The Cognitive and Behavioral Consequences of Considering Low-Fit Brand Extensions

Launching new products is a risky and expensive endeavor. Accordingly, many firms attempt to mitigate this risk by introducing new offerings under existing brand names. A great deal of academic research has explored the factors that affect consumers’ likelihood of accepting these brand extensions, finding that the perceived “fit” between the extension and the brand is a critical factor in predicting consumer interest (Aaker and Keller 1990). However, in today’s uncertain economy, many firms seek to maximize leverage from successful brands by broadening the scope of their product lines beyond exclusively high-fit extensions. This raises the question: How does having low-fit extensions in the marketplace affect consumers? While recent research has begun to explore the factors that increase acceptance of low-fit extensions (e.g., Meyvis, Goldsmith and Dhar 2012), little work to date has explored the consequences that such brand extensions might have for consumers. For example, if Crest, an oral care brand, were to introduce a line of facial products (e.g., moisturizer), how might consumers’ experience of evaluating such products differ as compared to evaluating products that were higher in fit (e.g., Crest gum)? Although one could argue that offering a wider array of brand extensions only benefits consumers by way of increasing variety (Kahneman, Wakker, and Sarin 1997), we propose that the presence of low-fit brand extensions may lead to unique consequences. Specifically, we predict that when the fit between the brand and the extension is low, evaluating such products will result in regulatory depletion as well as a shift towards more abstract processing. Further, we argue that these cognitive shifts have downstream implications for choice confidence, choice difficulty and choice deferral.