Study On Neural Mechanism Of Brand Extension Evaluation

Brand extension means use of an established brand name to enter a new product category. Aaker and Keller (1990) put forward A&K model in the paper consumer evaluations of brand extensions, in which "fit" is seen as the key influencing factor for brand extension. Then other researchers revised the theory and raised similarity judgment. However, it’s still unknown that relationship between them.To investigate how the consumers evaluate the brand extension, ERPs were recorded form healthy college students. In the experiment,16participants were required to look at the stimuli-S1branded S2on the computer screen. S1consists of20well-known beverage brands. S2consists of products in three categories:beverage (typical product of the brand), snack and home appliance (atypical product of the brand).N2and N400-important components of ERP-were elicited in all probes. The participants didn’t need to evaluate the brand extension was appropriate or not, therefore, the ERP components recorded here was irrelative to the conscious categorization process. The results showed that the N2and N400were more largely distributed in frontal-central and central areas when S2was atypical products compared with beverage, and when S2was related with the mental category. The stimulus activated an unconscious processing of comparison between the brand and the product. When the product was more atypical form the categorization of the brand, there was more intense cognition activity evoked. Therefore, three conclusions were reached:(1) Similarity judgment is characterized by N2components in ERP. N2amplitude was larger when S2was non-beverage products.(2) Fit is characterized by N400components in ERP. N400amplitude was larger when S2was atypical products compared with beverage. The more atypical product, the larger amplitude.(3) Brand extension consists of similarity judgment at the early stage and fit judgment in late stage.