消费者视角的品牌联盟评价研究
摘要
消费市场的复杂多变、日益激烈的市场竞争、能源和环境问题是当今企业所面临的三个主要问题,他们给企业的生存与发展带来了前所未有的挑战。在复杂和动荡的环境中,为了应付日益挑剔的消费者、并购和竞争的压力、社会舆论的监督,品牌联盟已经成为一种创造利益、降低风险的有效的竞争战略,企业投资决策的主要选择之一。品牌联盟是“两个或两个以上品牌有形或无形属性结合”,它的目的是充分利用多个合作品牌的力量,提高顾客对产品或服务的评价。由于新品牌开发战略的失败率持续上升,品牌联盟已经成为一种日益广泛的市场现象,甚至是某些行业主要的商业运作方式。尽管如此,品牌联盟还是一项较新的市场战略,处于发展的起步阶段,面临着许多基础的管理问题和学术问题,但是随着品牌管理研究重新焕发生机,它已经成为近些年品牌研究领域兴起的一个新的热点问题。
论文首先简要介绍了研究的背景,对品牌联盟研究进行了概述,然后分析了品牌联盟战略的内涵、特征和类型,以及影响品牌联盟评价的各种可能因素。其后,在影响因素分析和参考已有模型的基础上,提出了一个较为完整的品牌联盟评价的概念模型框架,并通过实证分析检验了相关变量之间的影响效果。在此研究的基础上,本文进入一个尝试性的动态研究,引入复杂系统中的NK模型来分析品牌联盟战略在长期内的有效性如何。最后,概括总结了相应的研究结论,讨论了研究的理论和实践意义,以及进一步的研究方向。
研究者们给出的品牌联盟定义不尽一致,其术语也存在多种表述形式,但品牌联盟本质上是一种合作性的营销活动,合作的内容既包含有形资源也包含无形资源,期限的长短也各不相同。品牌联盟不同于战略联盟,它是一种协议性的合作,一般至少会有一个知名品牌参加,合作双方必须有共同的客户基础,能为顾客创造价值,各个参与品牌在品牌联盟活动中受到的影响是不均衡的。学者们对品牌联盟的分类也没有统一的意见,大多是为了研究需要或更好的理解品牌联盟的特征,本文列出了几类较为完善的分类模式。目前用于品牌联盟分析的理论主要是信号理论,其它也包括如联想网络理论、情境理论、信息整合理论等,文献中出现的品牌联盟评价的影响因素主要包括品牌事前态度、适应性和熟悉度等。
在概念模型框架中,本文区分了熟悉度和知名度两个不同的概念,同时相对以前的研究添加了几个新的变量一脆弱性、顾客感知利益和延伸适应度,分析了它们对品牌联盟及其参与品牌评价的直接影响效果和相互之间的交互作用。研究设计选择了通信品牌厂商与手机品牌厂商的合作形式,构建了3个实验场景,第1个场景为联合促销,即移动通信品牌配合手机品牌进行手机产品的促销;第2个场景为产品开发,即移动运营品牌厂商希望开发手机产品,寻求与一个现有的手机品牌厂商进行合作;场景3同样分析了一个手机产品开发合作,不过合作的双方是固网通信厂商与手机厂商。场景3和场景2的不同之处在于合作双方的产品互补性和主导品牌的延伸适应性较低。
研究结果表明,知名度和熟悉度是两个不同含义的概念,品牌知名度无论在何种条件下都对品牌联盟和参与品牌的评价有显著的影响。但是,在一个参与品牌产品适应性较强的场景中,品牌的熟悉度只会影响到自身的事后评价,而不会影响合作伙伴;另一方面,在联合促销场景中,品牌熟悉度对品牌联盟的评价不存在显著的影响,但是在产品开发场景中,品牌熟悉度对品牌联盟存在显著的影响;此外,在参与品牌产品适应性较弱的场景中,品牌熟悉度既对品牌联盟的评价有显著的影响,也对各个参与品牌的评价有显著的影响。研究结果暗示,知名度无论在何种场景下都是一个显著影响品牌联盟评价和参与品牌评价的变量,而熟悉度在不同的场景下对品牌联盟及其参与品牌评价的影响不同,在参与品牌间适应性显著的情况下,它很难对合作伙伴的评价产生影响,如果参与品牌间的合作不是那么深入(如联合促销),它对品牌联盟评价的影响也不会很大,但是当其它品牌联盟和品牌评价的影响因素强度较弱时(如参与品牌间适应性较弱),熟悉度的影响就变得显著了。因此,一个联合促销决策应尽力寻求一个知名的合作伙伴,但是一个联合产品开发决策,可以选择一个消费者熟悉的品牌,在远延伸的情况下,这种合作甚至更有效。
结构模型结果的分析显示,品牌脆弱性、顾客感知利益、延伸产品适应度与品牌态度之间存在强烈的交互作用,在这种作用存在的情况下,它们对品牌联盟评价的直接影响是不显著的,因此在分析品牌联盟评价的直接影响因素时似乎不用考虑它们。其次,参与品牌间的产品适应度与顾客感知利益间存在交互影响,由于这种影响的存在,产品适应度对品牌联盟评价的影响可能不像品牌适应度对品牌联盟评价的影响那么显著。这种结果暗示,在建立品牌联盟时,最重要的影响因素就是消费者对参与品牌的态度评价,其次是品牌适应度和产品适应度,管理者应该首先考虑寻找一个具有良好品牌形象的合作伙伴,然后再考虑选择一个适应性较强的品牌,其它相关因素可能都是次要的,至少是可以通过较短时间的营销活动进行弥补的,而品牌态度和品牌形象的塑造则是一个长期的艰难的历程。
品牌联盟的研究目前还处于静态比较研究阶段,缺乏时间维度的动态分析,许多研究者指出,时间维度的纵向研究对于分析品牌联盟的效果是极其重要的。本文试图转入一个长期的动态研究,说明长期内企业坚持不懈的品牌联盟努力是有效的,持续的进行品牌联盟在长期内是一个有效的战略。从动态和长期的角度来看,品牌联盟的最终目的是通过品牌联盟活动来提升对参与品牌的评价。本文利用Kauffman(1993)提出的生物学NK模型分析了品牌联盟战略相对独立品牌开发战略是否是一个更好的战略,研究中考虑了三个影响因素一消费者“认可的异质性协同”(RHS,Recognized heterogeneity synergies)、行业区别和复杂性,分析了它们对提升消费者对参与品牌的评价的作用。RHS从适应性(Fit)引申而来,是定义模型演化规则的理论基础。因为不同行业的品牌联盟可能比同行业的品牌联盟“异质性”更强,需要分析它是否更加有效。“复杂性”来自NK模型或者更进一步说复杂系统理论,是NK模型研究的一个系统的关键影响因素,此外,这里的复杂性也指由于企业和市场的震动对品牌形象的影响。
NK模型的分析结果显示,行业区别对品牌联盟效果的影响并不显著,一个稍微复杂的品牌同行业的合作伙伴就存在充分的“异质性”,能够帮助品牌跳出局部高峰,因此在品牌形象较为复杂的情况下,异业品牌联盟和同业品牌联盟的效果几乎没有区别;在环境稳定的情况下,品牌联盟的策略是有效的,无论对于形象结构复杂还是简单的品牌,形象结构复杂的品牌在提升评价的过程中由于受到复杂性更多的限制,因此更愿意使用品牌联盟的策略;当来自企业的震荡使品牌形象特征被重新定义时,为了减弱冲击和迅速恢复品牌的市场影响力,应该尽力维持而不是取消一个品牌联盟;如果品牌面临着一个剧烈变化的市场,品牌形象复杂化可以增强品牌应对市场变化的能力,延长品牌生命周期,实现品牌投资的持续累积;同时,在一个快速变化的市场上,形象结构简单的品牌没有必要进行品牌联盟活动,而对形象结构复杂的品牌来说,品牌联盟仍然是一个有效的策略。
目前品牌联盟的研究尚需要解决一些基本的学术问题和管理问题。进一步的研究应该关注两个方向,一是影响品牌联盟评价的调节变量和情境变量,二是消费者评价品牌联盟及其参与品牌的心理模式和过程。理论研究中,应该更多的关注符号品牌联盟、继续探索适应性维度和从信息经济学角度更深入的解释品牌联盟现象;实证研究需要进行纵向的比较案例研究、分析品牌联盟的特有的评价问题以及品牌联盟与参与品牌之间的交互作用;实践领域,一个进行品牌联盟的企业可能要面对许多新的品牌管理问题。
Today the enterprises are facing three key issues: the complex and ever-changing consumer market, the increasingly fierce market competition and energy and environmental problems which bring the enterprises unprecedented challenges. In the complex and volatile environment, in order to meet the increasingly discerning consumers, the pressure of competition and mergers and acquisitions and the supervision of public opinion, brand alliance has been an effective competitive strategy to create interest and reduce risk which is one of the most important strategy choices for business investment decision-making. Brand alliance is defined "two or more brands are combined with tangible or intangible property". It aims to take full advantage of strength of several cooperation brands and raise consumer evaluation of products or services. As the possibility of failure for developing new brands continue to rise, brand alliance has become a popular marketing phenomena, and even the major business operation model. Nevertheless, the brand alliance still is a relatively new marketing strategy which is posited in the initial stage of the development and facing many basic issues in academic and management. However, with the brand management research has been revitalized, brand alliance has become a hot issue of brand research areas in recent years.
The thesis first introduces the background of the study and brand alliance research, and then analyzes the connotation, characteristics and Classification of brand alliance, also the factors which influence the evaluation of brand alliance. Then, on the basic of the factors and the existing evaluation model the thesis proposes a more comprehensive concept model framework of brand alliance evaluation and an empirical analysis tests the effects between variables. Based on this study, the thesis attempts to enter into a dynamic study. It applies the NK model of complex system analysis into brand alliance strategy and observes whether brand alliance strategy is effective in the long term. Finally, the conclusions, theoretical and practical significance, and further research directions are given.
The researchers are less than consistent with the definition of the brand alliance. There are also a variety of terms which describe brand cooperation. Brand alliance is essentially a cooperative marketing activity which involes not only physical resources but also intangible resourses. Their duration is different too. Different form strategy alliance brand alliance is an agreement of cooperation. Generally there will be at least one well-known brand to participate in it. The participants must have a similar customer base. The brand alliance has to create value for customers. The effects which the brand alliance imposes on the participating brands are different. The intent to classify brand alliance activities of most researchers is in need of research goals or to get a better unstanding of characteristics of brand alliances. The thesis identifies several classification models. Signal theory is most used for analyzing brand alliance phenomenon, as well as association network theory, situation theory, information integration theory and so on. The factors which influence the evaluation of brand alliance and appear in the literature include prior brand attitude, fitness and familiarity.
In the concept model framework, we believe that familiarity and well-known are different concepts. We also add several new variables - vulnerability, customer perceived interest and extension fitness and analyze the direct effect to brand alliance and the interaction between each other. The brand cooperation between communication service providers and cell phone manufactures is chosen in study design. We construct three experiment scenes. The first scene describes a joint promotion where mobile communication service providers assist mobile phone brand in product sale. The second scene describes cooperation for developing new products. The mobile communication service provider makes hope to develop mobile phone with an existing brand manufacture. The third scene is familiar with the second scene, but the cooperation brand is fixed communication service provider and a mobile phone manufacture. In the third scene the complementarities and extension fitness is lower than in the second scene.
The result show that well-known and familiarity are different. The well-known brand has a significant effect to evaluation of brand alliance and participants under any condition. However, when the fitness between participants is high, brand familiarity will only influence its own post evaluation but not the partner. On the other hand, in a scene of conjoint promotion, brand familiarity does not influence brand alliance evaluation significantly. But in a scene of product development, brand familiarity influence the evaluation of brand alliance significantly. In addition, when the fitness between participants is low, brand familiarity influences the evaluation of not only brand alliance but also participants. The results suggest that well-known is a variable that influences the evaluation of brand alliance and participants under any condition, but familiarity has different effect to brand alliance and participants under different scenes. When the fitness between participants is high, it's difficult for familiarity to influence the evaluation of the partner. If cooperation is not so in-depth(such as joint promotions) , it's hard to influence the evaluation of brand alliance. But when the influence of other variables is low (such as fitness between participants) , the effect of familiarity become significant. Therefore, the enterprise that is making a decision of joint promotion should make every effort to find a well-known partner, but the enterprise that is making a decision of product development maybe chooses a familiarity brand and the cooperation is even more effective in a far extension.
The results of the structure models show that there are strong interactions between brand vulnerability, customer perceived interest, extended product fitness and brand attitude respectively. When the interactions exist, they don't influence the evaluation of brand alliance significantly. When analyzing the direct effect to brand alliance, it seems that they don't have to be considered. Secondly, there is an interaction between product fit and customer perceived interest so that the effect product fit to the evaluation of brand alliance is less significant than brand fit. Such results suggest that when establishing brand alliance, the most important issue is attitude evaluation of participants, followed by brand fit and product fit. Managers should first consider looking for a partner with good image then brand fit and product fit between participants. Others may be secondary, at least could be covered by marketing actions in a shorter time. It's a difficult course to develop brand attitude and image for a long time.
The most of research about brand alliance is comparative static which don't include the time dimension. Many researchers suggest the longitudinal study involving the time dimension is extremely important to analyze the effect of brand alliance. The thesis attempts to turn into a long-term dynamic research and demonstrate that the tireless effort of brand alliance will be effective. The sustained action of brand alliance is an effective strategy in the long run. From the view of the dynamic and long-term point, the ultimate goal of brand alliance is to improve the evaluation of participants. We apply NK model of biology created by Kauffman(1993) into the analysis of brand alliance to find whether brand alliance is an effective strategy in the long run, relative to independent development strategy. The study involves three variables - consumer "recognized heterogeneity of synergies (RHS) , the industry distinction and complexity and analyze their effect to enhance the consumer evaluation of participants. RHS is derived from fit which is the theory basis for defining evolution rules. Because "heterogeneity" of cooperation between enterprises in different industries is stronger than the identical industry, it's meaningful to test whether the former is more effective. "Complexity" origins from the NK model or further complex system theory, it's a key variable to affect system in NK model. In addition, here it also means the impact due to shock of the enterprise and brand image.
The results from the NK model simulation show that the industry distinction effect of brand alliance evaluation is not significant; "Heterogeneity" of a slightly complicated brand is sufficient which can help the brand jump out of local peaks. So only if a brand image is complicated enough, the effect of brand alliance between the enterprises in different industries is not different significantly with the identical industry. When the environment is stable, the brand alliance strategy is effective regardless of simple or complex image structure. The brand with complex image structure is more willing to apply brand alliance strategy due to the more restrictions from complexity. When the brand image is redefined due to enterprise shock, we should make every effort to maintain but not remove a brand alliance in order to weaken the impact and quickly revive the brand market influence. If the brand is facing a market with dramatic changes, the complex brand image can enhance the brand ability to deal with these changes, extend the life cycle of the brand and accumulate brand equity. At the same time, in a rapidly changing market, it is not necessary for the brand with the simple image structure to develop a brand alliance. But it's an effective strategy for the brand with the complex image structure.
Currently, the research of brand alliance still has to address some basic academic and management issues. Further research should be concerned about the two directions. The first is the moderator and condition variables that influence the evaluation of brand alliance and the second, is applied psychological model and process by consumers when they are evaluating the brand alliance and participants. As far as theory study, more attention should be given symbolic brand alliance, continue to explore the dimensions of fit and get more in-depth understanding of brand alliance from information economics. We need more empirical research about longitudinal comparative case studies, the unique problems for evaluating brand alliance and the interaction between the brand alliance and participants. Practically, when an enterprise makes a decision of brand alliance, managers will find they are facing many new brand management issues.
论文首先简要介绍了研究的背景,对品牌联盟研究进行了概述,然后分析了品牌联盟战略的内涵、特征和类型,以及影响品牌联盟评价的各种可能因素。其后,在影响因素分析和参考已有模型的基础上,提出了一个较为完整的品牌联盟评价的概念模型框架,并通过实证分析检验了相关变量之间的影响效果。在此研究的基础上,本文进入一个尝试性的动态研究,引入复杂系统中的NK模型来分析品牌联盟战略在长期内的有效性如何。最后,概括总结了相应的研究结论,讨论了研究的理论和实践意义,以及进一步的研究方向。
研究者们给出的品牌联盟定义不尽一致,其术语也存在多种表述形式,但品牌联盟本质上是一种合作性的营销活动,合作的内容既包含有形资源也包含无形资源,期限的长短也各不相同。品牌联盟不同于战略联盟,它是一种协议性的合作,一般至少会有一个知名品牌参加,合作双方必须有共同的客户基础,能为顾客创造价值,各个参与品牌在品牌联盟活动中受到的影响是不均衡的。学者们对品牌联盟的分类也没有统一的意见,大多是为了研究需要或更好的理解品牌联盟的特征,本文列出了几类较为完善的分类模式。目前用于品牌联盟分析的理论主要是信号理论,其它也包括如联想网络理论、情境理论、信息整合理论等,文献中出现的品牌联盟评价的影响因素主要包括品牌事前态度、适应性和熟悉度等。
在概念模型框架中,本文区分了熟悉度和知名度两个不同的概念,同时相对以前的研究添加了几个新的变量一脆弱性、顾客感知利益和延伸适应度,分析了它们对品牌联盟及其参与品牌评价的直接影响效果和相互之间的交互作用。研究设计选择了通信品牌厂商与手机品牌厂商的合作形式,构建了3个实验场景,第1个场景为联合促销,即移动通信品牌配合手机品牌进行手机产品的促销;第2个场景为产品开发,即移动运营品牌厂商希望开发手机产品,寻求与一个现有的手机品牌厂商进行合作;场景3同样分析了一个手机产品开发合作,不过合作的双方是固网通信厂商与手机厂商。场景3和场景2的不同之处在于合作双方的产品互补性和主导品牌的延伸适应性较低。
研究结果表明,知名度和熟悉度是两个不同含义的概念,品牌知名度无论在何种条件下都对品牌联盟和参与品牌的评价有显著的影响。但是,在一个参与品牌产品适应性较强的场景中,品牌的熟悉度只会影响到自身的事后评价,而不会影响合作伙伴;另一方面,在联合促销场景中,品牌熟悉度对品牌联盟的评价不存在显著的影响,但是在产品开发场景中,品牌熟悉度对品牌联盟存在显著的影响;此外,在参与品牌产品适应性较弱的场景中,品牌熟悉度既对品牌联盟的评价有显著的影响,也对各个参与品牌的评价有显著的影响。研究结果暗示,知名度无论在何种场景下都是一个显著影响品牌联盟评价和参与品牌评价的变量,而熟悉度在不同的场景下对品牌联盟及其参与品牌评价的影响不同,在参与品牌间适应性显著的情况下,它很难对合作伙伴的评价产生影响,如果参与品牌间的合作不是那么深入(如联合促销),它对品牌联盟评价的影响也不会很大,但是当其它品牌联盟和品牌评价的影响因素强度较弱时(如参与品牌间适应性较弱),熟悉度的影响就变得显著了。因此,一个联合促销决策应尽力寻求一个知名的合作伙伴,但是一个联合产品开发决策,可以选择一个消费者熟悉的品牌,在远延伸的情况下,这种合作甚至更有效。
结构模型结果的分析显示,品牌脆弱性、顾客感知利益、延伸产品适应度与品牌态度之间存在强烈的交互作用,在这种作用存在的情况下,它们对品牌联盟评价的直接影响是不显著的,因此在分析品牌联盟评价的直接影响因素时似乎不用考虑它们。其次,参与品牌间的产品适应度与顾客感知利益间存在交互影响,由于这种影响的存在,产品适应度对品牌联盟评价的影响可能不像品牌适应度对品牌联盟评价的影响那么显著。这种结果暗示,在建立品牌联盟时,最重要的影响因素就是消费者对参与品牌的态度评价,其次是品牌适应度和产品适应度,管理者应该首先考虑寻找一个具有良好品牌形象的合作伙伴,然后再考虑选择一个适应性较强的品牌,其它相关因素可能都是次要的,至少是可以通过较短时间的营销活动进行弥补的,而品牌态度和品牌形象的塑造则是一个长期的艰难的历程。
品牌联盟的研究目前还处于静态比较研究阶段,缺乏时间维度的动态分析,许多研究者指出,时间维度的纵向研究对于分析品牌联盟的效果是极其重要的。本文试图转入一个长期的动态研究,说明长期内企业坚持不懈的品牌联盟努力是有效的,持续的进行品牌联盟在长期内是一个有效的战略。从动态和长期的角度来看,品牌联盟的最终目的是通过品牌联盟活动来提升对参与品牌的评价。本文利用Kauffman(1993)提出的生物学NK模型分析了品牌联盟战略相对独立品牌开发战略是否是一个更好的战略,研究中考虑了三个影响因素一消费者“认可的异质性协同”(RHS,Recognized heterogeneity synergies)、行业区别和复杂性,分析了它们对提升消费者对参与品牌的评价的作用。RHS从适应性(Fit)引申而来,是定义模型演化规则的理论基础。因为不同行业的品牌联盟可能比同行业的品牌联盟“异质性”更强,需要分析它是否更加有效。“复杂性”来自NK模型或者更进一步说复杂系统理论,是NK模型研究的一个系统的关键影响因素,此外,这里的复杂性也指由于企业和市场的震动对品牌形象的影响。
NK模型的分析结果显示,行业区别对品牌联盟效果的影响并不显著,一个稍微复杂的品牌同行业的合作伙伴就存在充分的“异质性”,能够帮助品牌跳出局部高峰,因此在品牌形象较为复杂的情况下,异业品牌联盟和同业品牌联盟的效果几乎没有区别;在环境稳定的情况下,品牌联盟的策略是有效的,无论对于形象结构复杂还是简单的品牌,形象结构复杂的品牌在提升评价的过程中由于受到复杂性更多的限制,因此更愿意使用品牌联盟的策略;当来自企业的震荡使品牌形象特征被重新定义时,为了减弱冲击和迅速恢复品牌的市场影响力,应该尽力维持而不是取消一个品牌联盟;如果品牌面临着一个剧烈变化的市场,品牌形象复杂化可以增强品牌应对市场变化的能力,延长品牌生命周期,实现品牌投资的持续累积;同时,在一个快速变化的市场上,形象结构简单的品牌没有必要进行品牌联盟活动,而对形象结构复杂的品牌来说,品牌联盟仍然是一个有效的策略。
目前品牌联盟的研究尚需要解决一些基本的学术问题和管理问题。进一步的研究应该关注两个方向,一是影响品牌联盟评价的调节变量和情境变量,二是消费者评价品牌联盟及其参与品牌的心理模式和过程。理论研究中,应该更多的关注符号品牌联盟、继续探索适应性维度和从信息经济学角度更深入的解释品牌联盟现象;实证研究需要进行纵向的比较案例研究、分析品牌联盟的特有的评价问题以及品牌联盟与参与品牌之间的交互作用;实践领域,一个进行品牌联盟的企业可能要面对许多新的品牌管理问题。
Today the enterprises are facing three key issues: the complex and ever-changing consumer market, the increasingly fierce market competition and energy and environmental problems which bring the enterprises unprecedented challenges. In the complex and volatile environment, in order to meet the increasingly discerning consumers, the pressure of competition and mergers and acquisitions and the supervision of public opinion, brand alliance has been an effective competitive strategy to create interest and reduce risk which is one of the most important strategy choices for business investment decision-making. Brand alliance is defined "two or more brands are combined with tangible or intangible property". It aims to take full advantage of strength of several cooperation brands and raise consumer evaluation of products or services. As the possibility of failure for developing new brands continue to rise, brand alliance has become a popular marketing phenomena, and even the major business operation model. Nevertheless, the brand alliance still is a relatively new marketing strategy which is posited in the initial stage of the development and facing many basic issues in academic and management. However, with the brand management research has been revitalized, brand alliance has become a hot issue of brand research areas in recent years.
The thesis first introduces the background of the study and brand alliance research, and then analyzes the connotation, characteristics and Classification of brand alliance, also the factors which influence the evaluation of brand alliance. Then, on the basic of the factors and the existing evaluation model the thesis proposes a more comprehensive concept model framework of brand alliance evaluation and an empirical analysis tests the effects between variables. Based on this study, the thesis attempts to enter into a dynamic study. It applies the NK model of complex system analysis into brand alliance strategy and observes whether brand alliance strategy is effective in the long term. Finally, the conclusions, theoretical and practical significance, and further research directions are given.
The researchers are less than consistent with the definition of the brand alliance. There are also a variety of terms which describe brand cooperation. Brand alliance is essentially a cooperative marketing activity which involes not only physical resources but also intangible resourses. Their duration is different too. Different form strategy alliance brand alliance is an agreement of cooperation. Generally there will be at least one well-known brand to participate in it. The participants must have a similar customer base. The brand alliance has to create value for customers. The effects which the brand alliance imposes on the participating brands are different. The intent to classify brand alliance activities of most researchers is in need of research goals or to get a better unstanding of characteristics of brand alliances. The thesis identifies several classification models. Signal theory is most used for analyzing brand alliance phenomenon, as well as association network theory, situation theory, information integration theory and so on. The factors which influence the evaluation of brand alliance and appear in the literature include prior brand attitude, fitness and familiarity.
In the concept model framework, we believe that familiarity and well-known are different concepts. We also add several new variables - vulnerability, customer perceived interest and extension fitness and analyze the direct effect to brand alliance and the interaction between each other. The brand cooperation between communication service providers and cell phone manufactures is chosen in study design. We construct three experiment scenes. The first scene describes a joint promotion where mobile communication service providers assist mobile phone brand in product sale. The second scene describes cooperation for developing new products. The mobile communication service provider makes hope to develop mobile phone with an existing brand manufacture. The third scene is familiar with the second scene, but the cooperation brand is fixed communication service provider and a mobile phone manufacture. In the third scene the complementarities and extension fitness is lower than in the second scene.
The result show that well-known and familiarity are different. The well-known brand has a significant effect to evaluation of brand alliance and participants under any condition. However, when the fitness between participants is high, brand familiarity will only influence its own post evaluation but not the partner. On the other hand, in a scene of conjoint promotion, brand familiarity does not influence brand alliance evaluation significantly. But in a scene of product development, brand familiarity influence the evaluation of brand alliance significantly. In addition, when the fitness between participants is low, brand familiarity influences the evaluation of not only brand alliance but also participants. The results suggest that well-known is a variable that influences the evaluation of brand alliance and participants under any condition, but familiarity has different effect to brand alliance and participants under different scenes. When the fitness between participants is high, it's difficult for familiarity to influence the evaluation of the partner. If cooperation is not so in-depth(such as joint promotions) , it's hard to influence the evaluation of brand alliance. But when the influence of other variables is low (such as fitness between participants) , the effect of familiarity become significant. Therefore, the enterprise that is making a decision of joint promotion should make every effort to find a well-known partner, but the enterprise that is making a decision of product development maybe chooses a familiarity brand and the cooperation is even more effective in a far extension.
The results of the structure models show that there are strong interactions between brand vulnerability, customer perceived interest, extended product fitness and brand attitude respectively. When the interactions exist, they don't influence the evaluation of brand alliance significantly. When analyzing the direct effect to brand alliance, it seems that they don't have to be considered. Secondly, there is an interaction between product fit and customer perceived interest so that the effect product fit to the evaluation of brand alliance is less significant than brand fit. Such results suggest that when establishing brand alliance, the most important issue is attitude evaluation of participants, followed by brand fit and product fit. Managers should first consider looking for a partner with good image then brand fit and product fit between participants. Others may be secondary, at least could be covered by marketing actions in a shorter time. It's a difficult course to develop brand attitude and image for a long time.
The most of research about brand alliance is comparative static which don't include the time dimension. Many researchers suggest the longitudinal study involving the time dimension is extremely important to analyze the effect of brand alliance. The thesis attempts to turn into a long-term dynamic research and demonstrate that the tireless effort of brand alliance will be effective. The sustained action of brand alliance is an effective strategy in the long run. From the view of the dynamic and long-term point, the ultimate goal of brand alliance is to improve the evaluation of participants. We apply NK model of biology created by Kauffman(1993) into the analysis of brand alliance to find whether brand alliance is an effective strategy in the long run, relative to independent development strategy. The study involves three variables - consumer "recognized heterogeneity of synergies (RHS) , the industry distinction and complexity and analyze their effect to enhance the consumer evaluation of participants. RHS is derived from fit which is the theory basis for defining evolution rules. Because "heterogeneity" of cooperation between enterprises in different industries is stronger than the identical industry, it's meaningful to test whether the former is more effective. "Complexity" origins from the NK model or further complex system theory, it's a key variable to affect system in NK model. In addition, here it also means the impact due to shock of the enterprise and brand image.
The results from the NK model simulation show that the industry distinction effect of brand alliance evaluation is not significant; "Heterogeneity" of a slightly complicated brand is sufficient which can help the brand jump out of local peaks. So only if a brand image is complicated enough, the effect of brand alliance between the enterprises in different industries is not different significantly with the identical industry. When the environment is stable, the brand alliance strategy is effective regardless of simple or complex image structure. The brand with complex image structure is more willing to apply brand alliance strategy due to the more restrictions from complexity. When the brand image is redefined due to enterprise shock, we should make every effort to maintain but not remove a brand alliance in order to weaken the impact and quickly revive the brand market influence. If the brand is facing a market with dramatic changes, the complex brand image can enhance the brand ability to deal with these changes, extend the life cycle of the brand and accumulate brand equity. At the same time, in a rapidly changing market, it is not necessary for the brand with the simple image structure to develop a brand alliance. But it's an effective strategy for the brand with the complex image structure.
Currently, the research of brand alliance still has to address some basic academic and management issues. Further research should be concerned about the two directions. The first is the moderator and condition variables that influence the evaluation of brand alliance and the second, is applied psychological model and process by consumers when they are evaluating the brand alliance and participants. As far as theory study, more attention should be given symbolic brand alliance, continue to explore the dimensions of fit and get more in-depth understanding of brand alliance from information economics. We need more empirical research about longitudinal comparative case studies, the unique problems for evaluating brand alliance and the interaction between the brand alliance and participants. Practically, when an enterprise makes a decision of brand alliance, managers will find they are facing many new brand management issues.
引文
1 可以参考Cohen和Murphy的论述。参见Cohen,B.,& Murphy,G.L.Models of concepts.Cognitive Scienee,1984,8,27-58.
1 Blackett和Rusell直接将品牌联盟定义为知名品牌之间的合作活动。参见Blackett T,Bob B.Co-branding:The science of alliance.Basingstoke[M].UK:Macmillan Business,1999.
2 Intel通过广告费用返还的方式促使PC厂商在产品表面附加“intel inside”的标志。
1 这些文献如Aaker和Keller,1990;Boush和Loken,1991;Boush et al.1987;Park,Milberg和Lawson,1990。
1 对于声誉背书的研究可以参考Kamins,1990;Lynch和Schuler,1994;Misra和Beatty,1990;Till和Busler,2000。
2 关于赞助活动的研究可以参考Dean,1999;Gwinner和Eaton,1999;Stipp和Schiavone,1996。
3 这方面的研究可以参考Javalai,Traylor,Gross和Lampman,1994;Lynch和Schuler,1994。
4 对这一问题的研究请参考Chaiken,Liberman和Eagly,1989;Petty和Cacioppo,1981,1986。
1.Paul F.Nunes,Stephen F.Dull,Patrick D.Lynch.品牌联合:创造附加值的重要手段[J].通信企业管理,2003,(7):56-59.
2.范秀成,张彤宇.论跨国公司的联合品牌战略[J].外国经济与管理,2003,25(9):2-6,18.
3.关忠诚,程刚.联合品牌战略研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2006,12(2):38-43.
4.黄江松.你的品牌联合了吗?[J]经营与管理,2004,(1):38-39.
5.贾昌荣,邓炯.联合品牌:是策略,更是战略[J].企业研究,2004,(3):33-36.
6.李轶敏.营销新趋势—联合促销[J].经济师,2005,(10):191-192.
7.刘继山.联合促销的范式与规则[J].邯郸职业技术学院学报,2002,15(2):76-78.
8.马绝尘.联合促销:挡不住的营销新趋势[J].企业管理,2002,(4):52-54.
9.毛瑞锋.品牌联合之路[J].企业管理,2003,(4):43-45.
10.宁昌会.品牌联合的前置因素和溢出效应分析[J].财贸经济,2006,(8):87-89.
11.邱得斌.联合促销:长袖善舞两相宜[J].公关世界,2003,(4):32-34.
12.邵劼,任淑华.浅析联合促销[J].商场现代化,2006,(22):201.
13.魏丽坤.品牌联盟:中国零售业品牌战略的新选择[J].江苏商论,2006,(5):23-24.
14.魏然.牵手联合促销的全攻略[J].企业改革与管理,2004,(8):64-65.
15.文书生.试论品牌联合广告策略[J].商业研究,2000,(7):146-148.
16.许基南.联合品牌[J].江西财经大学学报,2005,4(4):38-41.
17.叶尚仲.品牌联合,共谋发展[J].现代涂料与涂装,2006,(12):52.
18.余旭辉.借品牌联合“美国化”[J].21世纪商业评论,2006,(7):24-25.
19.原永丹,董大海,刘瑞明,金玉芳.品牌联合的研究进展[J].管理学报,2007,4(2):243-248.
20.张怡跃.企业战略联盟的品牌效应分析[J].四川理工学院学报(社会科学版),2006,21(6):77-79,89.
21.Aaker D A,Keller K L.Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions[J].Journal of Marketing,1990,54(1):27-41.
22. Aaker D A. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name [M]. New York: Free Press, 1991.
23. Aaker DA. Building Strong Brands [M]. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
24. Aaker D A. Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets [J]. California Management Review, 1996,38 (3): 102-120.
25. Aaker D A, Joachimsthalaer E. A. The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the brand architecture challenge [J]. California Management Review, 2000, 42 (4) : 8-23.
26. Adams W J, Janet L Y. Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1976,90 (August) : 475-98.
27. Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis [M]. New York: Wiley, 1996.
28. Ahluwalia R, Burnkrant R E, Unnava H R. Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2000,37:203-214.
29. Akerlof G A. The Market for 'Lemons': Quality under Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970, 84 (August) : 488-500.
30. Alba J W, Amitava C. The Effects of Context and Part-Category Cues on the Recall of Competing Brands [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1985, 22 (August) : 340-349.
31. Alba J W, Wesley J H. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1987,13 (4) : 411-435.
32. Anderson J C, David W G. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach [J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103 (May) : 411-423.
33. Andreasen A R. Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Partner [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1996,74 (6) : 47-59.
34. Anderson J C, Hakansson H, Johanson J. Dyadic business relationships within a business network context [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1994, 59 (October) : 1-15.
35. Anderson J R. A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1983,22 (3) : 261-295.
36. Arend M. Card association weighs co-branding merits [J]. ABA Banking Journal, 1992,84 (9) : 84-86.
37. Areni C S. The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2003, 20: 349-375.
38. Ashforth B E, Mael F A. Social identity theory and the organization [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1989,14 (1) : 20-39.
39. Bagozzi R P, Burnkrant R E. Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior relationship [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37:913-929.
40. Baker S M, James B F, Victor S. Perceptions of University-Corporate Partnership Influences on a Brand [J]. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 2005, 13 (Spring) : 32-46.
41. Balmer J M. Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing [J]. Journal of Marketing Management, 1998,14 (8) : 963-996.
42. Balmer J M. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing -Seeing through the fog [J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2001, 35 (3) : 248-291.
43. Balmer J M, Greyser S A. Managing the multiple identities of the corporation [J]. California Management Review, 2002,44 (3) : 72-86.
44. Baloglu S. Dimensions of customer loyalty [J]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 2002,43 (1) : 47-59.
45. Barney J A, Hansen M H. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15 (5) : 175-190.
46. Batra R, Ahtola O T. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes [J]. Marketing Letters, 1990,2:159-170.
47. Baumgarth C. Evaluations of Co-Brands and Spillover-Effects: Further Empirical Results [J]. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2004,10 (2) : 115-131.
48. Beatty S E, Lynn R K. Alternative Hierarchies of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: The Impact of Brand Commitment and Habit [J]. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 1988,16 (summer) : 1-10.
49. Bengtsson A. Consumers and mixed-brands: On the polysemy of brand meaning [M]. Lund: Lund Business Press, 2002.
50. Bengtsson A, Servais P. Co-branding on industrial markets [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2005,34 (7) : 706-713.
51. Blackett T, Bob B. Co-branding: The science of alliance. Basingstoke [M]. UK: Macmillan Business, 1999.
52. Bliss M. Co-branding in Europe [J]. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 1996,14 (6) : 36-40.
53. Boo H C, Mattila A. A hotel-restaurant brand alliance model: Antecedents and consequences [J]. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 2002,5(2): 5-24.
54. Bock R D, Bargmann R E. Analysis of covariance structures [J]. Psychometrika, 1966,31:507-534.
55. Boone J M. Hotel-restaurant co-branding - a preliminary study [J]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 1997, 38 (5) : 34-43.
56. Boulding W, Kirmani A. A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: Do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? [J] Journal of Consumer Research, 1993,20:111-123.
57. Boush D M, Loken B. A Process Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluations [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1991,28 (February) : 16-28.
58. Broniarczyk S M, Joseph W A. The Importance of the brand in Brand Extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31(2): 214-228.
59. Brown T J, Peter A D. The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1997,61 (1) : 68-84.
60. Bucklin L P, Sanjit S. Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1993, 57 (April) : 32-46.
61. Cooke S, Paul R. Brand Alliances: From Reputation Endorsement to Collaboration on Core Competences [J]. Irish Marketing Review, 2000, 13 (2) : 36-41.
62. Coulter K S. An examination of qualitative vs. quantitative elaboration likelihood effects [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2005,22: 31-49.
63. Crimmins J, Horn M. Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing success [J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 1996,36 (4) : 11-21.
64. Dacin P A, Smith D C. The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31 (2) : 229-242.
65. Dawar N, Philip P. Marketing Universals: Consumers' Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1994,58 (2) : 81-95
66. Day G S. A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty [J]. Journal of Advertising Research. 1969, 9 (1) : 29-35.
67. Dean D H. Brand endorsement, popularity, and event sponsorship as advertising cues affecting consumer pre-purchase attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 1999, 28 (3): 1-12.
68. Desai K K, Kevin L K. The Effects of Ingredient Branding Strategies on Host Brand Extendibility [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2002,66 (January) : 73-93.
69. Dick A S, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework [J]. Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, 1994.22 (2) : 99-113.
70. Eisenhardt K M. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review [J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1989,14 (1) : 57-74.
71. Elliot R, Wattanasuwan K. Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity [J]. International Journal of Advertising, 1998,17 (2) : 131-144.
72. Erdem T, Joffre S. Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1998,7 (2) : 131-158.
73. Erickson G M, Johny K J, Paul C. Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1984, 11 (September) : 694-699.
74. Faircloth J B, Capella L M, Alford B L. The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity [J]. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 2001,9 (3) : 61-76.
75. Fazio R H, Carol J W. Attitude Accessibility as a Moderator of the Attitude-Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relations: An Investigation of the 1984 Presidential Elections [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51 (September) : 505-514.
76. Folkes V S, Kotsos B. Buyers' and sellers' explanations for product failures: Who done it [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1986,50 (April) : 74-80.
77. Ford D. Development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets [J]. European Journal of Marketing, 1980,14 (5) : 339-353.
78. Foumier S. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1998, 24 (March) : 343-373.
79. Fournier S. Special session summary, consumer resistance: Societal motivations, consumer manifestations, and implications in the marketing domain [J]. Advances in Consumer Research, 1998,25: 88-90.
80. Gaeth G J, Irwin P L. Goutam C, Aron M L. Consumer Evaluation of Multi- Product Bundles: An Information Integration Analysis [J]. Marketing Letters, 1990,2 (1) : 47-57.
81. Gammoh B, Kevin E V, Goutam C. Consumer Evaluation of Brand Alliance Signals [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2006,23 (6) : 465-486.
82. Goldsmith R E, Lafferty B A, Newell S J. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands [J]. Journal of Advertisement, 2000,29 (3) : 43-54.
83. Grossman R P. Co-branding in advertising: Developing effective associations [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1997,6 (3) : 191-201.
84. Guiltinan J P. The Price Bundling of Services: A Normative Framework [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1987,51 (April) : 74-85.
85. Gorhan-Canli Z, Durairaj M. Cultural Variations in Country of Origin Effects [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2000,37 (August) : 309-317.
86. Gwinner K P, Eaton J. Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer [J]. Journal of Advertising, 1999,28 (4) : 47-57.
87. Hahm S, Khan M A. Co-branding strategy in the restaurant industry [J]. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 2001, 8 (1) : 45-61.
88. Hallowell R. The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and probability: an empirical study [J]. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1996,7 (4) : 27-42.
89. Han CM. Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? [J] Journal of Marketing Research, 1989,26 (May) : 222-229.
90. Hariam B A, Aradhna K, Donald R L, Carl M. Impact of Bundle Type, Price Framing and Familiarity on Purchase Intention for the Bundle [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1995, 33 (May) : 57-66.
91. Hatch M J, Schultz M. Bringing the corporation into corporate branding [J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2003,37 (7) : 1041-1064.
92. Herr P M, Sherman S J, Fazio R H. On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects [J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1983, 19: 323-340.
93. Hillyer C, Tikoo S. Effect of cobranding on consumer product evaluations [J]. Advances in Consumer Research, 1995,22: 123-127.
94. Hoeffler S, Keller K L. Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing [J]. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2002, 21 (Spring) : 78- 89.
95. Holstrom B. Moral Hazard and Observability [J]. Bell Journal of Economics, 1979,10 (Spring) : 74-91.
96. Hong S T, Robert S W. Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1989,16 (September) : 175-187.
97. Hong S T, Robert S W. Determinants of Product Evaluation: Effects of the Tim Interval between Knowledge of a Product's Country of Origin and Information about Its Specific Attributes [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990, 17 (December) : 277-288.
98. Jacoby J. A model of multi-brand loyalty [J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 1971.11 (3) : 25-31.
99. Jacoby J, Kyner D B. Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1973,10 (February) : 1-9.
100. Joreskog K G. A general method for analysis of covariance structures [J]. Biometrika, 1970,57:239-251.
101. Joreskog K G. Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices [J]. Psychometrika, 1978,43: 443-477.
102. Javalgi R G, Traylor M B, Gross A C, Lampman E. Awareness of sponsorship and corporate image: An empirical investigation [J]. Journal of Advertising, 1994, 23 (4) : 47-58.
103. John D R, Loken B, Joiner C. The negative impact of extensions: Can flagship products be diluted? [J] Journal of Marketing, 1998,62 (1) : 19-32.
104. Johnson E J, Russo J E. Product familiarity and learning new information [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1984,11 (1) : 542-550.
105. Kapferer J N. Strategic Brand Management [M]. London: Kogan Page, 1997.
106. Kauffman S. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. [M] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
107. Keller K L, Aaker D A. The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1992,29:35-50.
108. Keller K L. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1993, 57 (January) : 1-22.
109. Keller K L. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.
110. Keller K L. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2003,29: 595-600.
111. Kirmani A. The Effect of Perceived Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990,17 (September) : 160-171.
112. Kirmani A, Rao A R. No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2000, 64: 66-79.
113. Klein B, Leffler K B. The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance [J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1981,89:615-641.
114. Krishnan H S. Characteristics of Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective [J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1996,13 (4) : 389-405.
115. Lafferty B A, Goldsmith R E, Hult G T M. The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2005,21: 509-531.
116. Lane V R. The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2000, 64 (2) : 80-91.
117. Lee D, Gopala G. Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image and familiarity: A categorization theory perspective [J]. International Marketing Review, 1999,16 (1) : 18-39.
118. Leuthesser L, Chiranjeev S K, Rajneesh S. 2+2 = 5? Framework for using cobranding to Leverage Your Brand [JJ. Journal of Brand Management, 2003, 11 (1) : 35-47.
119. Levin A M. Contrast and Assimilation Processes in Consumers' Evaluations of Dual Brands [J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2002, 17 (Fall) : 145-154.
120. Levin I P, Gary J G. How Consumers are affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1988, 15 (December) : 374-378.
121. Levin I P, Aron M L. Modeling the role of brand alliances in the assimilation of product evaluation [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2000, 9(1): 43-58.
122. Levinthal D A. Adaptation and rugged landscapes [J]. Management Science, 1997,43:934-950.
123. Li W K, Robert S W. The Role of Country of Origin in Product Evaluations: Informational and Standard-of-Comparison Effects [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1994,3 (2) : 187-212.
124. Loken B, John D R. Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact? [J] Journal of Marketing, 1993,57 (3) : 71-84.
125. Lorenzini B. The hotel restaurant revolution [J]. Restaurants & Institutions, 1995,105 (27) : 48-49,52,56,63.
126. Low G S, Fullerton R A. Brands, brand management, and the brand manager system: a critical-historical evaluation [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31 (May) : 173-190.
127. Lynch J, Schuler D. The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 1994, 11 (5) :417-445.
128. Lynch J G, Dipankar C, Anusree M. Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales? [J] Journal of Consumer Research, 1991,18 (3) : 284-297.
129. MacKenzie S B, Richard A S. How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central and Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions? [J] Journal of Consumer Research, 1992,18 (March) : 519-529.
130. Maheswaran D. Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994,21 (September) : 354-365.
131. Manis M, Nelson T E, Shedler J. Stereotypes and Social Judgments: Extremity Assimilation and Contrast [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 55 (July) : 28-36.
132. Marie-Helene A. An exploratory study on the impact of two ingredient branding strategies on the host brand. Cahier de recherche, 2005,4:17-30.
133. Martin L L, Seta J J, Crelia R A. Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort informing an impression [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990,59:27-37.
134. Martinez E, de Chernatony L. The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image [J]. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2004,21 (1) : 39-51.
135. McCarthy M S, Norris D G. Improving competitive position using branded ingredients [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1999, 8 (4) : 267-285.
136. McCracken G. Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1989, 16 (3) : 310-321.
137. Meister J C. The Latest in Corporate-College Partnerships [J]. Training & Development, 2003, 57 (10) : 52-59.
138. Meyers-Levy J, Sternthal B. A Two-Factor Explanation of Assimilation and Contrast Effects [J], Journal of Marketing Research, 1993, 30 (August) : 359-368.
139. Michell P, King J, Reast J. Brand values related to industrial products [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2001,30:415-425.
140. Milberg S J, Park C W, McCarthy M S. Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: The impact of alternative branding strategies [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1997, 6 (2) : 119-140.
141. Mishra D P, Jan B H, Stanton G C. Information Asymmetry and Levels of Agency Relationships [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1998, 35 (3) : 277-295.
142. Misra S, Beatty S E. Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of recall and affect [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1990,21 (2) : 159-173
143. Montgomery C A, Wernerfelt B. Risk Reduction and Umbrella Branding [J]. Journal of Business, 1992,65 (1) : 31-50.
144. Mudambi S, Doyle P, Wong V. An exploration of branding in industrial markets [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 1997,26:433-446.
145. Nelson D L, David J B, Nancy R G, Thomas A S, Vanessa M M. Implicit Memory: Effects of Network Size and Interconnectivity on Cued Recall [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1993, 19 (4) : 747-764.
146. Nevin J R, Michael H. Images as a Component of Attractiveness to Intra-Urban Shopping Areas [J]. Journal of Retailing, 1986, 56 (1) : 77-93.
147. Park C W, Jaworski B J, MacInnis D J. Strategic brand concept-image management [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1986, 50: 135-145.
148. Park C W, Sandra M, Robert L. Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product level similarity and brand concept consistency [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1991, 18 (3) : 185-193.
149. Park C W, Jun S Y, Shocker A D. Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1996,33 (November) : 453-466.
150. Park C W, Bernard J J, Deborah J M. Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1996,50: 621-635.
151. Park C W, Milberg S, Lawson R. Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product level similarity and brand concept consistency [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1996,18 (2) : 185-193.
152. Park J H, Zhang A. An empirical analysis of global airline alliances: Cases in North Atlantic markets [J]. Review of Industrial Organization, 2000, 16 (4) : 367-384.
153. Park W C, Parker V L. Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Biases and Heuristics [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1981,8 (2) : 223-230.
154. Park W C, Eashwer S I, Daniel C S. The Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of Store Environment and Time Available for Shopping [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1989, 15 (March) : 422-433.
155. Peter J P, Gilbert A, Churchill J, Tom J. Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1993, 19 (March) : 655-662.
156. Petroshius S M, Monroe K B. Effect of product-line pricing characteristics on product evaluations [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1987, 13 (March) : 511-519.
157. Petty R E, Cacioppo J T, Schumann D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1983,10:135-146.
158. Prince M, Davies M. Co-branding partners: What do they see in each other?[J] Business Horizons, 2002, (September) :51-55.
159. Raaijmakers J G W, Richard M S. Search of Associative Memory [J]. Psychological Review, 1981,88:93-134.
160. Rao A R, Ruekert R W. Brand alliances as signals of product quality [J]. Sloan Management Review, 1994,36 (1) : 87-97.
161. Rao A R, Qu L, Robert W R. Signaling unobservable quality through a brand ally [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1999,36:258-268.
162. Ratcliff R, Gail M. A Retrieval Theory of Priming in Memory [J]. Psychological Review, 1988,95 (3) : 385-408.
163. Ratneshwar S, Shelly C. Comprehension's Role in Persuasion: The Case of Its Moderating Effect on the Persuasive Impact of Sources Cues [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1991, 18 (June) : 52-62.
164. Reddy S K, Holak S L, Bhat S. To extend or not to extend: success determinants of brand extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31 ( May ): 243-262.
165. Richardson P S, Alan S D, Arun K J. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1994, 58 (4) : 28-36.
166. Roedder J D, Loken B, Joiner C. The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship Products Be Diluted? [J] Journal of Marketing, 1998, 62: 19-32.
167. Rooney J A. Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1995,4 (4) : 48-55.
168. Ruyter K, Wetzels M. The role of corporate image and extension similarity in service brand extensions [J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2000,21: 639-659.
169. Samu S H, Shanker K, Robert E S. Using advertising alliances for new product introduction: Interactions between product complementarity and promotional strategies [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1999,63 (1) : 57-74.
170. Sanbonmatsu D M, Kardes F R, Posavac S S, Houghton D C. Contextual influences on judgment based on limited information [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1997,69:251-264.
171. Schmidt B H, Dube L. Contextualized representations of brand extensions: are feature lists or frames the basic components of consumer cognition? [J] Marketing Letters, 1992,3 (2) : 115-126.
172. Schmitt B H. Contextual Priming of Visual Information in Advertisements. Psychology and Marketing, 1994, 11 (1) : 1-14.
173. Sharp B, Sharp A. Loyalty programs and their impact on repeat purchase loyalty patterns [J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1997, 14: 473-486.
174. Shimp T A, Stuart W E, Eagle W R. A Program of Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the Conditioned Stimulus and Context [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1991, 18 (June) : 1-12.
175. Simonin B L, Ruth J A. Bundling as a Strategy for the New Product Introduction: Effects on Consumer's Reservation Prices for the Bundle, the New Product and Its Ties-In [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1995,3 (3) : 219-230.
176. Simonin B L, Ruth J A. Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1998,35 (1) : 30-42.
177. Skowronski J J, Donal E C. Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in negativity, Positivity, and Extremity Biases [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987,52 (4) : 689-699.
178. Smith D C, Whan C P. The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1992, 19 (2) : 296-313.
179. Smith D C, Andrews J. Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers' evaluations of new products [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1995,23 (1) : 4-14.
180. Smith R E. Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1993,30 (May) : 204-219.
181. Speed R, Thompson P. Determinants of sports sponsorship response [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000,28 (2) : 226-238.
182. Spethmann B, Benezra K. Co-brand or be damned [J]. Brandweek, 1994, 35: 20-24.
183. Stafford T F, Leigh T W, Martin L L. Assimilation and Contrast Priming Effects in the Initial Consumer Sales Call. Psychology and Marketing, 1995,12 (July) : 321-347.
184. Stapel D A, Spears R. Event accessibility and context effects in causal inference: Judgment of a different order [J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996,22:979-992.
185. Stipp H, Schiavone N P. Modeling the impact of Olympic sponsorship on corporate image [J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 1996,36 (4) : 22-28.
186. Stuart T E. Network positions and propensities to collaborate - an investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43 (3) : 668-699.
187. Sujan M, Bettman J R. The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers' Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1989,26 (November) : 454-467.
188. Sullivan M. Measuring image spillovers in umbrella-branded products [J], Journal of Business, 1990,63: 309-329.
189. Thompson K E, Knox S D, Mitchell H G Business to business brand attributes in a changing purchasing environment [J]. Irish Marketing Review, 1997, 10 (2) : 25-32.
190. Till B D, Shimp T A. Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative celebrity information [J]. Journal of Advertising, 1998, 27: 67-82.
191. Till B D, Busier M. The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs [J]. Journal of Advertising, 2000,24 (3) : 1-13.
192. Vaidyanathan R, Aggarwal P. Strategic brand alliances: implications of ingredient branding for national and private label brands [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2000,9 (4) : 214-228
193. van Riel A C R, Lemmink F, Ouwersloot H. Consumer evaluations of service brand extensions [J]. Journal of Service Research, 2001,3 (3) : 220-231.
194. Varadarajan P R, Anil M. Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1988, 52 (3) : 58-74.
195. Voss K E, Patriya T. A Consumer Perspective on Foreign Market Entry: Building Brand through Brand Alliances [J]. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1999,11 (2) : 39-58.
196. Voss K E, Spangenberg E R, Grohmann B. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2003,40:310-320.
197. Voss K E, Gammoh B S. Building brands through brand alliances: Does a second ally help? [J] Marketing Letters, 2004,15: 147-159.
198. Voss K E, Eric R S, Bianca G. Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2003, 40 (August) : 310-320.
199. Washburn J H, Brian D T, Randi P. Co-Branding: Brand Equity and Trial Effects [J]. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2000, 17 (7) : 591-604.
200. Washburn J H, Till B D, Priluck R. Brand alliance and customer-based brand equity effects [J]. Psychology and Marketing, 2004,21 (7) : 487-508.
201. Webb J D, Corliss L G, Thomas G B. Development and Validation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Influencing Monetary Donations to Charitable Organizations [J]. Journal of Academy of Marketing Sciences, 2000,28 (2) : 299-309.
202. Webster F E, Keller K. A roadmap for branding in industrial markets [J]. Brand Management, 2004,11 (5) : 388-402.
203. Wedell D H, Parducci A, Geiselman R E. A Formal Analysis of Ratings of Physical Attractiveness: Successive Contrast and Simultaneous Assimilation [J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1987,23:230-249.
204. Wernerfelt B. Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signaling by Posting a Bond [J]. Journal of Economics, 1988, 19 (3) : 458-466.
205. Yadav M S, Kent B M. How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle's Transaction Value [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1993,30 (August) : 350-358.
206. Yadav M S. How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994,2 (September) : 342-353.
207. Yi Y. The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print Advertisements [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990,17 (September) : 215-22.
208. Young J A, Hoggatt C D, Paswan A K. Food service franchisors and their co-branding methods [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2001,10 (4) : 218-227.
1 Blackett和Rusell直接将品牌联盟定义为知名品牌之间的合作活动。参见Blackett T,Bob B.Co-branding:The science of alliance.Basingstoke[M].UK:Macmillan Business,1999.
2 Intel通过广告费用返还的方式促使PC厂商在产品表面附加“intel inside”的标志。
1 这些文献如Aaker和Keller,1990;Boush和Loken,1991;Boush et al.1987;Park,Milberg和Lawson,1990。
1 对于声誉背书的研究可以参考Kamins,1990;Lynch和Schuler,1994;Misra和Beatty,1990;Till和Busler,2000。
2 关于赞助活动的研究可以参考Dean,1999;Gwinner和Eaton,1999;Stipp和Schiavone,1996。
3 这方面的研究可以参考Javalai,Traylor,Gross和Lampman,1994;Lynch和Schuler,1994。
4 对这一问题的研究请参考Chaiken,Liberman和Eagly,1989;Petty和Cacioppo,1981,1986。
1.Paul F.Nunes,Stephen F.Dull,Patrick D.Lynch.品牌联合:创造附加值的重要手段[J].通信企业管理,2003,(7):56-59.
2.范秀成,张彤宇.论跨国公司的联合品牌战略[J].外国经济与管理,2003,25(9):2-6,18.
3.关忠诚,程刚.联合品牌战略研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2006,12(2):38-43.
4.黄江松.你的品牌联合了吗?[J]经营与管理,2004,(1):38-39.
5.贾昌荣,邓炯.联合品牌:是策略,更是战略[J].企业研究,2004,(3):33-36.
6.李轶敏.营销新趋势—联合促销[J].经济师,2005,(10):191-192.
7.刘继山.联合促销的范式与规则[J].邯郸职业技术学院学报,2002,15(2):76-78.
8.马绝尘.联合促销:挡不住的营销新趋势[J].企业管理,2002,(4):52-54.
9.毛瑞锋.品牌联合之路[J].企业管理,2003,(4):43-45.
10.宁昌会.品牌联合的前置因素和溢出效应分析[J].财贸经济,2006,(8):87-89.
11.邱得斌.联合促销:长袖善舞两相宜[J].公关世界,2003,(4):32-34.
12.邵劼,任淑华.浅析联合促销[J].商场现代化,2006,(22):201.
13.魏丽坤.品牌联盟:中国零售业品牌战略的新选择[J].江苏商论,2006,(5):23-24.
14.魏然.牵手联合促销的全攻略[J].企业改革与管理,2004,(8):64-65.
15.文书生.试论品牌联合广告策略[J].商业研究,2000,(7):146-148.
16.许基南.联合品牌[J].江西财经大学学报,2005,4(4):38-41.
17.叶尚仲.品牌联合,共谋发展[J].现代涂料与涂装,2006,(12):52.
18.余旭辉.借品牌联合“美国化”[J].21世纪商业评论,2006,(7):24-25.
19.原永丹,董大海,刘瑞明,金玉芳.品牌联合的研究进展[J].管理学报,2007,4(2):243-248.
20.张怡跃.企业战略联盟的品牌效应分析[J].四川理工学院学报(社会科学版),2006,21(6):77-79,89.
21.Aaker D A,Keller K L.Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions[J].Journal of Marketing,1990,54(1):27-41.
22. Aaker D A. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name [M]. New York: Free Press, 1991.
23. Aaker DA. Building Strong Brands [M]. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
24. Aaker D A. Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets [J]. California Management Review, 1996,38 (3): 102-120.
25. Aaker D A, Joachimsthalaer E. A. The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the brand architecture challenge [J]. California Management Review, 2000, 42 (4) : 8-23.
26. Adams W J, Janet L Y. Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1976,90 (August) : 475-98.
27. Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis [M]. New York: Wiley, 1996.
28. Ahluwalia R, Burnkrant R E, Unnava H R. Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2000,37:203-214.
29. Akerlof G A. The Market for 'Lemons': Quality under Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1970, 84 (August) : 488-500.
30. Alba J W, Amitava C. The Effects of Context and Part-Category Cues on the Recall of Competing Brands [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1985, 22 (August) : 340-349.
31. Alba J W, Wesley J H. Dimensions of Consumer Expertise [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1987,13 (4) : 411-435.
32. Anderson J C, David W G. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach [J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103 (May) : 411-423.
33. Andreasen A R. Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Partner [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1996,74 (6) : 47-59.
34. Anderson J C, Hakansson H, Johanson J. Dyadic business relationships within a business network context [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1994, 59 (October) : 1-15.
35. Anderson J R. A Spreading Activation Theory of Memory [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1983,22 (3) : 261-295.
36. Arend M. Card association weighs co-branding merits [J]. ABA Banking Journal, 1992,84 (9) : 84-86.
37. Areni C S. The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2003, 20: 349-375.
38. Ashforth B E, Mael F A. Social identity theory and the organization [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1989,14 (1) : 20-39.
39. Bagozzi R P, Burnkrant R E. Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior relationship [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37:913-929.
40. Baker S M, James B F, Victor S. Perceptions of University-Corporate Partnership Influences on a Brand [J]. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 2005, 13 (Spring) : 32-46.
41. Balmer J M. Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing [J]. Journal of Marketing Management, 1998,14 (8) : 963-996.
42. Balmer J M. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing -Seeing through the fog [J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2001, 35 (3) : 248-291.
43. Balmer J M, Greyser S A. Managing the multiple identities of the corporation [J]. California Management Review, 2002,44 (3) : 72-86.
44. Baloglu S. Dimensions of customer loyalty [J]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 2002,43 (1) : 47-59.
45. Barney J A, Hansen M H. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15 (5) : 175-190.
46. Batra R, Ahtola O T. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes [J]. Marketing Letters, 1990,2:159-170.
47. Baumgarth C. Evaluations of Co-Brands and Spillover-Effects: Further Empirical Results [J]. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2004,10 (2) : 115-131.
48. Beatty S E, Lynn R K. Alternative Hierarchies of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: The Impact of Brand Commitment and Habit [J]. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 1988,16 (summer) : 1-10.
49. Bengtsson A. Consumers and mixed-brands: On the polysemy of brand meaning [M]. Lund: Lund Business Press, 2002.
50. Bengtsson A, Servais P. Co-branding on industrial markets [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2005,34 (7) : 706-713.
51. Blackett T, Bob B. Co-branding: The science of alliance. Basingstoke [M]. UK: Macmillan Business, 1999.
52. Bliss M. Co-branding in Europe [J]. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 1996,14 (6) : 36-40.
53. Boo H C, Mattila A. A hotel-restaurant brand alliance model: Antecedents and consequences [J]. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 2002,5(2): 5-24.
54. Bock R D, Bargmann R E. Analysis of covariance structures [J]. Psychometrika, 1966,31:507-534.
55. Boone J M. Hotel-restaurant co-branding - a preliminary study [J]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 1997, 38 (5) : 34-43.
56. Boulding W, Kirmani A. A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: Do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? [J] Journal of Consumer Research, 1993,20:111-123.
57. Boush D M, Loken B. A Process Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluations [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1991,28 (February) : 16-28.
58. Broniarczyk S M, Joseph W A. The Importance of the brand in Brand Extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31(2): 214-228.
59. Brown T J, Peter A D. The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1997,61 (1) : 68-84.
60. Bucklin L P, Sanjit S. Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1993, 57 (April) : 32-46.
61. Cooke S, Paul R. Brand Alliances: From Reputation Endorsement to Collaboration on Core Competences [J]. Irish Marketing Review, 2000, 13 (2) : 36-41.
62. Coulter K S. An examination of qualitative vs. quantitative elaboration likelihood effects [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2005,22: 31-49.
63. Crimmins J, Horn M. Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing success [J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 1996,36 (4) : 11-21.
64. Dacin P A, Smith D C. The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31 (2) : 229-242.
65. Dawar N, Philip P. Marketing Universals: Consumers' Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1994,58 (2) : 81-95
66. Day G S. A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty [J]. Journal of Advertising Research. 1969, 9 (1) : 29-35.
67. Dean D H. Brand endorsement, popularity, and event sponsorship as advertising cues affecting consumer pre-purchase attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 1999, 28 (3): 1-12.
68. Desai K K, Kevin L K. The Effects of Ingredient Branding Strategies on Host Brand Extendibility [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2002,66 (January) : 73-93.
69. Dick A S, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework [J]. Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, 1994.22 (2) : 99-113.
70. Eisenhardt K M. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review [J]. The Academy of Management Review, 1989,14 (1) : 57-74.
71. Elliot R, Wattanasuwan K. Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity [J]. International Journal of Advertising, 1998,17 (2) : 131-144.
72. Erdem T, Joffre S. Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1998,7 (2) : 131-158.
73. Erickson G M, Johny K J, Paul C. Image Variables in Multi-Attribute Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1984, 11 (September) : 694-699.
74. Faircloth J B, Capella L M, Alford B L. The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity [J]. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 2001,9 (3) : 61-76.
75. Fazio R H, Carol J W. Attitude Accessibility as a Moderator of the Attitude-Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relations: An Investigation of the 1984 Presidential Elections [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51 (September) : 505-514.
76. Folkes V S, Kotsos B. Buyers' and sellers' explanations for product failures: Who done it [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1986,50 (April) : 74-80.
77. Ford D. Development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets [J]. European Journal of Marketing, 1980,14 (5) : 339-353.
78. Foumier S. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1998, 24 (March) : 343-373.
79. Fournier S. Special session summary, consumer resistance: Societal motivations, consumer manifestations, and implications in the marketing domain [J]. Advances in Consumer Research, 1998,25: 88-90.
80. Gaeth G J, Irwin P L. Goutam C, Aron M L. Consumer Evaluation of Multi- Product Bundles: An Information Integration Analysis [J]. Marketing Letters, 1990,2 (1) : 47-57.
81. Gammoh B, Kevin E V, Goutam C. Consumer Evaluation of Brand Alliance Signals [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2006,23 (6) : 465-486.
82. Goldsmith R E, Lafferty B A, Newell S J. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands [J]. Journal of Advertisement, 2000,29 (3) : 43-54.
83. Grossman R P. Co-branding in advertising: Developing effective associations [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1997,6 (3) : 191-201.
84. Guiltinan J P. The Price Bundling of Services: A Normative Framework [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1987,51 (April) : 74-85.
85. Gorhan-Canli Z, Durairaj M. Cultural Variations in Country of Origin Effects [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2000,37 (August) : 309-317.
86. Gwinner K P, Eaton J. Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer [J]. Journal of Advertising, 1999,28 (4) : 47-57.
87. Hahm S, Khan M A. Co-branding strategy in the restaurant industry [J]. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 2001, 8 (1) : 45-61.
88. Hallowell R. The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and probability: an empirical study [J]. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1996,7 (4) : 27-42.
89. Han CM. Country Image: Halo or Summary Construct? [J] Journal of Marketing Research, 1989,26 (May) : 222-229.
90. Hariam B A, Aradhna K, Donald R L, Carl M. Impact of Bundle Type, Price Framing and Familiarity on Purchase Intention for the Bundle [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1995, 33 (May) : 57-66.
91. Hatch M J, Schultz M. Bringing the corporation into corporate branding [J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2003,37 (7) : 1041-1064.
92. Herr P M, Sherman S J, Fazio R H. On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects [J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1983, 19: 323-340.
93. Hillyer C, Tikoo S. Effect of cobranding on consumer product evaluations [J]. Advances in Consumer Research, 1995,22: 123-127.
94. Hoeffler S, Keller K L. Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing [J]. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2002, 21 (Spring) : 78- 89.
95. Holstrom B. Moral Hazard and Observability [J]. Bell Journal of Economics, 1979,10 (Spring) : 74-91.
96. Hong S T, Robert S W. Effects of Country-of-Origin and Product Attribute Information on Product Evaluation: An Information Processing Perspective [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1989,16 (September) : 175-187.
97. Hong S T, Robert S W. Determinants of Product Evaluation: Effects of the Tim Interval between Knowledge of a Product's Country of Origin and Information about Its Specific Attributes [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990, 17 (December) : 277-288.
98. Jacoby J. A model of multi-brand loyalty [J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 1971.11 (3) : 25-31.
99. Jacoby J, Kyner D B. Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behavior [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1973,10 (February) : 1-9.
100. Joreskog K G. A general method for analysis of covariance structures [J]. Biometrika, 1970,57:239-251.
101. Joreskog K G. Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices [J]. Psychometrika, 1978,43: 443-477.
102. Javalgi R G, Traylor M B, Gross A C, Lampman E. Awareness of sponsorship and corporate image: An empirical investigation [J]. Journal of Advertising, 1994, 23 (4) : 47-58.
103. John D R, Loken B, Joiner C. The negative impact of extensions: Can flagship products be diluted? [J] Journal of Marketing, 1998,62 (1) : 19-32.
104. Johnson E J, Russo J E. Product familiarity and learning new information [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1984,11 (1) : 542-550.
105. Kapferer J N. Strategic Brand Management [M]. London: Kogan Page, 1997.
106. Kauffman S. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. [M] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
107. Keller K L, Aaker D A. The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1992,29:35-50.
108. Keller K L. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1993, 57 (January) : 1-22.
109. Keller K L. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998.
110. Keller K L. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2003,29: 595-600.
111. Kirmani A. The Effect of Perceived Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990,17 (September) : 160-171.
112. Kirmani A, Rao A R. No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2000, 64: 66-79.
113. Klein B, Leffler K B. The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance [J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1981,89:615-641.
114. Krishnan H S. Characteristics of Memory Associations: A Consumer-Based Brand Equity Perspective [J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1996,13 (4) : 389-405.
115. Lafferty B A, Goldsmith R E, Hult G T M. The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2005,21: 509-531.
116. Lane V R. The Impact of Ad Repetition and Ad Content on Consumer Perceptions of Incongruent Extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2000, 64 (2) : 80-91.
117. Lee D, Gopala G. Effects of partitioned country image in the context of brand image and familiarity: A categorization theory perspective [J]. International Marketing Review, 1999,16 (1) : 18-39.
118. Leuthesser L, Chiranjeev S K, Rajneesh S. 2+2 = 5? Framework for using cobranding to Leverage Your Brand [JJ. Journal of Brand Management, 2003, 11 (1) : 35-47.
119. Levin A M. Contrast and Assimilation Processes in Consumers' Evaluations of Dual Brands [J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2002, 17 (Fall) : 145-154.
120. Levin I P, Gary J G. How Consumers are affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1988, 15 (December) : 374-378.
121. Levin I P, Aron M L. Modeling the role of brand alliances in the assimilation of product evaluation [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2000, 9(1): 43-58.
122. Levinthal D A. Adaptation and rugged landscapes [J]. Management Science, 1997,43:934-950.
123. Li W K, Robert S W. The Role of Country of Origin in Product Evaluations: Informational and Standard-of-Comparison Effects [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1994,3 (2) : 187-212.
124. Loken B, John D R. Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact? [J] Journal of Marketing, 1993,57 (3) : 71-84.
125. Lorenzini B. The hotel restaurant revolution [J]. Restaurants & Institutions, 1995,105 (27) : 48-49,52,56,63.
126. Low G S, Fullerton R A. Brands, brand management, and the brand manager system: a critical-historical evaluation [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31 (May) : 173-190.
127. Lynch J, Schuler D. The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation [J]. Psychology & Marketing, 1994, 11 (5) :417-445.
128. Lynch J G, Dipankar C, Anusree M. Contrast Effects in Consumer Judgments: Changes in Mental Representations or in the Anchoring of Rating Scales? [J] Journal of Consumer Research, 1991,18 (3) : 284-297.
129. MacKenzie S B, Richard A S. How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central and Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions? [J] Journal of Consumer Research, 1992,18 (March) : 519-529.
130. Maheswaran D. Country of Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994,21 (September) : 354-365.
131. Manis M, Nelson T E, Shedler J. Stereotypes and Social Judgments: Extremity Assimilation and Contrast [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 55 (July) : 28-36.
132. Marie-Helene A. An exploratory study on the impact of two ingredient branding strategies on the host brand. Cahier de recherche, 2005,4:17-30.
133. Martin L L, Seta J J, Crelia R A. Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort informing an impression [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990,59:27-37.
134. Martinez E, de Chernatony L. The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image [J]. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2004,21 (1) : 39-51.
135. McCarthy M S, Norris D G. Improving competitive position using branded ingredients [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1999, 8 (4) : 267-285.
136. McCracken G. Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1989, 16 (3) : 310-321.
137. Meister J C. The Latest in Corporate-College Partnerships [J]. Training & Development, 2003, 57 (10) : 52-59.
138. Meyers-Levy J, Sternthal B. A Two-Factor Explanation of Assimilation and Contrast Effects [J], Journal of Marketing Research, 1993, 30 (August) : 359-368.
139. Michell P, King J, Reast J. Brand values related to industrial products [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2001,30:415-425.
140. Milberg S J, Park C W, McCarthy M S. Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: The impact of alternative branding strategies [J]. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1997, 6 (2) : 119-140.
141. Mishra D P, Jan B H, Stanton G C. Information Asymmetry and Levels of Agency Relationships [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1998, 35 (3) : 277-295.
142. Misra S, Beatty S E. Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of recall and affect [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1990,21 (2) : 159-173
143. Montgomery C A, Wernerfelt B. Risk Reduction and Umbrella Branding [J]. Journal of Business, 1992,65 (1) : 31-50.
144. Mudambi S, Doyle P, Wong V. An exploration of branding in industrial markets [J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 1997,26:433-446.
145. Nelson D L, David J B, Nancy R G, Thomas A S, Vanessa M M. Implicit Memory: Effects of Network Size and Interconnectivity on Cued Recall [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 1993, 19 (4) : 747-764.
146. Nevin J R, Michael H. Images as a Component of Attractiveness to Intra-Urban Shopping Areas [J]. Journal of Retailing, 1986, 56 (1) : 77-93.
147. Park C W, Jaworski B J, MacInnis D J. Strategic brand concept-image management [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1986, 50: 135-145.
148. Park C W, Sandra M, Robert L. Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product level similarity and brand concept consistency [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1991, 18 (3) : 185-193.
149. Park C W, Jun S Y, Shocker A D. Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1996,33 (November) : 453-466.
150. Park C W, Bernard J J, Deborah J M. Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1996,50: 621-635.
151. Park C W, Milberg S, Lawson R. Evaluation of brand extensions: the role of product level similarity and brand concept consistency [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1996,18 (2) : 185-193.
152. Park J H, Zhang A. An empirical analysis of global airline alliances: Cases in North Atlantic markets [J]. Review of Industrial Organization, 2000, 16 (4) : 367-384.
153. Park W C, Parker V L. Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Biases and Heuristics [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1981,8 (2) : 223-230.
154. Park W C, Eashwer S I, Daniel C S. The Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of Store Environment and Time Available for Shopping [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1989, 15 (March) : 422-433.
155. Peter J P, Gilbert A, Churchill J, Tom J. Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1993, 19 (March) : 655-662.
156. Petroshius S M, Monroe K B. Effect of product-line pricing characteristics on product evaluations [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1987, 13 (March) : 511-519.
157. Petty R E, Cacioppo J T, Schumann D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1983,10:135-146.
158. Prince M, Davies M. Co-branding partners: What do they see in each other?[J] Business Horizons, 2002, (September) :51-55.
159. Raaijmakers J G W, Richard M S. Search of Associative Memory [J]. Psychological Review, 1981,88:93-134.
160. Rao A R, Ruekert R W. Brand alliances as signals of product quality [J]. Sloan Management Review, 1994,36 (1) : 87-97.
161. Rao A R, Qu L, Robert W R. Signaling unobservable quality through a brand ally [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1999,36:258-268.
162. Ratcliff R, Gail M. A Retrieval Theory of Priming in Memory [J]. Psychological Review, 1988,95 (3) : 385-408.
163. Ratneshwar S, Shelly C. Comprehension's Role in Persuasion: The Case of Its Moderating Effect on the Persuasive Impact of Sources Cues [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1991, 18 (June) : 52-62.
164. Reddy S K, Holak S L, Bhat S. To extend or not to extend: success determinants of brand extensions [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994, 31 ( May ): 243-262.
165. Richardson P S, Alan S D, Arun K J. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1994, 58 (4) : 28-36.
166. Roedder J D, Loken B, Joiner C. The Negative Impact of Extensions: Can Flagship Products Be Diluted? [J] Journal of Marketing, 1998, 62: 19-32.
167. Rooney J A. Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 1995,4 (4) : 48-55.
168. Ruyter K, Wetzels M. The role of corporate image and extension similarity in service brand extensions [J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2000,21: 639-659.
169. Samu S H, Shanker K, Robert E S. Using advertising alliances for new product introduction: Interactions between product complementarity and promotional strategies [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1999,63 (1) : 57-74.
170. Sanbonmatsu D M, Kardes F R, Posavac S S, Houghton D C. Contextual influences on judgment based on limited information [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1997,69:251-264.
171. Schmidt B H, Dube L. Contextualized representations of brand extensions: are feature lists or frames the basic components of consumer cognition? [J] Marketing Letters, 1992,3 (2) : 115-126.
172. Schmitt B H. Contextual Priming of Visual Information in Advertisements. Psychology and Marketing, 1994, 11 (1) : 1-14.
173. Sharp B, Sharp A. Loyalty programs and their impact on repeat purchase loyalty patterns [J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1997, 14: 473-486.
174. Shimp T A, Stuart W E, Eagle W R. A Program of Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the Conditioned Stimulus and Context [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1991, 18 (June) : 1-12.
175. Simonin B L, Ruth J A. Bundling as a Strategy for the New Product Introduction: Effects on Consumer's Reservation Prices for the Bundle, the New Product and Its Ties-In [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1995,3 (3) : 219-230.
176. Simonin B L, Ruth J A. Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1998,35 (1) : 30-42.
177. Skowronski J J, Donal E C. Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in negativity, Positivity, and Extremity Biases [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987,52 (4) : 689-699.
178. Smith D C, Whan C P. The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1992, 19 (2) : 296-313.
179. Smith D C, Andrews J. Rethinking the effect of perceived fit on customers' evaluations of new products [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1995,23 (1) : 4-14.
180. Smith R E. Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1993,30 (May) : 204-219.
181. Speed R, Thompson P. Determinants of sports sponsorship response [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000,28 (2) : 226-238.
182. Spethmann B, Benezra K. Co-brand or be damned [J]. Brandweek, 1994, 35: 20-24.
183. Stafford T F, Leigh T W, Martin L L. Assimilation and Contrast Priming Effects in the Initial Consumer Sales Call. Psychology and Marketing, 1995,12 (July) : 321-347.
184. Stapel D A, Spears R. Event accessibility and context effects in causal inference: Judgment of a different order [J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996,22:979-992.
185. Stipp H, Schiavone N P. Modeling the impact of Olympic sponsorship on corporate image [J]. Journal of Advertising Research, 1996,36 (4) : 22-28.
186. Stuart T E. Network positions and propensities to collaborate - an investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43 (3) : 668-699.
187. Sujan M, Bettman J R. The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers' Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1989,26 (November) : 454-467.
188. Sullivan M. Measuring image spillovers in umbrella-branded products [J], Journal of Business, 1990,63: 309-329.
189. Thompson K E, Knox S D, Mitchell H G Business to business brand attributes in a changing purchasing environment [J]. Irish Marketing Review, 1997, 10 (2) : 25-32.
190. Till B D, Shimp T A. Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative celebrity information [J]. Journal of Advertising, 1998, 27: 67-82.
191. Till B D, Busier M. The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs [J]. Journal of Advertising, 2000,24 (3) : 1-13.
192. Vaidyanathan R, Aggarwal P. Strategic brand alliances: implications of ingredient branding for national and private label brands [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2000,9 (4) : 214-228
193. van Riel A C R, Lemmink F, Ouwersloot H. Consumer evaluations of service brand extensions [J]. Journal of Service Research, 2001,3 (3) : 220-231.
194. Varadarajan P R, Anil M. Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy [J]. Journal of Marketing, 1988, 52 (3) : 58-74.
195. Voss K E, Patriya T. A Consumer Perspective on Foreign Market Entry: Building Brand through Brand Alliances [J]. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1999,11 (2) : 39-58.
196. Voss K E, Spangenberg E R, Grohmann B. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2003,40:310-320.
197. Voss K E, Gammoh B S. Building brands through brand alliances: Does a second ally help? [J] Marketing Letters, 2004,15: 147-159.
198. Voss K E, Eric R S, Bianca G. Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 2003, 40 (August) : 310-320.
199. Washburn J H, Brian D T, Randi P. Co-Branding: Brand Equity and Trial Effects [J]. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2000, 17 (7) : 591-604.
200. Washburn J H, Till B D, Priluck R. Brand alliance and customer-based brand equity effects [J]. Psychology and Marketing, 2004,21 (7) : 487-508.
201. Webb J D, Corliss L G, Thomas G B. Development and Validation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Influencing Monetary Donations to Charitable Organizations [J]. Journal of Academy of Marketing Sciences, 2000,28 (2) : 299-309.
202. Webster F E, Keller K. A roadmap for branding in industrial markets [J]. Brand Management, 2004,11 (5) : 388-402.
203. Wedell D H, Parducci A, Geiselman R E. A Formal Analysis of Ratings of Physical Attractiveness: Successive Contrast and Simultaneous Assimilation [J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1987,23:230-249.
204. Wernerfelt B. Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signaling by Posting a Bond [J]. Journal of Economics, 1988, 19 (3) : 458-466.
205. Yadav M S, Kent B M. How Buyers Perceive Savings in a Bundle Price: An Examination of a Bundle's Transaction Value [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1993,30 (August) : 350-358.
206. Yadav M S. How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A Model of Anchoring and Adjustment [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994,2 (September) : 342-353.
207. Yi Y. The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print Advertisements [J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1990,17 (September) : 215-22.
208. Young J A, Hoggatt C D, Paswan A K. Food service franchisors and their co-branding methods [J]. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 2001,10 (4) : 218-227.