The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions

Two experiments qualify the previously observed finding that a moderately incongruent brand extension is evaluated more favorably than a congruent or extremely incongruent brand extension and reconcile this finding with other outcomes that have been reported in the brand extension literature. A congruent brand extension is judged more favorably than either a moderately incongruent extension or an extremely incongruent extension when involvement in the task is low. Apparently, incongruity per se does not always prompt the elaboration required to reconcile a moderately incongruent extension with the parent brand and, thereby, enhance evaluation of the moderately incongruent extension. Further, when involvement is high, a moderately incongruent brand extension may only be judged more favorably than a congruent one if the extension is undifferentiated. If the extension is differentiated, the differentiation may provide a basis for favorable evaluation irrespective of the level of congruity with the brand. Recall of information about the performance of the extension relative to competitive brands and measures of attitude toward the parent brand, fit between the extension and the parent brand, and task satisfaction provide insight into the processes that underlie these effects.