers may form different images of brand alliances depending on when and how knowledge is entered into
consumers’ minds. To understand the process of which images of brands are created in consumers’ minds and the
role brands have in consumers’ daily life are essential in order to understand consumer behaviour with regards to
brand alliances.

Through the formation of images consumers may establish associative networks of brands. These associative
networks created from different images in consumers’ minds are important to uncover and understand in order to
understand consumer behaviour of brand alliances. The associative network is a rather dynamic schema that can

4
be expected to change in consumers’ minds as the perceptual process continues and new images are formed.
Consequently, to get a rich understanding of consumer behaviour with regard to brand alliances it is important to
understand the process of formation of images rather than just snapshots of a current image.

To get a deep understanding of consumers brand behaviour it is important to explore how consumers create
images of brands and brand alliances through daily life consumption. Brand choice, which has been the
predominant focus of interest in previous research (Belk, 1991; Holbrook & Hirschmann, 1982) is only one,
limited aspect of consumer brand behaviour. A richer view of consumer brand behaviour can be obtained if the
limited brand choice perspective widens towards brand consumption. Consumer behaviour is, as defined by
Solomon (1996, p. 7), “the processes involved when individuals or groups select, purchase, use, or dispose of
products, services, ideas, or experiences to satisfy needs and desires”. With this definition in mind it appears
necessary to understand consumer behaviour of brand alliances in the context of consumers’ consumption.

Images consumers create of brand alliances have to be considered also in a broader context of brands in general.
To create an understanding of how consumers form images of brand alliances it is important also to understand
how consumers behave and form images of brands in general, i.e. brands that not are integrated into brand
alliances.

By looking at how consumers create images towards brand alliances throughout the perceptual process it is
possible to understand different consumer motives and its impacts on consumers’ creation of images. However,
there are also other questions easier to elaborate on, e.g. amount of information search, attitude formation, and
brands as shortcuts in decision making. It is for instance generally argued that the relationship between amount of
information search and product knowledge follows an inverted-U-shaped curve (Solomon, 1996). Such issues are
interesting but require less deep information of the consumers’ underlying motives. By uncovering the underlying
motives, which may affect their behaviour it is also possible to increase the knowledge in areas of which less
deep knowledge is required. Still, the focal question in this study concerns consumers’ creation of images
towards brand alliances.

To sum up, it is necessary to get deep insight into and uncover the underlying process of which consumers create
images towards brands and brand alliances. Such knowledge can help us to better understand consumer behaviour
with regards to brand alliances. Previous research on consumer behaviour with regards to brands may give some
answers to how consumers create images of brand alliances. A review of previous research on brand alliances
brand extensions is therefore presented in the next section.

5
 Previous Research

Brand Alliances
Research on brand alliances is still in an initial stage. Previous studies have been conducted partly with
companies as empirical object of study (Norris, 1992, 1993; Rao & Ruekert, 1994) partly with consumers as
object of study (Grossman, 1997; Hillyer & Tikoo, 1995; Park, Jun & Shocker, 1996; Simonin & Ruth, 1998;
Vaidyanathan & Brown, 1997). Previous studies on a managerial level have mainly been descriptive and
highlighted the potential benefits that may come out of brand alliances. These studies are important and have
been useful to establish a conceptual framework for the area but the findings do not give, and do not intend to
give any knowledge of consumer behaviour.

With regards to previous research conducted on the consumers there are some interesting results to observe. Park
et al. (1996) investigated in an experiment the effectiveness of brand alliances. They found that by combining
two brands with complementary attribute levels, a brand alliance appeared to have a better attribute profile than a
direct extension. They also found that a brand alliance has a better attribute profile when it consists of two
complementary brands than when it consists of two highly favourable but not complementary brands. However,
knowledge on the consumers underlying motives and their relationships to behaviour are not uncovered in this
study. Another critique, which I will elaborate on later, concerns the view of consumers as rational information
processors responding to stimuli given by the researchers. I do not believe that consumers always can be
considered as rational information processors. The rational view of consumers does not look like the real world in
which consumers are living. A better understanding of consumer behaviour could be obtained if we as researchers
get closer the consumers’ real world (Belk, 1991).

Simonin & Ruth (1998) investigated, also in an experiment, if brand alliance evaluations “spill over” on
subsequent evaluations of the individual brands. They also studied what effect brand familiarity has on the system
of relationships, including the possible spill over effect of the alliances on the brands. The results reveal that
consumers’ attitudes toward a brand alliance influence subsequent impressions of the two brands. They found
also that brand familiarity moderates the strength of relations between constructs in a manner consistent with
information integration and attitude accessibility theories. Finally they found that each partner brand is not
necessarily affected equally by its participation in a particular alliance. In another study of a hypothetical brand
alliance, Vaidyanathan & Brown (1997) found results consistent with the findings from Simonin & Ruth’s (1998)
study. Similar critique as raised to the study by Park et al. (1996) can be raised for these studies. Also, there is a
clear bias towards studying brand choice instead of brand consumption. This approach gives, as argued
previously, a narrow understanding for the consumers.

Another study by Grossman (1997) highlights the principles of classical conditioning and how they may affect
co-branding in advertising. Co-branding in advertising differs somewhat from brand alliances since there is no
requirements for physical integration of the brands. The results must therefore be handled with caution. Grossman

6
(1997) also argues that the findings from the study must be complemented with further research that determines
consumer response to brand alliances.

Hillyer & Tikoo (1995) developed, through a theoretical analysis of attitude formation and change, some
hypothesis of the influence brand alliances have on consumer product evaluation. The study revealed that the
influence of brand alliances on consumer product evaluations differ depending on whether the evaluation is
characterised by high involvement or low involvement. The hypotheses generated in the study are not empirically
tested why further research on the consumers is necessary.

Previous studies reviewed give some insights into consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances. Much
more can be done in order to gain a better understanding as for example Simonin & Ruth (1998) suggest:

Still, much could be learned from investigating the underlying dimension of product category fit in the context of brand alliances.

Furthermore, exploring the underlying dimensions of brand fit, including the congruence of brand-specific association represented

in the alliance would add to our understanding of brand alliances and their effectiveness. (Simonin & Ruth, 1998, p. 40)

Also Park et al. (1996) argue that further “research is needed to assess the importance of the fit between the
constituent brands and the extension product” (Park et al. 1996, p. 465). With regards to previous research,
product category fit is one important factor that has to be highlighted in further studies on brand alliances. The
review of previous research on brand alliances that have been presented here is not very long. However, the
review presented above cover all major studies in the area of brand alliances. The reason why research is limited
in the area depends most probably on the limited usage of brand alliances.

To sum up, previous research on brand alliances with focus on consumer behaviour contributes with some
knowledge on consumer behaviour. However, as stated previously, to understand consumers’ creation of meaning
towards brand alliances it is necessary to collect deep information about consumers underlying motives and
behaviours. Previous research on brand alliances has not presented such knowledge. To search for answers on
how consumers create images of brand alliances I turn therefore to the research domain of brand extensions.

Brand Extensions
Brand extensions is a strategy that in some respect may be regarded as somewhat similar to brand alliances. The
strategy sometimes addresses similar features as brand alliance does why previous research on brand extensions
could be an interesting starting point towards a better understanding of brand alliances. Even though there exist
many similarities between the two strategies, we have to keep in mind that there do exist differences between the
two strategies. Brand alliances could, as perceived from the consumers’ point of view, perhaps be regarded as a
somewhat more complicated phenomenon compared to brand extensions. A brand alliance comprises two
different brands that previous have been consumed separately. To understand how consumers create meaning
from brand alliances must therefore be considered as a more complex process to understand. Anyway, previous

7
research may be a good starting point towards a better understanding of consumer behaviour with regards to
brand alliances.

Unlike brand alliances, a lot of research has been conducted in the area of brand extensions (Aaker & Keller,
1990; Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Dacin & Smith, 1993, 1994; Kardes & Allen, 1991; Keller & Aaker, 1992;
Loken & Roedder-John, 1993; Muthukrishnan & Weitz, 1991; Park, McCarthy & Milberg, 1993; Park, Millberg
& Lawson, 1991; Romeo, 1991; Roedder John, Loken & Joiner, 1998; Sullivan, 1990). In previous research it
has been investigated what a successful brand extension is characterised by. Keller (1998) has summarised
findings from previous research on brand extensions. The findings are summarised in 14 different aspects, which
distinguish successful brand extensions from less successful extensions. Some of the conclusions are certainly
relevant also for brand alliances. However, aspects important for a brand extension, like product category fit, has
to be empirically investigated on brand alliances before the findings can be extended to the field of brand
alliances. There is one major objection against previous research on brand extension, which also has been raised
against previous research on brand alliances. Knowledge generated in previous studies does not give
understanding of the brand building processes as it take place in consumers’ mind. Rather, previous research has
given brief snapshots of consumers hypothetical brand choice. Consumer behaviour with regards to brands can
not be understood only by giving snapshots of current beliefs, since brand building, as argued previously, has to
be regarded as a process which evolves over time.

Consumer Brand Relationships

Fournier (1998) has conducted pioneering work on consumer brand relationships. I characterise the study as
pioneering since the approach Fournier adapts is unusual in research on consumer behaviour with regards to
brands. The study does not give any knowledge to consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances or brand
extensions but the findings contributes to the understanding of how consumers form relationships to brands on a
general level. Relationships that consumers may have to single brands are important to understand since the
relationships may affect the creation of images of brand alliances. The findings are therefore an important starting
point towards an understanding of consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances. In the study Fournier has
tried to understand the subjective meanings of consumers’ lived experiences with brands. In doing so, Fournier
has conducted in-depth interviews with consumers and asked them for their stories about brand relationships that
have emerged through the usage of brands. These stories contribute considerably towards an understanding of
how consumers form relationships towards brands they are familiar to and use. This knowledge gives new
insights to theories concerning brand loyalty. The findings are a very good starting point towards an
understanding of how consumers form images of brand alliances.

What Is Missing?
Findings from the studies presented above are interesting and may serve as a first contribution towards an
understanding for consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances. It is however questionable if the findings

8
really contribute to knowledge of the consumers. The focal question asked in this study, “how consumers create
images towards brand alliances” concerns what consumers do with brand alliances. This approach has not been
applied in previous research on brand alliances and brand extensions. Instead, the main approach in previous
research has been what brand alliances do with consumers (cf. Trosslöv Aronsson, 1998). In previous studies,
except for the study by Fournier (1998), consumers have been treated as passive consumers, possible to
manipulate through the marketing mix. This approach which have dominated consumer research for long have
been criticised extensively among consumer researchers representing the new consumer paradigm (Ekström &
Holmberg, 1997). The critiques of traditional consumer research have concerned both actual methodologies and
methods that are used. In the next section I will highlight some critique of the traditional approaches which I also
believe concerns previous research on brand alliances.

Critique of Traditional Consumer Research

Traditional consumer research approaches consider consumers more as passive information processors who react
on stimuli given by the researchers than complex human beings possessing underlying motives (Poiesz, 1989).
The study by Simonin & Ruth (1998) may be regarded as typical example of traditional consumer research in the
area of brand alliances and brand extensions. An excerpt from Simonin & Ruth’s discussion of method is
presented below for the purpose of giving a brief view of the common approach used in previous research on
brand extensions and brand alliances.

As in the pretest, a brand alliance was presented to respondents in the form of a print advertisement. This advertisement described

the partnership between a car brand and a microprocessor brand… Respondents were staff members and students recruited

through the campus newspaper of a major university. Respondents (n=350) were assigned randomly to 1 of the 16 versions of the

brand alliance. Respondents were given a booklet containing marketing materials, described as “in development stages” to

minimize advertisement-based evaluations. Respondents first answered a series of questions regarding familiarity with and prior

attitudes toward a variety of brands, including those represented by the alliance as well as those that were included for purposes of

masking the nature of this study… Respondents viewed the stimulus depicting the brand alliance and then responded to questions

regarding their attitudes toward the brand alliance, perceptions of fit, perceptions of brand fit, and other related questions.

(Simonin & Ruth, 1998, p. 35)

There are several different arguments to why the presented approach above needs to be complemented. In the
following sections I will try to summarise different critiques that have been raised against traditional research.

Quantitative Methods and Deductive Approach

First, almost all studies in the area of brand extensions and brand alliances have used quantitative methods for
data collection. Quantitative methods may be useful for instance when describing opinions of larger groups.
However, the quantitative approach gives a rather narrow understanding of consumer behaviour with regards to
brand alliances since the results tend to be more descriptive than explorative. Also the use of a deductive

9
approach in combination with quantitative methods for data gathering may have resulted in important aspects of
consumers underlying motives being overlooked. A quantitative and deductive approach must therefore be used
with caution to avoid using models “that are not guaranteed of either being important to respondents, or even of
being expressed in terms meaningful to the respondents” (Reynolds & Gutman in Poiesz, 1989, p. 465).
Consequently, I believe there are much more to learn from the complex consumers and their brand behaviour if
we start treating the consumers as human beings as Fontana & Frey (1994) argue:

Yet, to learn about people we must remember to treat them as people, and they will uncover their lives to us. As long as many

researchers continue to treat respondents as unimportant, faceless individuals whose only contribution is to fill one more boxed

response, the answers we, as researchers, will get will be commensurable with the questions we ask and with the way we ask

them. (Fontana & Frey, 1994 p. 374)

In accordance with Fontana & Frey, I think the quantitative experimental studies conducted in consumer research
must be complemented with explorative studies that can help us uncover the underlying and not direct visible
aspects of consumer behaviour.

Environmental Considerations
To understand consumer behaviour it is also important to study consumers as close as possible to their normal
consumption situation. However instead of studying consumers when they go shopping or when consumers
consume, traditional consumer researchers normally conduct experiments in a context unfamiliar to the
consumers. The contexts in which consumers are investigated are generally considered an important aspect that
affects consumer behaviour (Holmberg, 1996). The validity of results generated by experimental studies
conducted in environments that are unfamiliar to consumers may therefore be questioned since the experiment
can force consumers to act in a way they would not normally do. Kover (1995) has raised that kind of critique
towards consumer research on advertising. Kover argues that:

The research environment is quite different… An environment that is controlled (as most academic research environments are)

does not permit this freedom. It isolates the advertising as something special, something that stands out in the flow of time, and

the results are bound to differ from those of normal viewing… Participants know they must do something as part of the

experiment. Therefore, they not only pay unrealistic attention to the stimulus, but they give unrealistic importance to the responses

asked for in the research instrument. The measurement instrument itself becomes part of the stimulus. (Kover, 1995, p. 605)

The same critique can also be raised against previous research on brand alliances and brand extensions that have
been conducted in environments unfamiliar to the consumers. To avoid those problems Kover discusses, it is
therefore important to get away from the experimental research environments and study consumers in their
everyday life. To study what consumers say and what they do can give a better reliability since what people say is
sometimes very different from what they really do (Hodder, 1994). This discrepancy between what people say

10
and what they do was discovered in a study of consumers’ garbage volumes. It was for instance observed that
consumers’ perceptions of their alcohol consumption was largely underestimated (Hodder, 1994).

Representativeness
Traditional consumer researchers often maintain that results generated from experimental studies are possible to
generalise to a larger population. It is argued that results can be generalised since the sample mirrors the larger
population. However, common samples in traditional consumer research including previous studies on brand
extensions and brand alliances (e.g. Aaker & Keller 1999; Simonin & Ruth, 1998) is composed of undergraduate
business students. Again, Kover (1995) may serve as an example.

Students are not representative viewers of television, but they represent major part of the participant population of academic

research. (Kover, 1995, p. 605)

Results generated from such samples may be generalised towards the population of which the sample represents
but it is questionable whether the results can be considered as being general for a whole population since students
are often considered as a homogenous group of people. Important aspects may therefore have been overlooked
through the usage of students as sample. Lately, it has been argued that students may be regarded more as a
heterogeneous group than as a homogenous group (Trosslöv Aronsson, 1998). If students in general can be
regarded as a heterogeneous group of consumers with for instance diverging perceptions of brand alliances, then
previous research on brand extensions and brand alliances is difficult to understand. A common view in previous
research on brand extensions is that consumer perceptions are unequivocal and thus common for the whole group
of consumers that are studied. Whatever the truth is, regardless of students can be regarded as a homogenous
group or a heterogeneous group of consumers there are arguments for studying other groups of consumers. If
students are homogeneous it is important to study other groups of people with conditions different from those of
students. That would add new knowledge since it can be expected that there should exist more aspects of
consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances that have been neglected in previous research. On the other
hand, if students rather should be considered as a heterogeneous group of consumers, it is also important to carry
out further studies to contrast previous findings which have presented consumer perceptions of brand alliances as
unambiguous.

Brand Choice versus Consumption

Previous research on brand extensions and brand alliances has focused solely on consumer brand choice instead
of consumption. This focus has also been predominant in most consumer research (Belk, 1991; Ekström &
Holmberg, 1997, Holbrook & Hirschmann, 1982). However, brand choice is only one aspect of consumer
behaviour why further studies is needed to assess the role brands has in consumers’ daily life.

11
The focus on brand choice implies a focus on the moment of truth, i.e. what consumers choose in a purchase
situation. Brand building activities are on the other hand regarded as a long-range process that requires
perseverance from the brand owner (Melin, 1997). It is therefore reasonable to argue that the brand building
process as viewed from a consumer perspective should be regarded as a long-rang process. Only looking at the
outcome of that process, i.e. brand choice, gives a limited understanding of consumer behaviour with regards to
brand alliances.

Finally, previous studies are principally conducted in the U.S. Even though it is often argued that the world
market is characterised by global competition there do exist differences between cultures. Different cultures may
imply differences in behaviour why further studies conducted outside U.S. are of interest.

Purpose
The review of previous research on consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances and brand extensions
does not give sufficient understanding of consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances. There is
consequently a need for further studies where consumers and brands are put in focus. The purpose of this study is
to create an understanding of how consumers form images of brand alliances.

12
 Research Strategy

Methodology
Methodologically, this project will start in the new consumer research tradition. This research tradition emerged
in the beginning of the 1980s as an alternative to traditional consumer research (Belk, 1995). The new consumer
research tradition differs methodologically from the old consumer research. This means that I do not regard
consumers as passive information processors whose behaviour can be understood only by looking at response
attended to stimuli. Rather I believe in a view of where consumers are considered as complex human beings with
underlying and ambiguous motives, which affect their behaviour. If we accept that consumers are complex
human beings in possession of underlying motives we also have to accept that an easy truth towards an objective
reality rarely exist. To understand consumer behaviour with regards to brand alliances it is therefore necessary to
look deep into the consumer’s daily life consumption and uncover their underlying motives.

Data Collection Methods

In order to get a better understanding of how consumers form images of brand alliances it is necessary to gather
deep and rich knowledge about the consumers’ underlying behaviour. A qualitative approach towards data
collection and data analysis is therefore a necessity. Furthermore, since I intend to explore the process in which
consumers form images of brand alliances I believe it is better to study few consumers in order to obtain very
good quality of the data rather than studying many consumers with questionable quality regarding consumers’
underlying behaviour. The emphasis in this study is thus on the richness of the data rather than on the quantity.

I argued previously that the brand building process, as it occurs in consumers’ mind has to be regarded as a
process that evolves over time. This issue is closely connected to the criticism of previous research and its focus
on brand choice instead of consumption. The research design must therefore be adapted in order to enable an
understanding of the brand building process as it takes place in consumers’ mind through consumption.
Furthermore, to understand the consumers’ underlying motives it is also essential to elicit their stories and view
brand alliances as the consumers views it. I believe therefore that in-depth interviews in combination with
observations are the best data collection methods suited for the purpose of this study since these methods offer
rich data of the object under study (Silverman, 1993).

In-depth interviews can be conducted in a variety of ways. Marshall & Rossman (1995) distinguish between
ethnographic interviewing, phenomenological interviewing, elite interviewing, and focus group interviewing. To
get as close as possible to the consumers and their context I consider the ethnographic interview to be the best
way of conducting interviews. According to Marshall & Rossman (1995), ethnographic interview focuses on the
participant’s perspective, which makes it useful for eliciting meanings and behaviours. Spradley (1979)
characterises the ethnographic interview as a speech event sharing similar features as a friendly conversation. The
method gives closeness to the consumers and their context through the use of interviews as friendly

13
conversations. The matter of context is also strengthened through the use of ethnographic interview since the
methods also implicate observations. Ethnographic methods have been used in consumer research before (e.g.
Sherry, 1990, Holmberg 1996) and it has been argued that the field of consumer research is particularly suitable
for the ethnographic methods (Sanders, 1987 in Holmberg 1996). According to the purpose of this study I believe
that ethnographic interviews can give new insights to how consumers create images of brand alliances.

To get as close as possible to the consumers it is my aim to conduct interviews with consumers in their everyday
life e.g. when they go shopping, prepare food etc. The use of ethnographic interview has the advantage of being
extremely context related (Holmberg, 1996). The negative impact on the quality of the data that traditional
consumer research contexts may cause are thus avoided. To catch the process of how images to different brands
are created in consumers’ mind it is my intention to spend rather long time with each consumer. I am aware of the
difficulty of uncovering the process of image creation in consumers’ minds. However, by spending a lot of time
with each consumer and get an understanding for how each consumer behave I expect to retrospectively uncover
the different images individuals form of brands and brand alliances.

Data Analysis
To get a rich understanding for the consumers I believe it is extremely important to record a wide range of
aspects of the interviewees’ behaviour. The approach is inspired by the consumer behaviour odyssey, which was
carried out during the 1980s (Belk, 1991). The basic approach applied in the consumer behaviour odyssey was to
use multiple sources of data and also triangulate the data across researchers and across media (Belk, Wallendorf
& Sherry, 1989). I find this approach very interesting since it gives a possibility to uncover the image creation
process. Consequently, I intend to use several different media, e.g. tape-recorder, photography, video recorder in
order to record the data.

One of the advantages of collecting data with interviews is that a large amount of data can be gathered rather
quickly (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). When it comes to analysing the data this advantage can also be regarded as
a disadvantage since the large amount of empirical data tend to make the analysis phase a never ending process.
To simplify the analysis of the data I intend to use one of the numerous computer software programmes that are
available for organising qualitative data. I am not very familiar with the different programmes that are available
on the market so I can not elaborate on how I intend to use the programme. According to Spradley (1979), an
ethnographic interview can be analysed in one of several ways. Spradley suggests domain analysis, taxonomic
analysis, componential analysis, and theme analysis as different strategies for data analysis. Unfortunately I have
not been able to elaborate on these analytical methods so I leave this matter for further discussion.

14
 Potential Contribution to Scholarship

Theoretical Implications
Studying the brand building process from the consumers’ point of view can have several potential implications
for theories concerning brand behaviour. Traditional consumer research with focus on brands has been centred on
brand choice instead of the broader concept of consumption. Current theories addressing consumer behaviour
with regards to brands give as a consequence a rather narrow understanding of consumer behaviour. In the
following sections I will highlight some areas in consumer research which I believe this study will contribute to.

Customer Based Brand Equity

The customer based brand equity is a theoretical framework that attempts to give an understanding of how brands
create value for the consumers. The framework developed by Keller (1993) can be considered as a complement to
the concept of brand equity, which is conceptualised from the brand owners’ perspective. Keller (1993, p. 2)
defines the customer based brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to
the marketing of the brand”. Even though the concept of customer brand equity sounds promising, the
contribution to the understanding of how brands create value for the consumers is limited. My major criticism
concerns the managerial perspective adopted in the framework. Keller argues that the customer based brand
equity is conceptualised from the individual consumer. However, when examining the concept it becomes clear
that a managerial perspective is still adopted. The framework is named customer based brand equity, not
consumer brand equity, which would have been a more suitable for a framework adopting a consumer
perspective. Since the concept builds on previous studies in consumer behaviour with focus on brand choice
instead of consumption the same criticism as raised against previous studies on brand extensions and brand
alliances can be raised against customer based brand equity. I expect that the results from my study will
contribute to this area and really apply a consumer perspective.

Brand Loyalty
Brand loyalty is an important concept to many companies since it is sometimes argued that the ultimate goal for a
company is to build a solid base of loyal consumers (Melin, 1997). However, research addressing brand loyalty
has stagnated since the operationalisations of the concept fail to consider other aspects than proportion of repeat
purchase (Fournier, 1998). The loyalty concept needs therefore to be revitalised in order to make the concept
more interesting. Fournier’s (1998) study of consumer brand relationships is a first contribution towards a
revitalisation of the brand loyalty concept. I expect that this study also will contribute to the brand loyalty
research domain, though with a European perspective.

15
 Managerial Implications
The managerial implications of this study concern the knowledge of how to enter brand alliances. By asking the
question, what do the consumers do with brand alliances, several sub questions can be derived with implications
for brand owners. An important implication this study will highlight, is which type of products and brands that
may be appropriate for taking part in a brand alliance. Some of the most successful brand alliances include high
tech brands like Intel and Gore-Tex. Keller (1998) argues for instance that the ingredient must be an innovation
or have some other substantial advantage over existing alternatives. However, the study by Vaidyanathan &
Brown (1997) suggest a commodity product (raisins) as an ingredient to cereals. SunMaid raisins can however
not be regarded as having a substantial advantage over other brands of raisins. Brand equity may be higher for
SunMaid, but it is questionable if that can be regarded as substantial. As mentioned previously, an important
issue for companies in the food industry will be to enter alliances with food manufacturers operating closer to the
consumers. To enter successful alliances it is therefore necessary to explore which type of product advantages
that are required to be perceived as relevant by the consumers.

Another question with implications for brand owners concerns how the two brands should be combined and
exposed. In order to gain synergies from a brand alliance it is necessary that the consumers identify the brands. If
one brand in a brand alliance is very strong and salient it may cause negative effects on the partner brand. This
problem is apparent in the market for out-door products as the Gore-Tex brand by the consumers sometimes is
perceived as a brand for ski jackets (Bengtsson & Moll, 1997). This may be regarded as an optimum situation for
the Gore-Tex brand but not for brands that use Gore-Tex as an ingredient brand since the awareness for their
brand may diminish. Further knowledge on the consumers is therefore necessary to avoid alliances that may
cause negative consequences for the brands.

Implications for Consumer Politics

A study that adopts a consumer perspective may also generate implications for consumer politics. The results of
this study will substantially improve the knowledge of how consumers behave and form relationships towards
brands. That knowledge will strengthen the consumers as a collective since their voices can be directed towards
the companies. That would hopefully result in offerings from the companies that are better adjusted to the
demands from the consumers. The knowledge generated may also be interesting to the Swedish national board for
consumer policies and the consumer ombudsman. They may use the knowledge generated in this study to inform
the consumers or legislate in the area.

16
 References
Aaker, D. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. (1996) Building strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. & Keller, K. (1990) ”Consumer evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing,
54(January):27-41.
Askegaard, S. & Ger, G. (1998) “Product Contry Images as Stereotypes: A Comparative Study of Danish Food
Products in Germany and Turkey”, MAPP Working Paper no. 45, Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business.
Belk, R., Wallendorf, M. & Sherry (1989) “The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the
Odyssey” Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June):1-38.
Belk, R. (1991) “The History and Development fo The Consumer Behavior Odyssey” in: Belk, R. (ed.) Highways
and Buyways: Naturalistic Research form the Consumer Behavior Odyssey, Provo: Association for Consumer
Research.
Belk, R. (1995) ”Studies in the New Consumer Behaviour” in: Miller, D. (ed.) Acknowledging Consumption: A
review of New Studies, London: Routledge
Bengtsson, A. (1996) ”Märkesallianser - Värdet av ett insatt varumärke” Examensarbete, Företagsekonomiska
institutionen, Luns universitet.
Bengtsson, A. & Moll, L. (1997) “Insatsvarumärken – En väg till differentiering” Magisteruppsats,
Företagsekonomiska institutionen, Lunds universitet.
Broniarczyk, S. & Alba, J. (1994) “The importance of the Brand in Brand Extension” Journal of Marketing
Research, 31(2):214-229.
Dacin, P. & Smith, D. (1993) “The Effects of Adding Products to a Brand on Consumers’ Evaluations of New
Brand Extensions” Advances in Consumer Research, 20:594-598.
de Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. (1998) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial
Markets. 2nd edition. Oxford: Butterworth & Heinemann.
Ekström, K. M. & Holmberg, C. (1997) ”Consumer behavior research – for generations to come”. Paper
presented at the 14th Nordic Conference on Business Studies. Bodø.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. (1994) “Interviewing. The Art of Science” in Denzin, N. &Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of
Qualitative Methods : 361-375. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Fournier, S. (1998) “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March):343-373.
Grossman, R. P. (1997) ”Co-branding in advertising: developing effective associations”. Journal of Product and
Brand Management. 6(3):191-201.
Hillyer, C. & Tikoo, S. (1995) ”Effect of Cobranding on Consumer Product Evaluations”, Advances in Consumer
Research, 22:123-127.
Hodder, I. (1994) “The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture” in Denzin, N. &Lincoln, Y. (Eds.)
Handbook of Qualitative Methods : 393-402. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Holbrook M. & Hirschmann E. (1982) “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies,
Feelings, and Fun” Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September):132-140.

17
Holmberg, C. (1996) Stores and Consumers – Two Perspectives on Food Purchasing. Stockholm: The Economic
Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics.
Kapferer, J-N. (1997) Strategic Brand Management. Creating and sustaining brand equity -long term. London:
Kogan Page.
Kardes, F. & Allen, C. (1991) “Perceived Variability and Inferences about Brand Extensions” Advances in
Consumer Research, 18:392-398.
Keller, K. & Aaker, D. (1992) “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions” Journal of
Marketing Research. 29(February):35-50.
Keller, K (1993) “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity”, Journal of
Marketing, 57(January):1-22.
Keller, K. (1998) Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring, And Managing Brand Equity. Upper
Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Kover, A. (1995) “Copywristers’ Implicit Theories of Communication: An Exploration” Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(March):596-611.
Loken, B. & Roedder John, D. (1993) ”Diluting Brand Beliefs: When do Brand Extensions Have a Negative
Impact?”, Journal of Marketing, 57(3):71-84.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (1995) Designing Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Melin, F. (1997) Varumärket som strategiskt konkurrensmedel. Om konsten att bygga upp starka varumärken.
Lund: Lund University Press.
Muthukrishnan, A. & Weitz, B. (1991) “Role of Product Knowledge in Evaluation of Brand Extension”
Advances in Consumer Research, 18:407-413.
Norris, D. (1992) ”Ingredient Branding: A Strategy Option with Multiple Beneficiaries”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 9(3):19-31.
Norris, D. (1993) ”"Intel Inside": Branding a component in a business market”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 8(1):14-24.
Papadopoulos, N. (1993) “What Product and Contry Images Are and Are Not”, in: Papadopoulos, N. & Heslop,
L. (eds.), Product-Country Images. Impact and Role in International Marketing. New York: International
Business Press.
Park, W., Jun, S. & Shocker, A. (1996) ”Composite Branding Alliances: An Investigation of Extension and
Feedback Effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (November):453-456
Park, W., McCarthy, M. & Milberg, S. (1993) ”The Effects of Direct and Associative Brand Extension Strategies
on Consumer Response to Brand Extensions”, Advances in Consumer Research, 20:28-33.
Park, W., Milberg, S. & Lawson, R. (1991) “Evaluation of Brand Extensions: The Role of Product Feature
Similarity and Brand Concept Consistency”, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (September):185-193
Pellegrini, L. (1996) “Brands vs. Trade Names: Manufacturer and Retailer Missions in the Value System” ,
Institute of Economic Research Working Paper Series, Lund University, 1996/8.
Poiesz, T. (1989) “The Image Concept: Its Place in Consumer Psychology” Journal of Economic Psychology,
10:457-472.

18
Rao, A. & Ruekert R. (1994) ”Brand Alliances as Signals of Product Quality,” Sloan Management Review, 36
(Fall):87-97.
Roedder John, D., Loken, B. & Joiner, C. (1998) “The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship Products be
diluted” Journal of Marketing, 62(1):19-33.
Romeo, J. (1991) “The Effect of Negative Information on the Evaluations of Brand Extensions and the Family
Brand” Advances in Consumer Research, 18:399-406
Simonin, B. & Ruth, J. (1998) ”Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects
of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (February):30-42.
Sherry, J. (1990) “A Sociocultural Analysis of a Midwestern American Flea Market” Journal of Consumer
Research, 17:13-30
Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London:
Sage.
Solomon, M. (1996) Consumer Behavior, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Spradley, J. (1979) The Ethnographic Interview, Fort Worth: Holt, Rinhart & Winston.
Stewart, A. (1995) “Cobranding Just Starting in Europe” Marketing News, 29(4):5
Sullivan, M. (1990) “Measuring Image Spillovers in Umbrella-branded Products” Journal of Business,
63(3):309-329.
Supermarket (1998) Dagligvarumarknaden 1997. Supermarket nr 6-7.
Supermarket (1998) Kedjemärken bara växer. Supermarket nr 9.
Trosslöv Aronsson, A. (1998) “Idealized Body Images in Ads – A Consumer Perspective”, Paper presented at the
Nordic Consumer Research Conference in Lillehammer.
Urde, M. (1997) Märkesorientering. Utveckling av varumärken som strategiska resurser och skydd mot
varumärkesdegeneration. Lund: Lund University Press.
Vaidyanathan, R. & Brown, M. (1997) ”National Brand-Private Brand Strategic Alliances Through Ingredient
Branding: An Exploratory Empirical Evaluation”. Unpublished working paper, University of Minnesota.

19