品牌合作如何影响到消费者的品牌形象一致——品牌知名度观点 87页

申请上海交通大学硕士学位论文品牌合作如何影响到消费者的品牌形象一致-品牌知名度观点-作者：李英奎学号：1091209181专业：企业管理导师：侯建荣上海交通大学安泰经济与管理学院2011年11月 Effectofbrandcollaborationonconsumer’simagecongruence-Brandawarenessperspective-Author:YOUNGKYULEEStudentID:1091209181Major:BusinessAdministrationAcademicAdvisor:HouJianRongShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityAntaiCollegeofEconomics&Management2011.11 品牌合作如何影响到消费者的品牌形象一致-品牌知名度观点-摘要目的本研究的目的是考察合作行为在消费者心中的影响。具体而言，研究的主要目的有三个：首先，表明合作战略和形象一致性之间的关系，也就是在品牌知名度的角度上，中心品牌如何影响到另外一个相关联的品牌，反之而然。第二，验证参与合作战略的品牌知名度之高低差如何影响到品牌态度。由于合作战略不只是单一品牌组成的，展开合作战略的时候应该有两个品牌之间的相互作用。第三，作为合作战略共享的不仅是品牌的形象，也是每个品牌相关的客户，客户对一个品牌的关系会影响到对另一个品牌的关系。我将定义合作战略如何影响到合作战略中两个品牌之间的关系程度。研究设计与方法基于现存的研究建议，为了衡量情感上的过程，设计了三个维度，包括：形象的一致性、品牌态度和品牌关系。每个变量的测量使用了不同设计的问卷。在这项研究中，为了更真实地实验，使用了各种样本来测量这些变量。比如：13个不同国籍的参与者、被试者年龄（18至45岁）、各种群体（学生，兼职工，全职工，无报酬的志愿者）。方差分析和回归分析被用来衡量三个变量，并适用于三个不同的层次，包括：四个品牌、四个合作组合和独立的四个品牌三个变量。 结果实证检验结果支持在形象一致性、品牌态度和品牌的关系上的合作效果，不过仅在品牌知名度的差距大的情况下有显著的效果。研究结果可应用于寻找相匹配的合作伙伴。此外，这项研究有助于深入了解合作如何影响消费者的情感过程。独创性/价值本研究的价值在于它以实证证实了与消费者的情绪反应有关的合作战略，并且支持了对品牌延伸的消费者评价的概念。此外，这项研究加强了在消费者表面下存在的情感过程，也就是形象一致性如何影响对品牌的态度以及品牌关系，而先前的研究更集中于表面上的形象一致性和消费者的行为。关键词：品牌合作，品牌知名度，形象一致性，品牌态度，品牌关系 Effectofbrandcollaborationonconsumer’simagecongruence-Brandawarenessperspective-AbstractPurposeThisresearchaimstoidentifytheeffectofcollaborationactonconsumers’mind.Specifically,therearethreemainpurposeoftheresearch.First,definetherelationshipbetweencollaborationstrategyanddimensionofimagecongruence,thatis,howthefocalbrandaffectstoanotherassociatedbrand,viceversafromabrandawarenesspointofview.Second,verifyhowthedifferencelevelofbrandawarenesswithinacollaborationstrategyaffectstobrandattitude.Sincecollaborationstrategyisnotjustconsistedofsinglebrand,thereshouldbetheinterplaybetweentwobrandswithincollaborationstrategy.Third,asthecollaborationstrategysharesnotonlyanimageofthebrand,butalsocustomerrelatedtoeachbrand,relationshipofonebrandwillaffecttoanotherbrandwithincollaboration.Wewilldefinehowthecollaborationstrategyaffectstothedimensionofbrandrelationshipbetweentwobrandsaffiliatedwithcollaborationstrategy.Design/MethodologyBasedontherecommendationsofextantresearch,thescaleconstructedtomeasureemotionalprocessinthisresearchincludedimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipmeasures.Eachofvariableswasmeasuredusingadifferentsetofitemsusingquestionnaire.Inthisresearch,varietysampleswereusedtomeasurethosevariablesmorerealisticallyacross13countriesnationalities,agerangeof18to45,andnotjustastudentsamples,butvarietyofemploymentstatus(Student,Part-timer,Full-timer,notinpaidworker).ANOVAandsimpleregressionanalysiswereusedtomeasurethreevariablesacrossfourbrands,fourcollaborationcombinationsandeachoffourbrandsindependently. FindingsTheresultsofempiricaltestsupporttheeffectofcollaborationoverthedimensionofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshiponlywhenthegapofbrandawarenessislarge.Someofthefindingmaybeuseableforsomeonetomatchupcollaborationpartners.Furthermore,thisresearchcontributestothein-depthunderstandingofhowthecollaborationaffectsconsumers’emotionalprocess.Originality/ValueThevalueofthisresearchisthatitprovidesempiricalevidenceofthecollaborationstrategyrelatedtoconsumers’emotionalreact,supportingAaker’sandKeller’s(1990)conceptualizationofConsumerevaluationsofbrandextensions.Inaddition,thisresearchstrengthenstheemotionalprocessbeneaththesurface,thatis,relationshipbetweenimagecongruenceandbrandattitudeaswellasbrandrelationship,whereasearlierresearchesweremorefocusedontheconsumers’behaviorrelatedtoimagecongruence,whichisoutwardmovement.KEYWORDS:Brandcollaboration,Brandawareness,Imagecongruence,Brandattitude,Brandrelationship CONTENTSINTRODUCTION11.LITERATUREREVIEWANDHYPOTHESISDEVELOPMENT21.1.ReviewoftheCollaborationResearch21.1.1.RelatedNotionsofCollaboration51.1.2.CaseStudyofCollaboration91.2.ImageCongruence211.3.BrandAwareness241.4.BalanceTheory281.5.SignalingTheory312.DESIGNOFTHERESEARCH342.1.HypotheticalProduct342.2.Measures372.2.1.ImageCongruence372.2.2.BrandAttitude382.2.3.BrandRelationship382.3.SampleandDataCollection392.3.1.Method403.STUDY1413.1.TheExperiment413.2.HypothesisTesting423.3.Discussion45 4.STUDY2524.1.TheExperiment524.2.HypothesisTesting534.3.Discussion575.STUDY3595.1.TheExperiment595.2.HypothesisTesting595.3.Discussion636.CONCLUSION657.LIMITATION66ACKKNOWLEDGEMENTS67APPENDIXA68APPENDIXB69REFERENCES70 IntroductionConsumers,nowadays,aresmarterthaneversincetheyhavechosentheproductfollowedbyemotionalneeds,notfunctionalneeds.Bythisreason,marketersandstrategistsarehavingahardtime.Toomanyfunctionallysimilarproductsarecompetinginasamecategoryandconsumershavebecomemorecarefulandcautious.Whenmoreandmoreproductsdifferentiatethemselvestobechosenbyconsumers,theproductsinthecategoryincreaseatthesamerate,whichmeansconsumermayfeelthat“Whatisthedifferencebetweenallthoseproducts?”(Thinkofallthosemineralwater,Canyoutellthedifference?).Evenconsumersareconfusedwhentheyarefacingwiththesemassiveundifferentiatedproductsironically.Ifthesituationhascomethisfar,astrategyofdifferentiationactuallydamagescompany’scompetitiveedge,whichisdifferentiation.However,companieshavetokeepcompetingtosurvive,justbecausetheywereborntocompete.Andfinallytheyhavechangedparadigmofcompetitionandfoundsomenewtacticstofight.Collaborationisoneofthem.Competitorsarecollaboratingeachothertosurviveinamarket.“Ittakessomuchmoneytodevelopnewproductsandtopenetratenewmarketsthatfewcompaniescangoitaloneineverysituation”(Hameletal.,1989).Becauseofseveralmanagerialreasons,collaborationhasbeenactivelyperformedirrespectiveofproductcategoryorindustry.RaoandRuekert(1994)argued,“Brandalliancecouldbeaquality-perceptionboostbyreassuranceaboutthetruequalityoftheproductorconveyinformationabouttheenhancementoftheattributesavailableinaproduct.”Moreover,collaborationstrategyalsocanenhancethevalueofabrand.Inaddition,Motionetal(2003)indicate,“Collaborationcanenhancethebrandvalue.”Intheirresearch,theyempiricallytestedandprovedthathowco-brandingstrategyreinforcedbrandvaluesandreachednewtargetgroups.Themainissuesofthisresearchistheemotionalprocessofconsumerwhentheyfacingwithcollaborationproduct.Dolich(1969)proposedthat“individualsacceptbrandswithimagessimilartotheself-conceptandrejectbrandswithimagesdissimilartotheself-concept.”Besideinotherresearch“Howtofigureouttheidentificationofself-conceptsegmentsisthekeypointinthedeterminationofmarketingstrategyandhow,where,andtowhomtheexacttacticsshouldbedirectedtoachievethedesiredgoals.”(GrubbandGrathwohl,1967).Onceconsumeracceptsbrandsfitwellwiththeself-concept,howto1 buildagoodbrandattitudeandmaintainitsbrandrelationshipwouldbeimportantissuespriortoitspurchase.Aaker(1991)proposedthat“brandassociationscreatepositivebrandattitudeamongconsumers”,andhealsoindicated,intheresearchwithJacobson(2001),“positiveproductassociationandnegativeproductassociationdrivechangesinbrandattitude.”FishbeinandAjzen(1975)notedthat“emotionalexperiencecouldcreatepositiveornegativebeliefsthatfurtherinfluenceconsumerbrandattitude.”BesideAaker(1996b)arguedthat“brandpersonalitycouldbelinkedwithabrands’emotionalandself-expressivebenefit.Thusbrandpersonalityyieldsabasisfortheconsumer-brandrelationship.”Thepurposeofmyresearch,then,istoexaminethecollaborationstrategyintermsofbrandawareness,toverifyhowimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipareaffectedbycollaboration,andtoexaminetherelationshipbetweenimagecongruenceandbrandattitude,brandrelationship.Eachofpurposeswillbeaccomplishedthroughthreecasestudies.Allcasestudiesareconsistedoffourbrands,fourcollaborationcombinationsandareexaminedbybothdependentlyandindependently.1.LiteraturereviewandHypothesisdevelopment1.1.ReviewofthecollaborationresearchCollaborationimplyworktogethertoachieveacommongoal,thatismorethantwoofindividualororganizationmutuallysharetheirknowledgeandstudyeachother,eventuallysetacommongoal.Inabusinesseconomicfield,distinctacademicresearchesoncollaborationaredeficient.Insteadofthis,manydifferentbutsimilarbrandstrategiesresearchsuchasCo-branding,Co-marketing,Jointbranding,Jointpromotion,Crosspromotion,Brandalliance,Symbioticmarketing,Dualbranding,Productbundling,Ingredientbrandingarelivelycarriedoutatthemoment.However,collaborationiscarriedoutwithmorecommitmentforbothpartiesconcerned.Itisnotjustsimpleusingofbrandnameoftheotherpartyorsharingthecustomerthattheotherpartypossessing,butcollaboratefromdesigntologisticandsales,whichiscarriedoutindeeperdimension.Therefore,twopartiescansharetheirownuniqueadvantagesthroughcombiningeachofbrandidentity.2 Infact,wecanfindtheconceptofcollaborationinthefieldofbrandstrategyresearch.MorrisandHergert(1987)used‘collaborativeagreement’todefinethetermasalinkagebetweencompaniestojointlypursueacommongoal.Hementionedthattheseagreementsareverydifferentfromtraditionalrelationshipsbetweencompanies,anditisthesedifferencesthatmakecollaborativeagreementssodifficulttomanage.AstandpointofMorrisandHergertoncollaborationisalsodifferentfrommanykindsofco-brandingstrategiesinthefieldofbrandstrategy.Theyexplainthefeaturesofifbelow.Quotation1i.Themainpurposeofacollaborativeagreementistosharerisksandrewardsamongtheparticipants.Asageneralrule,companiesareonlywillingtosharerisksandrewardsontheconditionthattheyalsoshareinthedecision-making.Therefore,thefirstattributeofacollaborativeagreementisthatresponsibilityformanagingtheprojectissharedbytheparticipants.Thisisincontrasttosomelargeprojects(forexample,construction)inwhichprojectleadershipisvestedinonecompanydesignatedastheprimecontractor.ii.Anotherattributeofcollaborativeagreementsisthattheyonlycoverpartoftheactivitiesoftheparticipants.Theparticipantsthereforemaintaintheirindividualidentitiesandhaveactivitiesthatarenotincludedintheagreement.Thesignificanceofthischaracteristicisthatisdifficulttoinsureaproperseparationbetweenprojectsthatarepartoftheagreementandthosethatarenot.Consequently,thereisthedangerofknow-howleakingfromonetypeofprojecttoanother.Amergerisaspecialcasewherecollaborationistotal,individualidentitieslost,andthereisnodistinctionbetweenprojects.Thus,amergerismarriageandnotacollaborativeagreement.iii.Thenextattributeofcollaborativeagreementisthatpartnersprovideinputs(funding,skills,personnel)totheprojectonacontinuingbasis.Thereisthusacontinualtransferofresourcesfromthepartnerstotheprojectandacontinuingdialoguebetweenthepartnersaboutwhat3 resourcesareneeded,howtheyaretobeused,whoistosupplythem,andhowthecostswillbeshared.iv.Thefinalattributeofcollaborativeagreementsisthatthetotalprojectcannotbebrokendownintoindependentsubprojectswithwell-definedperformancecharacteristicsandinterfaces.Consequently,progressinonesub-projectinfluencestheproblemstobetackledbyandtheprogressofothers.Thequalityandfrequencyofcommunicationsbetweenprojectteamsthereforehasasignificantimpactonoutcomes.Aswecanseehere,whatthedifferencesofcollaborationcomparetoothersimilarcooperatestrategyareitcandiversifyriskwhilemaintaineachcompany’sidentitythattheykeepandmakeacontinuouscooperaterelationship.Theseadvantagesofcollaborationleteachbrandtransformtheirbusinessmodeladjustwithitsmarketsituationwithalowerrisk,butstillcankeeptheiruniqueidentityinacurrentextremelycompetitivemarketsituation.Sothateachbrandcandevelopnewcustomerclassandextendtheirbrandtargetmarketwithoutdevelopingnewsub-brandorentirelydevelopednewbrand.Kanter(1994)arguedthat“Whateverthedurationandobjectivesofbusinessalliances,beingagoodpartnerhasbecomeakeycorporateasset.”andalsomentionedthiscorporationbehaviorasa‘collaborativeadvantage’.Moreoverarguedthat“Intheglobaleconomy,awell-developedabilitytocreateandsustainfruitfulcollaborationsgivescompaniesasignificantcompetitivelegup.”toemphasizetheimportanceofcollaboration.IntheresearchofHamel,Doz,Prahalad(1989),collaborationisanunavoidabletask,whicheverycorporationhastobefacedwith.Collaborationbetweencompetitorsisinfashion.Theyusedthetermof‘competitivecollaboration’toexplainthateverycorporationneedtoworktogetherandalsocompeteatthesame.Themeaningofcollaborationhereisalong-termstrategythatincludesjointventures,outsourcingagreements,productlicensingandcooperativeresearch.Moreoversaidthat“Collaborationisanothercompetitionbecauseitisnotjustanactivityofobtainingtheoppositeparty’sskillbutalsoastrategiccooperationthathavetoconsideritspurposeandconsequences.”Thequotationbelowshowsuswhatthingsweneedtoconsiderbeforeperformcollaborationstrategy.4 Quotation2“Collaborationiscompetitioninadifferentform.Successfulcompaniesneverforgetthattheirnewpartnersmaybeouttodisarmthem.Theyenterallianceswithclearstrategicobjectives,andtheyalsounderstandhowtheirpartner"sobjectiveswillaffecttheirsuccess.”MattessichandMonsey(1992)mentioned“collaborationasamutuallybeneficialandwell-definedrelationshipenteredintobytwoormoreorganizationstoachievecommongoals.”Alsoexplainstherelationshipsbetweencompaniescollaboratingtogether:“Therelationshipincludesacommitmentto;adefinitionofmutualrelationshipsandgoals;ajointlydevelopedstructureandsharedresponsibility;mutualauthorityandaccountabilityforsuccess;andsharingofresourcesandrewards.”Aswehaveseenabove,Collaborationstrategyinafieldofmarketingisusedalikewithstrategicallianceconceptorrepresentativesomepartofit.1.1.1.RelatednotionsofcollaborationManycompanieshastriedtodoalliancewithothercompaniesbyreasonoftheirowncost,managementandalackofcapacityfromoldtimes.Accordingtothechangeofthenotionofmarketing,whichmeetcustomer’sneedsanddesireratherthanmakealotandhanditovertocustomerwhethertheywantordon’t,existingalliancealsomorefocusedonsatisfycustomer’sdesireratherthanitscorporatecostaspect.Hence,manykindsofdifferentformofalliancehavebeenattemptedincludingfrombrandexpansiontoequalalliancewithotherbrand(firm).Itisalsomeaningfultounderstandseveralsimilarconceptofcollaboration,notjustthecollaborationitself,whichweareabouttodealwith.•Brandextension“Acurrentbrandnameisusedtoenteracompletelydifferentproductclass”(AakerandKeller,1990).Thisstrategyofmarketingnewproductwithacurrentbrandnamehasbecomewidespread.AccordingtoNielsen’sresearch(1985),therateofusingextensionannuallytointroducenewbrandintosupermarketwasabout40%.Thereasonwhymanycompanyusedbrandextensionstrategyistobesureofsuccessofanewdeveloped5 productinamarket.Althoughbrandextensionhasadvantagesforcompany,“Itcarrytheriskofdilutingwhatthebrandnamemeanstoconsumers,especiallyinthecaseofextensionsthatareinconsistentwiththebrand"simageorfailtomeetconsumerexpectationsinotherways”,(John,Loken&Joiner,1998).Forexample,consumersmightbewatchedAppleprinter(Brandextensionproduct)beingintroducedunderthebrandnameofApplewhichisfamousforcomputerandmobilephoneandthenwouldbequestionedbythemselvesabouttheirimageorevaluationsofApplebrandnameingeneral.Ifthisimageand/orevaluationsofexistingbranddon"tfittotheextensionbrand,consumersmaynotbeinginterestedintheextensionbrand,evencanhavenegativeimageand/orevaluationsabouttheexistingbrand.•ProductbundlingProductbundlingreferstothemarketingstrategythatsellsmorethantwoproductstogetherinonepackageatasingleprice,anditspriceisusuallylowerthanthesumofbuyingproductsindependently.Thispracticeiswidespreadinamarket,especiallyinInternetaccessserviceinSouthKorea.Forexample,whencustomersbuyInternetaccessfromacompany,hecanalsopurchaseInternetphoneandsatellitetelevisionservicealtogetheratalowerpricethanpurchaseindependently.Thispracticecanletcustomerhavemoreincentivetopurchasebundledproductsintermsofprice.Bundlingisoftenseeninamarketthatseveralcompanieshavemonopolypowertothemarket,becauseitisaloteasierforthemtocomposesuchbundlesthroughtheirmarketmonopolypower.Whinston(1990)arguedthatafirmhavingamonopolypowerinonemarketcandominateanothermarketwithitsbundlingstrategyincludedthemarket’smonopolypower.Inhisresearch,herevealeditspossibility.“Thereasonisthatthemonopolistsetsalowbundlepriceinordertokeeptheconsumersinitsmonopolymarket.Theconsequenceisthatmanyconsumerswillnowbuythebundleandtheprofitoftherivalislow,whichinduceshimtoexit.”6 •IngredientbrandingIngredientbrandingisthatmajorfunctionofonebrandisbecomingaextrafunctionofanotherbrandasingredienttostrengthenthefeaturesofthehostbrandfromcompetitor(e.g.NIKEwearwithTefron).Inthisway,thehostbrandcanhavestrongercompetitivenessthanbefore.Moreover,“Ingredientbrandingcouldenhancetheequityofthehostbrandbysendingastrongsignaltoconsumersthatthehostproductoffersthecombinedbenefitsoftwoqualitybrandsinone.”(DesaiandKeller,2002)Mostofcompaniesadoptingingredientbrandinguseacobrandedingredientbrandingstrategy,inwhichelementingredientissuppliedbydifferentfirm.Inthisway,hostbrandcanreduceacostofdevelopinganewbrand.Althoughcobrandedingredientsgivestheparticularincentivesofcompetitivedifferentiationandenhancecredibilitytothehostbrand,thereisstillapossibilityofwithdrawalofthecobrandedingredientsfromtheallianceatsomepoint.Becauseofthis,Marketersofhostbrandisinterestedindevelopaningredientbrand,sothattheycanuseitasanassistantofhostbrand.Beside,hostbrandcanownthenewself-brand.Hencethehostbrandcancontrolthealliancemarketingstrategywithoutanylackofcontrol.•DualbrandingDualbrandingistwo(andpossiblymore)brandedretailersarehosedunderasingleroof(e.g.,LottedepartmentstoreandAngelinuscoffee–InSouthKorea).Thissynergisticstrategyallowsretailerstoshareexpensesandspace,andprovidesvarietyandconvenienceforthecustomer(Levin,2002).Themotivationforthecompaniestoadoptdualbrandingstrategystartsfromconsumer’spreferences.Addingonebrandnametoanotherbrandnameenhancesbrandperceptionofconsumerandpreferenceforit.However,itisalsopossiblethatdualbrandingstrategyimpairsconsumer’simageofthebasebrand,ordiluteitsbrandequity(Levinetal.,1996).Inthecaseofconflictingbrandimageeachothermaycause“dilute”problem,andlikehesaid“inourincreasinglycompetitiveandchangingmarkets,consumersarehappierwithtwoormoreloadsofbrandequityfromacorporateandbrandname,thantheyarewitheithernamealone.”7 •Co-brandingCo-brandingisthatusetwodifferentbrandnameonsameproductasawayofenhancingbrandequity(Levinetal.,1996).Similartoproductbundles,Co-brandingstrategytypicallyincludesafactorthatusuallymoreremarkablethananotherbrand.Forexample,H&MthatisoneofthemostpopularSPA(SpecialtystoreretailerofPrivatelabelApparel)BrandoriginfromSweden,hasbeenconductingCo-brandingstrategywithfamousworld-classdesignersuchasLANVIN,KarlLagerfeldetc.Thisstrategyisoftentakenasthesameasbrandallianceorcompositebrand,andisdifferenttoproductbundlingatsomepointthatdoesn’thavemonopolypowerinthemarket.Andalsodifferfromdualbranding,becauseconsumercannotchoosebetweenthetwobrands.Co-brandinghasadvantagesthatletbothbrandssharenotonlyafunctionalcapacity,butalsoemblematicalcapacity.HereatmanybrandexploitCo-brandingstrategytodevelopanewproduct(MongaandLau-gesk,2007).8 1.1.2.CasestudyofcollaborationHowiscollaborationstrategycarriedonintherealmarket?Herearesomecasesofcollaborationsince1923.•CollaborationinMobileindustryCollaborationhasbeenverylivelyperformedinhandsetindustryoveratallpartnerssince2000ofMotorolaCoachphone.Thecategoriesofpartnersaredividedasfollows-Fashiondesignhouse:GiorgioArmani,PRADA,VivienneWestwood-Industrialdesigner:JasperMorrison-Techindustry:Bang&Olufsen-Famousbrands:FerrariThereareseveralreasonsexplainwhyespeciallythecollaborationisintrendintheindustry.First,inmostofITindustry,functionallydifferentiatetoitscompetitionsareextremelyhard,sothatthoseofmobilemanufacturershavetofindanewwayofdifferentiation.Thatiscollaboration.Second,becauseofshortproductlifecycle,brandstrategyforsinglemodeliscosthighandeffecttoentirebrandstrategy.Toeffectivelydistributetheirresource,usingcollaborationstrategyissafetyandeffective.Thelastreasonispositionitselfasaluxurysegment.Sincethehighcompetitionofmobilemarket,manufacture’srevenuehaskeptlower.Borrowingaluxuryimagefromtheirpartnerisafastwaytobuildtheimageandeffectiveintermsofcost.SamsungWithGiorgioArmaniSamsunghaslaunchedincollaborationwithArmanithreetimesin2007,2008(EmporioArmani)and2010.Theonelaunchedin2010wasasmartphonedesignedbyGiorgioArmani.Unliketheothercollaborationmobilephone,thisonesimplyaimtocreateasmart-phoneperfectlyfitsforbusinessman.Thislatest-generationmobilemasterfullycombinesSamsungs’experienceintechnologywithadesignfromoneoftheworld’sbestknowdesigner.ThedesignfromArmanigivesitsexclusiveandfashiontothecutting-edgetechnology,sothattheproductisnotjustsimplemobilephone,butcanhaveitsuniqueconcept,whichmaysatisfycustomer’semotionalneeds.9 WithBang&OlufsenBang&Olufsen(B&O)manufacturesproductsrelatedtoaudioandalsodesignitatthesametime.Beside,televisionandtelephonesarealsotheirbusinessarea.B&OproducesasoundsystemforAudi,AstonMartinDBSandMercedes-BenzAMGmodel(B&Ohasveryhighendbrandimage).B&OlaunchedthecollaborationmodelwithSamsungnamed‘Serenata’in2008.WhileSonyEricssonandNokiahavetriedtodevelopamusicphone(howeveramusicalwayscomeoffsecondbest),intheSerenatatheyputthemusicfirstpriortophone.Thephonealsoincludesaslide-outspeakerformusiclistening,andalsoforahands-freespeaker.WiththecombinationofB&Oaudiophileheritage,thedevicehasdistinctivesalienceofsound/musicfunctionpriortophonefunction,whereasothercollaborationdevicealwaystakeonpartnerbrand’sfunctionincidentally.WithAdidasThiscollaborationisatotallysports-orientedhandset(dubbedasAdidasmiCoachphone).Unlikemostofotherhandsetcollaborations,SamsungtooksportsfeaturesfromAdidas.Inthedevice,AdidasputtheirmiCoachsystem,whichweb-basedprogressreportandanalysistoolforuser’ssportendeavors.Therearetwodevicesmakethehandsetmorefunctionally,whichis,HeartRateMonitorandStrideSensor.Theformerisabeltthatmonitorsheartbeatstraightonachest,andthelatterisdeviceclippedonshoeswhenrunningandtakeofftocountmeters.TheinformationcanbesyncedautomaticallytotheAdidasphoneanditgivesreal-timevoiceguidanceduringworkout.Thishandsetreflectsatrend(LikeSagemwithPUMA)thatcollaboratedwithsportsbrandstocaptureitsfunctionanddynamicimage.10 LGWithPRADATheLGKE850,alsoknowastheLGPrada,wasannouncedin2006andsecondversionofthephone(KF900)wasannounced2008.TheoriginalLGPradawasthefirstfulltouch-screenphoneandthistimetheymadeitwithaslide-outQWERTYkeyboard,whichshowsthatthemostusedfunctionwithmobileisSMS.WiththedecentdesignofPRADA,italsoprovideawatchsyncedwiththedevice,showsthecaller’snumberandalarmclock.LGdispelleditscheapmanufacturerimagethroughthecollaborationwithluxuriousPRADAimage,whichshowsushowthetechnologymanufacturercangaintheluxuryimagefromthecollaboration.WithRobertoCavalliLGlaunchedthegloballimitededitionmodeldesignedbytheItalianfashiondesignerRobertoCavalli,targetingthepremiumhandsetmarket(withitshigh-endpriceof999Euro).Thismodelwasnotonlyhigh-valuedofitsdesign,butalsoofitssizeatthetimeof2006.ThedesignrepresentRobertoCavalli’sstylewellwhichisuniqueanimalpattern.Thehandsetlaunchedin7countriesincludingtheUK,Italy,Austria,HongKongandAustralia.However,RobertoCavallionlytookapartofthedesignoffrontcase,whichremainsasthelimitationofcollaborationworkbetweentechmanufactureandfashiondesignhouse(UnlikethecaseofB&O,whichdeeplyparticipatedintheircollaboration).MotorolaWithDolce&GabbanaRAZRofMotorolawasverysuccessfulmodelallovertheworldandalsogaveMotorolaabigsuccess.In2005,MotorolareleasedthelimitededitionofMOTORAZRV3iDG,whichfamousItaliandesignhouseDolce&Gabbana(D&G)tookapartofdesign.ThehandsetretainedthesamefeaturesseenintheoriginalRAZRbutaddedavibrantcolorsandD&GlogowithpendantfeaturingD&Ginitials.Thedevicedidn’tofferanynewfeaturesovertheoriginal,butnonethelesshighpricecomparedtoitsfeatures.Thismodelcouldn’tgetthatmuchattentioncomparedtoLGPRADA,becauseRAZRV3i11 DGonlytookthenameofD&G,butnosharingofpartner’ssalience’s,whichleadthecollaborationproductdifferentiatedfromothers.NokiaWithGiambattistaValliNokia,famousforitslow-pricedhandset,madeupateamwithGiambattistaValliwhoisfamousItalianfashiondesigner.ThemainpurposeofthisteamistopromoteNokia7373in2007.SinceNokiahasbeenpopularwithitslowpricemodelinless-developedcountriesasadiffusionbrand,therewasalwaysaneedofdevelopingitsbrandimagetosomethinginstyle.Nokia7373wasdevelopedspeciallyforstyleconsciousconsumers.Forthisreason,ParisFashionWeekwasusedastheirlaunchingshowplaceandintheshowtheyheldapartynamed“DressyourNokiainGiambattistaValli”.ThehandsetcomeswithspecialGiambattistaValliphoneaccessoriestomakethedevicelookedmoreluxury.VertuWithFerrariVertuisaluxurymobilephonemanufacturerbasedonBritishownedbyNokia,andtheyretailthephoneatthesametime.Therepricerangeisfrom$5,600to$310,000,whichhasthemostexpensivemobilephonemodelline.Moreover,theyareonlyavailableinownbrandedstores,whichusuallylocatedinupscaledepartmentstores.Now,VertuhasteamedupwithItalianAuto-makerFerrariandthyalreadymadeitoncein2007tothcommemorateFerrari’s60Anniversary.FerrarijoinedthisgrowingmarketofluxurydevicesthatTAGHeuerandBang&Olufsonhavealreadyjoinedfortheluxuryproducts.Mobiledevices,formanyofthesebrands,representanewopportunitytospreadtheirmarketandexploititsbrandatthesametime.12 •CollaborationinfashionindustryFashiondesignerandcelebritysharebiggestcommondenominatoramongotherplayersinthemarketintermsofcollaborationstrategy.Bythisreason,casesofcollaborationin1fashionfieldareseenmostfrequently.ParticularlySPAbrandamongfashionbrandsector,makecollaborationlively.BecauseofthefeaturesofSPAbrand,theyaimtohavehigh-classimage(thoughkeepthemiddle-lowpricerange)andovercomelow-classimage,whichtheyarenow.Thisnewhigh-classbrandimageismosteffectiveandhaspowerfulrippleeffectamongthoseotherbrandingstrategiestoapproachnewcustomers.Moreover,collaborationstrategycanletoppositebrandtakingpartincollaborationexpandtheircustomerrangetomiddle-lowpriceandalsoisagoodopportunitytointroducetheirbrandintothisnewmarket.Bythesereasons,collaborationstrategywillbemoreactivelycarriedoutinthefashioncategory.H&MandfamousdesignersH&MisafamousSwedishclothingbrandhaving2,300branchesunderdirectmanagementacross41countriesaswellasoneofthemostfamousSPAbrandintheworld.H&Mhasstartedtheircollaborationraceandhasmadelimitededitionwithtop-classdesignersuchasKarlLagerfeld,Madonna,CommeDesGarcons,JimmyChoo,Lanvinandmadebigsuccess,whichmakerecordablesalessincestartedtheirfistcollaborationprojectwithStellaMcCartney.Forexample,JimmyChoocollectionwithH&MlaunchedinHuaihaimiddlestreetShanghai,customersmadealonglineonedaybeforethelaunchingdayandallmosteverylimitededitionproductsweresoldoutbeforeitgottoafternoon.Thiscaseshowsushowthecollaborationproject(usuallyformedasalimitededition)ispowerfulandpositiveeffectonbothitsbrandandsalesatthesametime.ThecollaborationprojectsbetweenH&Mandfamousdesignerarenotonlycooperateindesignpart,butalsoworkingtogetheracrosswholeprocessfromproductdevelopmenttomarketingandsales.Thiscanmakeadifferenceinperfectproductcompletion.1Specialty-store/retailerofPrivate-labelApparel:Producetheirownclothingandsellitexclusively.13 G-StarrawandMarcNewsonG-Starwasfoundedin1989inNetherlands,famousforitsuniquemilitarystyledesign.AfterchangingtheirbrandnamefromGapStartoG-Star,theyproducefashionableurbanclothingespeciallyrawdenim.Sincetheirgeneticmotiveisraw,theyhavemadecollaborationcollectionswithnotonlydeginersbutalsoexpandedtodifferentindustries.Forexample,G-StarannouncedauniquecollaborationwithLandRover.Theirfirstvehiclewasintroducedin1948.G-StarextractedtheiruniqueandmostmajorfactorsfromtheirdenimseriesandremakethedesignofclassicDefendertocreatelimitededitionRAWDefender.RAWDefendersharesthecorebrandvalueofbothG-StarandLandRover,accordswithbrandimageofbothcompanies.Henceithasgeneratedsynergyeffecttotheboth.Thisissomethingthatwecanlearnfromcollaborationthatwell-matchedelementsofeachbrandcouldmakesurprisingresults.UniqloandJilSanderUniqloisoneofSPAbrandlaunchedin1974inJapan.ThisbrandhasbecomeveryfamouswiththeirsimpledesignandvariousmaterialusedinclothesacrossAsiatoEurope.TheircollaborationstrategyisinadifferentwayfromwhatH&Mdoes.TheyworkwithonlyonedesignerwhohassimilardesignstyleandimageunlikeH&Mcollaboratingwithvariousfamousworld-classdesigners.Uniqlohaslaunched+JcollectionwithdesignernamedJilSanderfromGermanwhoisfamousforherminimaldesignsince2009andthelast+Jcollectionisbeingcarryingoninthemarket.Oneofthemostdistinguishfeatureofthecollectionismatchingofsamegene,thatissimpleandbasicdesignfromUniqloandJilSanderwhoisfamousforherminimalism.WhenitwaslaunchedinKoreanmarket,made5timesmoreprofitcomparetotheirnormalprofitlevelandwassoldoutin3days.14 Discountstore‘Target’Targetispositionedasasecondbiggestretailsuper-martrightaftertoWal-MartinAmericanmarket.Theirmarketpositioningissomewhereinthemiddleoflowpricesuper-martandhighpriceofdepartmentstoretoattractcustomerfrombothlevel.Inthemeantime,othercompetitorsinthesuper-martcategoryhadverytoughtime.Someofthemwhocouldn’tmakeadifferencehavepassedoutofexistence.However,Target,2contrarilyriserapidly.Inthebehindoftheirsuccess,therewasauniquePBproductoforiginatedfromcollaboration.APBstrategyusedinoldtimeswasfocusedonsimplysupplyinglowerpriceproducts.Unlikethem,Target’sPBstrategycollaboratedwithveryfamousdesignersuchasMichaelGraves,IsaacMizrahi,Amycoe.AnddevelopedcollaborationPBproductonlyavailableatTarget,satisfiednotonlyaneedoflowpricebutalsodeliveredatotallynewvalueofemotionalsatisfaction,whichneverexistinsuper-martcategory.Bythesereasons,TargetcouldallurebothhighpriceandlowpricecustomersfromeachoflowpricemartsuchasK-martandhighpricedepartmentstores.•AutomobileandCollaborationAvogueofcollaborationinautomobilewithdesigner/fashionhouseisintrendoffromluxuriouscarmarketlikeMercedes-Benztosmallcarcategory.Forwhomalreadyhaveluxuriousimageofcarcouldmaketheirluxuriousimagemoreconcreteintheirtargetmarketandalsocouldexpandtheirtargetmarkettotheoppositebrandparticipatedincollaborationproject(inmostcase,someonewhocanconsumeluxuriousproductsalsoarecapableofpurchasingluxuriouscar).Moreoveritisveryhardtoattractcompetitor’scustomersintheextremelymatureproductcategory,howeveritisstillpossiblethatattractsaswellasinformstheirproduct(orbrand)tothosecustomersthroughcollaborationstrategywithoutmassivepublicrelationsormarketingexpenses.Forthedesignersrelatedtocollaborationproject,alsoeconomizetheireffortincludingexpensestoallurenewcustomersthroughcollaboratewithothercategoryproduct.Designerscould2PrivateBrand:Abrandthatismadebylarge-scalesupermarketorabigdistributor.Theybuyaproductfromamanufacturerdirectlywithbigvolumeandselltheproductwiththeirownbrandname.15 getinautomobilemarketrelativelyeasilythroughdelivertheiruniquebrandvalueandimageaswellasdesignontoautomobileproduct.Moreoverentireautomobileproductcategoryisbeingself-renewalfromsimplemassivesellingwithalowprice.Currentlythesmallcarcategoryalsoactivelycollaborateswithluxuriousfashiondesignhousebecauseofthetrendandthoseadvantagesofcollaborationaffecttoasmallcarmarket.Smallcarbrandnotonlycanallowitsproductkeepaluxuriousimage,butalsodragtheirbrandimageupthroughcollaborationwithluxuriousbrand.Bythesereasons,bothupper-classcarbrandandsmallcarbrandareusingcollaborationstrategytoimprovetheirprofitstructureandescalateitsbrandimage.PRADAwithHyundaiGenesisHyundaimotorcompany,wellknownKoreanautomobilemanufacturer,hasrevealedtheirnewbrandstrategy,‘ModernPremium’in2011.Usuallythepremiumcomeswithexpensivepricesonlyforthespecificcustomers,howeverthisnewannounceddesignstrategyispremiumqualityformorecustomer,whichcomeswithnotuntouchableprices.Thefirststepwiththisidea,HyundaihasworkedwithPRADAforspecialeditionluxurysedan‘GenesisPRADA’.PRADAiswell-knownItalianfashionhouseandpreviouslyhascollaboratedwithLGforLGPRADAphonein2006.Fromthiscollaborationproject,HyundaiispositioningGenesisasoneofthemostluxuriousmodelsthecompanyhaseverbuilt,andcangetintoluxurycarmarketwiththenewimages.Beside,PRADAwillbeabletosharethecustomersofHyundaimotors,andcarryouttheiron-goingfuturemarketingforKoreanluxurymarket.HyundaialsoplansfurthercollaborationprojectwithluxurybrandHermesforEQUUS,whichisthemostexpensivesedanamongtheline.16 Mercedes-BenzwithGiorgioArmaniAttheParismotorshowheldin2004,LimitedspecialeditionCLK-ClassCabrioletwaspresentedandthiscarisdesignedbywellknownItalianfashiondesignerGiorgioArmani.Inthislimitededition,twocompaniesdesignwaswellmatchedintermsofhighqualityandtheirelegantstyle.Oncetheyfoundideasincommon,itrevealedintodetailsperfectly.TheimagesbothMercedes-BenzandGiorgioArmanihaveareluxury,eleganceandhighqualityandsuccessful.Thesearematcheseachotherverywell.Throughthiscollaborationproject,bothcompaniescouldacquiremoreluxuriousimage,becauseoftheirwell-fittedimageandtheaimtheybothhadincommon.FIAT500withGUCCIFIAT500,Italian’sfavorablecarmodel,haveworkedtogetherwithGUCCIin2011sinceFIATworkedtogetherwithBarbietocelebratelaunching50yearsofBarbiedollmadeBarbieEdition.ThisGUCCIFIAT500editionisalsodesignedtocelebratelaunching90yearsofGUCCI.ThisModelbecomesknowntopublicas500byGUCCIEditionsincelaunchedat2011Genevamotorshow.WhatdifferencetheycouldmakeisthatFIAT500couldchangetheirimageoflowpriceretrostylecarintofashionableaswellasluxuriousimage.Inapriceaspect,theycantargetbothhighpricerangecustomerandlowpricerangecustomeratthesametimewiththepriceof17,000euro,whichisaffordableprice.J.ESTINAwithKIAmotorsCollaborationwithanautomobilecompanyisnotjustfortheluxurymarketbutcompactcarmarketaswell.‘NewMorning’,oneofthebestsellingcarsinacompactcarmarketofKoreandomesticmarketisworkingwithKoreanjewelbrandJ.ESTINAtomakeasynergyeffectaimingagesof20-35femalecustomers.Thiseditionisalsoawell-matchedconceptofbothcompanies’productandthebranditsown.Therearesomeexamplesoffemaleidentitycarimplyingtheconceptoftheproductortheowner’simagesuchaswholepinkcolorbodyBentleyGTofParisHiltonandMARYKAYpinkcar.Howevernoneofthesearedevelopedintentionally,andnotdesignedwithcombinationofbothcompanies’image.17 CitroenwithDolce&GabbanaFranceautomakerCitroenandD&G,leadersofthemodeandthecar,linkedtheirtalentstoconceiveandcreateaspecialserieswithpullinglimitedofC3BerlinandC3Plurielintendedforacategoryofprivilegedcustomersandexperts.Thesecars,manufacturedinlimitedseries,areenrichedbylogosD&GinSwarovskibrillianceswhichisthecustomizedcrystalshowingitsluxuriousimage,originallyfromAustria."Theideatoattackuswithsuchaprojectamusedusmuch,itisthefirsttimethatwedrawacar,itwasthusafamousstake.TocollaboratewithCitroenappearedverystimulative,moreespeciallyasthatcommittedusaswellaspossibletoexpressourcreativityinafieldwhichwasforuscompletelynew."-D.DolceandS.Gabbana.Whatthiscommentforthecollaborationshowsusiscollaborationisachallengeforbothpartiestoworkwithinthecompletelynewfieldneverexperienced.BMWMINICooperSwithDSQUARED2Overtheyear"svariousdesignerstookonthetaskofdesigningaspecialMiniCooperfortheLifeBallcharity.LifeBallCharityistheEurope’slargestAIDScharityfoundedin1992pursuingtosupportHIVsuffererorrevealedpositiveHIV.AnnuallyMINIcreateoneMINIfortheLifeBalleventandfor2011,theyhavemadetheonewithDeanandDanCaten,whofromtheDSQUARED2designerduofromCanada.Thiscollaborationisdifferentfromallothersinarespectoftheirpurpose.Abovetheprofitpurpose,theymakecollaborationstoraiseafundforthecharity.Besides,theperiodislongterm.Notlikeonetimeissue,thisprojectisannuallyhappenedwithdifferentdesignersor/andfashionhouseseachtime.18 •CelebrityandCollaborationPeoplealwayskeeptheireyesoncelebrity.Tobespecific,whattheywear,whateat,evenwhattheydrink,peopletakenoteofit.Thisiswhycompaniesconsideracollaborationprojectwithcelebrity.Furthermore,manycelebritieshavelaunchedfashionbusinesswiththeirownname.Thisshowsusthatcelebritieshaveintentiontoworkinfashioncategoryandactuallytheydo.Wecanseemanycasesofcollaborationwithcelebritiesaroundus,meaningthatthecollaborationstrategycandeliverfashionableandchicimagetothemandcanbeagoodopportunitytoescalateabrandimageandinformitsbrandtonewcustomerseventhoughcollaborationstrategydoesnotrelatedtosalesandprofitdirectlyforoppositebrandofcollaborationwithcelebrity.Thiscollaborationcanbeseenfrequentlyinamiddle-lowpricebrandsuchH&M,MANGOandTopshop,itisbecauseoftheirpricerangeisaffordableenoughforcustomerandalsoaddluxuriousimageofcelebritytotheproductsothatispossibletomaximizetheeffectofcollaboration.KatemossandLongchampAworld-classmodelKateMossfromEnglandhasbeencollaboratingwithfamousEnglandcasualbrandTopshop.From2010,shestartednewalliancewithLongchamp,whichismiddle-upperclassbrandfromFrance,eventuallylaunchedcollaborationproduct‘KateMossforLongchamp’.KateMosshasreputationasasupermodelandfashion-star,andshowedherdesignabilitythroughthecollaborationwithLongchamp,whichsheparticipatedinthedesignprocess.Sheparticipatedtheproductdevelopmentprocessfromitsdesigntoselectionofmaterial,whichusedontheproductandsuccessfullydebutinfashioncategory.Itisnotonlyborrowingacelebrity’snamebutalsocreateanewvalueofcelebrity’scharacterandimageprojectedtoaproduct.19 TOMSwithTheRowTOMSShoeshasbothcharacteristicofaprofitcompanyandanon-profitsubsidiaryatthesametime.ThiscompanyiswellknownfortheircharityactivitiesthatwhencustomerpurchaseonepairofTOMSshoes,companywilldonatenewpairofTOMSshoestochildwhoisinneed,livinginathird-worldcountry.ThissocialentrepreneurshipcompanyhasteamedupwithTheRow,whichisacouturefashionlabellaunchedbyMary-KateOlsenandAshleyFullerOlsen.TheyaregeneticallydifferentfraternaltwinsandalsofamousAmericanactresses.ThiscollaborationisonalineofupscalefootwearofTOMS.Basicallytheyaretwodifferentbrands,TOMSismakingalowpriceshoesandhasastrongsocialentrepreneurshipimage,andTheRowisahigh-endbrandwhichisexpensivethatnormallycan’taffordit.Howevertogethertheymakegoodpair,whichraiseTOMSShoes’imageupwithahigh-denimageofTheRow.MangowithMillaJovovichMangoisaleadingSPAbrandwithZARAfromSpain,andalsohasitsreputationinKoreamarket.Mango,lately,workedwithScarlettJohanssonandlaunched‘HaitiBag’.ThisproductisadevelopedtoraiseafundforthevictimofHaitiearthquakeandthiskindofcollaborationactivityisinvoguelately.MangoalsocollaboratedwithMillaJovovichin2007fortheirlimitedsummercollection.MillaJovovichwhoisalreadymanagingherownfashioncompanyhassuccessfullylaunchedthecollaborationwithMangonamed‘Jovovich-HawkforMNG’.Inthiscollaboration,sheparticipatedinactualdesignprocess.ThesearethegoodexamplesofhowtheseSPAbrandmakeuseofcollaborationtoescalatetheirmiddle-lowpriceimage.20 1.2.ImagecongruenceAnindividual’sbehaviorisinpartafunctionofhisself-imageandthewayinwhichhewishesotherstoseehim(Birdwell,1968).Consumptionbehaviorofconsumerisastoryofrepresentingthemselvesandalsohowyouwanttoletothersperceiveyourself.Consumerrepresentthemselvesastheyprojecttheirimageortheimagetheywanttobetotheproductandeventuallycongruentit.“Amoremeaningfulwayofunderstandingtheroleofgoodsassocialtoolsistoregardthemassymbolsservingasameansofcommunicationbetweentheindividualandhissignificantreferences.”(GrubbandGrathwohl,1967)Specifically,Brandisconsideredtohaveaparticular‘Image’thatmirrortheself-conceptofthetypicaluserofthebrandand“consumerswerethoughttopreferproductswithimagesthatwerecongruentwiththeirself-concepts.”(Sirgy,1982)Inthispurchasingprocess,consumersattempttoevaluateabrand.Thereforethefirsthypothesesare:H1a:Consumer’simagecongruencelevelforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsissignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’simagecongruenceforthesameproducthavingtwodifferentbrandawareness(High-LoworLow-High)brands.H1b:Consumer’simagecongruencelevelforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsissignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’simagecongruenceforthesameproducthavingtwolowbrandawareness(Low-Low)brands.21 Figure1.RelationshipbetweenBrandawarenessandImagecongruenceNotes:H=HighBrandAwareness,L=LowBrandAwarenessThismatchingprocessusuallycalledasself-congruitythattheinteractionofbrandimageandself-conceptofconsumer.Morespecifically,“self-congruitytheoryisaconceptualframeworktoexplainsuchself-conceptprocessesasself-evaluation,self-perception,self-conceptchange,self-conceptdifferentiation,self-conceptgeneralization,decisionmaking,informationsearch,self-monitoring,andisthefundamentalprocessalltheseself-conceptprocesseshaveincommon.”(Sirgy,1982)Sirgyarguedthat“self-evaluationinvolvesacomparisonbetweenaperceivedself-imageoutcomeandaself-expectancy;however,theobjectiveisanevaluationoftherelative‘goodness’oftheperceivedself-imageoutcome,andthisprocessismostlyguidedbytheneedforself-esteem.”Shavitt(1989)notedthat“attitudesmayworkasameansofmaintainingself-esteemandcreatingidentity,withindividualsassociatingthemselveswithlikedorpositivelyregardedobjects.”Attitudecanmanageself-esteemonceitisformedinagoodway,andalsocanbecreatedbyabrandassociation.Aaker(1991)arguedthatpositivebrandattitudecouldbeformedbyapositivebrandassociationamongconsumers.Thisbrandassociationbetweenbrandandconsumeralsoaffectsontheirconsumer-brandrelationship.Alltheseactivitiesaretookplaceemotionallyinmind.Fournier(1998)notethat“emotionalexperiencecanstrengthenconsumer-brandrelationship.”Inaddition,Wyner(1999)arguedthat“productassociationbetweenbrand(product)andconsumerhelpstoshapethebrandrelationship.”Basedontheseresearches,thisstudyexaminethefollowinghypotheses:22 H7:Thehigherconsumers’congruencelevel,thehigherconsumers’brandattitudelevel.H8:Thehigherconsumers’congruencelevel,thehigherconsumers’brandrelationshiplevel.Figure2.EffectofimagecongruencetowardsBrandattitudeandBrandrelationshipBirdwell(1968)arguedthattheself-imagewasdirectlyrelatedtopurchasingbehavior.Thispurchasingbehaviorisabletoenhanceself-conceptatthesametime.Intheprocessofpurchasingandconsumptionofgoods,“self-conceptofanindividualwillbesustainedandbuoyedifconsumerbelievesthegoodhehaspurchasedisrecognizedpubliclyandclassifiedinamannerthatsupportsandmatcheshis/herself-concept.”(GrubbandGrathwohl,1967;Dolich,1969;HeathandScott,1998)Thisargumentsuggeststhatconsumermaypurchaseproductstoenhanceaparticularanduniqueself-conceptratherthanfunctionality.Itismeaninglessthathaveproductsdifferentiatedwiththeirsimilarfunctionandletcustomerschooseitespeciallyinthiseraofthatcustomersarebeingsmarter.Amarketisinundatedwithmanybrands.Productweareusingnowisusuallyprettygood,sothattheycausea‘Theprettygoodproblem’whichprettyhardtodifferentiateontheirqualityandfunctionaspects.Nowitisveryimportantformarketertodevelopaproductthatcansatisfycustomer’sself-expressiondesire.Inotherwords,hardtosatisfycustomerneedintheaspectofitsfunction,becauseofmostproductshasahighenough23 quality.Whatimportantnowishowletcustomercongruenttheirimagetoaproductimageorbrandimage.“Fromamarketingmanagementpoint-of-view,usingofaself-congruitycouldbehelpfulforbrandpositioning.Hence,itwouldbequiteusefulformarketingresearcherstoknowunderwhatcircumstancesself-congruitymodelsshouldbeusedinbrandpositioningresearch.”(Sirgyetal.,1991)1.3.BrandawarenessAwarenessofabrandoraproductisconsideredasanimportantdeterminantwhenconsumersdecidetheirpurchase.Hoyer(1984)arguedthat“Variousstandardmeasures,suchasaidedandunaidedbrandnamerecallandtop-of-mindawareness,restontheassumptionthattheabilityoftheconsumertorememberabrandorproductwillstronglyaffecttheprobabilityofitsbeingconsideredforpurchase.Besidetheconsumerinmanypurchasesituationsis,atbest,apassiverecipientofproductinformationandonewhotendstospendminimaltimeandcognitiveeffortinchoosingamongbrands.”Whenitcomestohighconcerningproduct(usuallyexpensiveorrelativetohealthandsafety),consumertendstodecidemorebasedonthebrandawareness,whichrelatedtotheirexperienceandreliability.Moreover,“Insituationsinvolvingcommon,repeat-purchaseproducts,theconsumermaychooseabrandonthebasisofasimpleheuristic(e.g.,brandawareness,pricing,packaging)andthenevaluatethebrandsubsequenttopurchase.”(Rayetal.1973)Accordingly,thefollowinghypotheseswillbeexamined:24 H2a:Consumer’sbrandattitudeforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsissignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’sbrandattitudeforthesameproducthavingtwodifferentbrandawareness(High-LoworLow-High)brands.H2b:Consumer’sbrandattitudeforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsissignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’sbrandattitudeforthesameproducthavingtwolowbrandawareness(Low-Low)brands.Figure3.RelationshipbetweenBrandawarenessandBrandattitudeNotes:H=HighBrandAwareness,L=LowBrandAwarenessBrandawarenessisalsointerpretedinanameoffamiliarity.Janiszewski(1988)suggestthat“familiarityleadstogreaterliking,evenwithoutthemediationofconsciousawareness.Itmightthusbearguedthattheeffectsofawarenessonchoicecan’tbeseparatedfromthoseofaffect.”Otherresearchfoundthat“brandawarenessitselfmightbemoreimportantthanothercharacteristicssuchasqualityinmakingbrandchoicedecisions.”HoyerandBrown(1990),forexample,arguedthat“Consumersweremorelikelytochooseafamiliarbrandversusanunknownbrand,eventhoughtheyareinformedthattheunknownbrandhashigherquality.”Andtheyalsoperformedaresearchtoexaminetheeffectsofbrandawarenesshowtheindividualconsumermakeadecision.Theytestedtheeffectofbrandawarenessonperceivedquality,thatis,“consumerchoosetheproductthattheyfamiliarandmaythinkthebrandtheyknowhasbetterquality.”MacdonaldandSharp(1990)indicatedthat“importanteffectsonconsumerdecisionmakingbyinfluencingwhichbrandsentertheconsiderationset,anditalsoinfluences25 whichbrandsareselectedfromtheconsiderationset.Intheresult,brandawarenessaffectswhichbrandsareselectedfromtheconsiderationset,throughitsuseasaheuristicforchoice.”(e.g.,“IwillchoosethebrandIknow.”)“Enhancingbrandnameawarenessthuscanhaveimportantcompetitiveimplicationssinceitmayhinderconsumers’memoryforcompetitors’brandnames.”(AlbaandChattopadhyay,1986)“Consumersrespondstronglyanddecidetobuyonlyfamiliar,well-establishedbrands.”(Jacoby,Syzabillo,&Schach,1977)Brandawarenessisalsoviewasapartofbrandequity.BrandequitywasconceptualizedasapartofassetsbyAaker(1991).Heproposedthat“Brandawareness,brandassociations,perceivedquality,brandloyaltyandotherproprietaryassetswerethefiveassetsofbrandequity.Inthecontextofbrandequity,brandawarenessreferstothestrengthofabrand’spresenceinconsumers’minds.”Aakermentioned“severallevelsofbrandawareness,rangingfrommererecognitionofthebrandtodominance,whichreferstotheconditionwherethebrandinvolvedistheonlybrandrecalledbyaconsumer.”Keller(1993)indicated,“Brandrecognitionmaybemoreimportanttotheextentthatproductdecisionsaremadeinthestore”.Bythisreason,brandawarenessisdefinedtoindicatebothbrandrecognitionandbrandrecallintheresearchofbrand.However,RossiterandPercy(1987)hadabitdifferentview-standaboutthedefinitionofbrandawareness,thatis,“astheconsumer’sabilitytoidentifyorrecognizethebrand.”Aaker(1996a)arguedthat“Insomecontexts,brandawarenesscouldbeadriverofbrandchoiceandevenloyalty.Anditreflectsthesalienceofthebrandinthecustomersmind.”Healsoindicatedthat“Severallevelsofawareness,whichincludeRecognition,Recall,Top-of-mind,Branddominance,Brandknowledge,Brandopinion.Theselevelsworkdifferentlyindifferentcontextofbrand.Newornichebrands,forexample,recognitioncanbeimportantratherthanothers,butforwell-knownbrands,recallandtip-of-mindaremoresensitiveandmeaningful.”Hence,thefollowinghypothesesareoffered:26 H3a:Consumer’sbrandrelationshipforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsissignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’sbrandrelationshipforthesameproducthavingtwodifferentbrandawareness(High-LoworLow-High)brands.H3b:Consumer’sbrandrelationshipforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsissignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’sbrandrelationshipforthesameproducthavingtwolowbrandawareness(Low-Low)brands.Figure4.RelationshipbetweenBrandawarenessandBrandrelationshipNotes:H=HighBrandAwareness,L=LowBrandAwareness“Brandawarenessconsistsofbrandrecognitionandrecallperformance.Brandrecognitionisrelatedtoconsumers’abilitytoconfirmpriorexposuretothebrandwhengiventhenameasacue.Brandrecallrelatestoconsumers,abilitytoretrievethebrandwhengiventheproductcategory,theneedsfulfilledbythecategory,orsomeothertypeofprobeoracue.”(Dolak,2003)InAaker’searlierresearch(1991),heindicatedtheimportanceofbrandawarenessinbrandchoice,thatis,“Brandawarenessasintofurtherelaborationisthecapacityofconsumerstorecognizeorrememberabrand,andthereisalinkagebetweenthebrandandtheproductclass,butthelinkdoesnothavetobestrong.Brandawarenessisaprocessfromwherethebrandisjustknowntoalevelwhentheconsumershaveputthebrandonahigherrank;thebrandhasbecomethe‘topofmind’.”27 Aloyaltyforaparticularbrandcanbebasedonbrandawareness.Aaker(1991)arguedthat“Loyaltyisbasicallyameasuredcapacityofhowmuchapurchasercanbeemotionallyinvolvedinabrand.”Andthestartofthisinvolvementisbrandawareness.Gettinghigherofloyalty,theconsumer’splatformandthecompetitionagainstcompetitorsaregettingstronger.Hementionedinhisresearchof2002,“Brandawareness,perceivedqualityandcleareffectivebrandidentitycancontributetohigherloyalty.”1.4.BalancetheoryBalancetheoryexplainsthatconsumerstendtoreconcileseveralthoughtsthatconflicteachotherintheirmind.Sincehumanhasmanydifferentideathatcannotbematchedperfectly,sotheyhavesomekindofmotivationtomakeitsymmetric.Thatis,whencustomerevaluatesanobject,thisobjectrelatestootherattitudestoseewhethertheevaluationfitwithit.Thereforebalancetheorycanbeadoptedwhentoexamineattitudeformationandattitudechange.Heider(1946,1958)analyzed“howpeopleviewtheirrelationswithotherpeopleandwiththeenvironmenttheyarebelongto.”Theanalysishasthreeelements,labeledP,OandX(wherePisafocalperson,Oisananotherperson,Xisanphysicalobject:couldbeanidea,anevent,orthelike).Heidertermed“balanced”and“unbalanced”toexplainhowthesesthreeelements(P,OandX)arerelatingeachother.Heargued,“Inthecaseofthreeentities,abalancedstateexistsifallthreerelationsarepositiveinallrespectsoriftwoarenegativeandoneispositive.”Figure1showsthebalancing(orunbalancing)triplesintroducedbyHeider.28 Figure5.BalancedandUnbalancedstatetriplesBalanced statesUnbalanced statesNotes:Boldlinesindicatepositive,anddottedlinesindicatenegativerelations.Thoseonthefirstrowareconsideredasbalancedwhilethoseonthesecondrowareconsideredasunbalanced.Thefirsttriple,proposedthattheattitudesofPtowardsOandXarepositive,meanwhiletheattitudeofOtowardsXispositive,isnotoccurringanytensiontoP.However,unbalancedstatescausetensionfortheelementsinvolved.Forinstance,thefirsttripleintheunbalancedstatesshowsthattheattitudeofPtowardsOisnegative,thatisconsideredPhastension,whichisunbalancedinhis/hercognitiveprocess(PdislikeO,butlikesXthatOlike).InthiscasethechanceofchooseofParetohateX(liketop-secondleft)andgeneratebalancebyoccurringdislikeforbothOandX,orsimplycreatelikeforXandmakeall-positivetriple(seeFigure5).Theessenceofbalancetheoryisthatpersontendstomakeabalancedstatesomehowmanipulatetheircognitivetowardthesamedirection(positive-positive,negative-negative)andthereareunbalancedstates,generatetensionandforcepersontorestorebalancedstates.However,theconceptofbalancetheorycannotstandfordegreesofliking(Heider,1958).Whenitcomestothecollaborationstrategy,pairingtwobrandscanpossiblycreatepositiveperceptionthatabrandhaspositiveaffectwithonethathaslesspositiveorevennegative.Morespecifically,assumethatoneunknownorlesspreferredbrandmakeacollaborationproductwithawell-knownbrand,theconsumer’sperceptionofthe29 unknownorlesspreferredbrandmaybeenhanced.Inacompetitivemarketplace,manycompaniesaretryingtogetmoreattentionfromconsumersbycombiningtwobrandsinanefforttocreatetheperceptionofincreasedworthoftheproduct(P.Carpenter,1994).Similarly,ifwefeelpositivelytowardourselves,wewilltendtolikeanythingassociatedwithus(J.K.Began,1992).Likehementioned,itispossibletoarguethatifwehavepositivefeelingtowardsomething(morelikelyobject),wetendtolikeanythingrelatedwithit.SupposedthatbrandAmakeacollaborationproductwithbrandB,forinstance,ifsomeonefeelpositivelyonBrandA,thenheislikelytohaveapositivefeelingtowardonbrandBatthesametime.Thispointleadstothefollowinghypotheses:H4:Consumer’simagecongruencelevelforacollaborationproductissignificantlygreaterthannon-collaborationproductH5:Consumer’sbrandattitudeforacollaborationproductissignificantlygreaterthannon-collaborationproductH6:Consumer’sbrandrelationshipforacollaborationproductissignificantlygreaterthannon-collaborationproductFigure6.EffectofcollaborationtowardsImagecongruence,BrandattitudeandBrandrelationshipNotes:CP=CollaborationProduct,NCP=Non-CollaborationProduct30 1.5.SignalingtheorySignalingtheoryisbasicallystartedfromasetofissuesthatqualityanduncertainty.Therearemanykindofmarketsinwhichsellerknowsthequalityoftheproducttheysell,andbuyersdon’t(Asymmetricinformation).Inthislackofinformationaboutthequalityofproduct,inthebuyersviewpoint,buyersareuncertainonquality,resultedinpayinglessorwithdrawingofthepurchasingwhichisundesirableforbothbuyersandsellers.Toavoidingthisundesirablesituation,sellersneedasignalthatletbuyersknowabouttheirqualityofproductandreduceuncertainty.Sothatstimulatespurchasinginthemarketplace.MichaelSpence(1976)arguedthat“Forasignaltobeeffective,itmustbeunprofitableforsellersoflowqualityproductstoimitateit.Thatis,highqualitysellersmusthavelowercostsforsignalingactivities.”Inhisresearches,hementionedseveralexamplesofsignaling.Educationcansignalproductivepotentialifitscostsarenegativelycorrelatedwiththatpotential.Productguaranteescantellconsumersaboutproductsbecausetheexpectedcostofaguaranteeisnegativelycorrelatedwiththedurabilityoftheproduct.Andalsoinhisresearchofinsurancemarket(SpenceM.andZeckhauserR.,1971),theindividual’schoiceofaninsurancepolicyfromamenuofpossibilities,wherethemenuisdefinedbyaschedulerelatingpremiumstothepayoffs,cantelltheinsurersomethingabouttheprobabilitythattheindividualattachestotheeventthatisbeinginsuredagainst.Whenthereisanasymmetricimperfectinformationgap,theexampleofusedcarmarketshowstheconsequenceswhatistheprobleminthemarketplace.GeorgeAkerlof(1970)arguedthat“Thereisasymmetricalinformationinusedcarmarket:Supposethatthereareonlyfourkindsofcars.(Newcars,usedcars,Goodcarsandbadcars-knownas‘Lemon’)”Sincethereisasymmetricalinformationgap,sellerusuallyhasadvantageoverbuyer,assellerhasmoreinformationabouttherealqualityofthecarthanwhatbuyerdoes.Henceforbuyer,itishardtoverifywhatisgoodcarandwhatisbadcar.Insuchsituation,buyerswilltendtopayless(thangoodcardeservetogetpaid),becausetheyareafraidofbeingcheated(buying“Lemon”).Thustheownerofagoodcarisnotabletoaccquirethetruevalueofthecar,thereforeitmustbelockedin,thatisgoodcarisprobablynotavailableinthemarket.31 Oneimportantelementinhisstorywecancaptureisthatbuyersdon’thaveinformationofthequalityoftheproductunlesspurchaseitanduseit.Inmostkindofmarketplace,thiselementmightbetrueandbuyersaretoovulnerabletoprotectthemselvestobeingcheated.However,‘Signal’canprovideasolutionofasymmetricalinformationgapproblem.MuchlikeeducationinSpence’sresearch,brandnamescansignalquality.“Ifonebrandnameonaproductgivesacertainsignalofquality,thenthepresenceofasecondbrandnameontheproductshouldresultinasignalthatisatleastaspowerful,ifnotmorepowerfulthan,thesignalinthecaseofthesinglebrandname.Brandalliancescanserveasqualitysignalswhenanindividualbrandisunabletosuccessfullysignalqualitybyitself.”(RaoandRuekert,1994)Abrandnamecanstandfortheinformationofunobservablecharacteristicwhenbuyer’scomplainingmayresultincompany’sprofitloses.Thatis,ifsellerconniveitsproduct’slowqualityandmakeconsumertobelievetheproductasahighquality,thebrandwouldgetmuchofdamageincludingfutureprofitwhenbuyersnoticethatitsrealqualityisnotasgoodasthequalitythattheyexpectedwhenpurchaseit.Therefore,onlyasellerwhohasbeliefofitsproduct’squalitytrytousesignalingstrategy.Hence,itispossibletosaythat“Abrandedproductisperhapsofhigherqualitythananunbrandedproduct,andthebrandcanthereforeserveasaneffectivesignalofunobservedquality.”(T.ErdemandJ.Swait,1998)H.LevyandE.L.Porat(1995)testedexperimentallysignalingtheories.Intheirresearch“Asignalingmodelwhichclaimsthatthehighertheentrepreneurparticipationinthefinancingofafirm,thestrongerthepositivesignaltransmittedtothepublicaboutthequalityofthefirm,andhencethehigherthefirm’smarketvalue.”32 Figure7.AframeworkoftheresearchFigure8.AhypotheticalrelationshipbetweenImagecongruenceandBrandattitude,Brandrelationship33 2.Designoftheresearch2.1.HypotheticalproductMobilephoneisselectedforthehypotheticalproductamongseveralproducts(suchascar,laptop,clothes,beverageetc.).Whendesigntheresearchproduct,manykindsofproductswereconsidered.Theseallsampleproductsarealsocurrentlyexistasacollaboratedproductinmarket.Formostaccurateresearch,sampleproducthastobehighconspicuousness,highcommitmentwhenthecustomerconsiderapurchase,andnottoolowpriceofaproduct(tostimulatecustomer’sconsideration).Mobilephoneissomethingthatalmosteveryonehasatleastoneandalsocarriesitwithhim/heranytime.Assmartphonehasbeenmoreubiquitousnowadays,itbecamesomethingdoinganimportantparttoourdailylifeandisusedacrossavarietyofsituations.Sincemobilephonehashighconspicuousness,consumersaremorelikelytoevaluateitintermsofsymboliccriteria.Inaddition,asthepurchaseofmobilephoneisahighcostpurchasingdecision,consumersevaluatecompetitiveproduct(orbrand)inthesameproductcategorybeforetheymakeadecisiontopurchaseit(highcommitment).Itisimportanttonotethatseveralcollaboratedmobilephoneexistalreadyinthemarket.SinceMotorolaCoachphoneearlyin2000,Nokia·Samsung·LGalsomadecollaborationprojectmanytimes.Becauseofthisreason,itcanbesafelyassumedthatrespondentsofquestionnairemaybefamiliarwiththiskindofproductandawaytheycollaborate.Moreover,thiscombination(mobilemanufacture-Famousdesignhouse)isarealisticapproachtothesubjectandthattherespondentsrecognizethesetwodifferentindustriescancollaborateeachotherfromthemanyexamplesinthemobilemarketandfashionmarketaswell.Tomakethehypotheticalproduct,themobilephonemanufacturecategoryandfashiondesignhousecategorywerechosenintheresearch.Nottomaketheexperimenttoocomplicated,twocompaniesofeachcategorywerechosen(formobilephonemanufacture:Samsung,Nokia,HTC,Motorola,LG;‘Apple’companywasnotincludedinthepretestbecauseofitsuniquebrandimage,whichdoesn’tfittocollaborationproduct.AndforFashiondesignhouse:Burberry,Coach,BottegaVeneta,Dsquared2,andDior).Inaddition,thosefashionhousealreadyhadcollaborationproductinthemarketwerenot34 choseninthepretestasanoption.Brandawarenessisusuallyperceivedasoneofthepartofbrandequity,isabletoaffectperceptionsandattitudes.“Insomecontexts,itcanbeadriverofbrandchoiceandevenloyalty.”(DavidA.Aaker,1996a)AccordingtoAaker,brandawarenesssomehowactasatriggerwhencustomersseeparticularbrand,andthatremindcustomersthefeaturesofthebrandintheirmind.Inhisresearchbrandawarenessisdividedintoseverallevelsincluding“Recognition,Recall,Top-of-Mind,BrandDominance,BrandKnowledge,BrandOpinion.”Andalsohearguedthat“ifthereisanewbrand(ornotwell-knownbrand),recognitionisactedimportantly,whereasrecallandtop-of-mindaremoresensitiveandmeaningfulforwell-knowbrand.”Inthisresearch,Iusedalltheselevelsofbrandawarenesstomeasureandseehowtherespondentsreactwhentheyareaskedaboutsamplebrands,becauseonthehypotheticalproduct,twobrands(andalsotwodifferentproductcategory)werecombinedononeproduct.Tomeasureappropriateawarenesslevel,eachlevelsofawarenesshastobeconsideredatthesametime,sinceeachawarenesslevelcoversdifferentcategories(includingbrands)moreappropriately.Awarenesslevelscanoftenbeaffecteddramaticallybycueingsymbolsandvisualimagery(Aaker,1996a),inthedesignofquestionnaireforverifyingawareness,Iputthelogoofeachcompanyonthetopofquestionnairetogetthemaximizedresultfromtherespondents.Inaddition,differentiationconcept(Howabrandcanbedifferentiatedfromitscompetitors)wasalsoconsideredamongtheitems.Inthereasonofthatthosebrandscommittedincollaborationproductbasicallycanbereplacedwithotherbrandshavesimilarcapacityorimage,considerationofdifferentiationonbrandsissimplyimportantandwouldaffectonthelevelofbrandawareness.Sincetheresearchisfocusedonbrandawarenessperspective,therespondents(n=50)inthispretestfordeterminingsamplebrandsevaluatedthelevelofbrandawarenessfromeachcategory.TheitemsofbrandawarenesstestcomefromDavidA.Aaker(1996a).Inthispretest,Iusedseven-pointLikertscales(semanticdifferential)foreachitems(totaloftenitems)toevaluatetenbrandsfromtwodifferentcategories.TotestthereliabilityofconstructofbrandawarenessperformedaCronbach’salphatest(Cronbach’salpha=0.851).IntheCronbach’salphatest,theresultexceedsthestandardpointof0.700,sothatalltheitemsinthepretestwerechosenforthefurthertest(NunnallyandBernstein,1994).35 TheitemsandscalesusedinapretesttomeasurethebrandawarenessinthisresearcharelistedintheAppendixA.UsingthetenitemsofthebrandawarenessscaleusedinthepretestprecededanonlinesurveytodeterminewhichbrandsIuseinthemaintestlater.Inthissurvey,totalof40peoplewasrequestedforthesurveyandtheresultswereasfollowing,Samsungwas3selectedasthehighestbrandawarenessinthemobilemanufacturecategorywhereasBurberrywasrevealedthathasthehighestbrandawarenessinthefashiondesignhousecategory.Meanwhile,HTCandBottegaVenetahadthelowestbrandawarenessineachofmobilemanufactureandfashiondesignhousecategory.Hence,fourcompanieshavebeenselectedtolaunchahypotheticalcollaborationproduct.Onecompanyfromeachcategorymadeacollaborationcombination,comprisedinfourdifferentcombinationsbelow.3ManyrespondentsofbrandawarenessscaleswereAsian.Inmyopinionthismightaffectontheirperceptionofbrand,whichresultedinthehighestrankingofSamsung.36 Figure9.StructureofHypotheticalproducts2.2.Measures2.2.1.ImageCongruenceTomeasurehowtheconsumersregardtheirself-imageassamewithbrandimage,fouritemswithseven-pointsemanticdifferentialscalesusedforthisvariable.OneitemamongthosefouritemscamefromJ.Aakeretal(2004).Andothersweremadetomeasurethedegreeofimagecongruenceappropriately.Forareliabilitytestoftheseven-pointLikertscales,Cronbach’scoefficientalphawasusedoneachscaleandtheresultswassatisfied(Cronbach’salpha=0.892,n=40),greaterthan0.700,consideredasstandardcut-offpointforbasicresearch(NunnallyandBernstein,1994).Respondentswereaskedtoindicatethedegreethattheythoughtdescribedtargetbrandandtheirself-conceptwellatthesametimeaimedattestinghypothesiseachofH1aandb,H4,H7andH8.TheanchorpointsfortheLikertscalesrangedfrom1to7(1:Extremelynegative,7:Extremelypositive).Alistofitems(statements)andsevenpointsemanticdifferentialscalesforeachbrandisdisplayedinAppendixB.37 2.2.2.BrandattitudeFourquestionswereincludedinthequestionnaireforbrandattitudescale.Thesequestionsweregivenaftertherespondentsreadthedescriptionabouthypotheticalproduct.IusedsevenpointLikertscale(semanticdifferential)tomeasuretheattitudeofrespondentstowardseachbrand,anditrangefrom1to7(1:Extremelynegative,7:Extremelypositive).Specifically,therespondentswereaskedtoexpresstheextenttohowtheyareloyaltorelevantbrandaimedattestinghypothesiseachofH2aandb,H5,andH7.ThesequestionsarefromJ.Aakeretal(2004).ToverifythereliabilityofthequestionnaireusedCronbach’salpha,whichis,0.906,n=40(acceptablebasedon0.700standard).Alistofitems(statements)andsevenpointsemanticdifferentialscalesforeachbrandisdisplayedinAppendixB.2.2.3.BrandrelationshipRespondentsrepliedtofourquestionsaboutthebrandrelationshipaimedattestinghypothesiseachofH3aandb,H6,andH8.IusedsevenpointLikertscale(semanticdifferential)tomeasureeachitems,anditrangefrom1to7(1:Extremelynegative,7:Extremelypositive).ThreeoffouritemswerefromJ.Aakeretal(2004)andanotheronewasfromF.Kressmannetal(2006).TheCronbach’salphaof0.927(n=40)isgreaterthan0.700standardIndicatesthattheitemspresentthelevelofbrandrelationshipwell.Alistofitems(statements)andsevenpointsemanticdifferentialscalesforeachbrandisdisplayedinAppendixB.38 2.3.SampleanddatacollectionAtotalofrandomlychosen50people(9ofthemwereinvalid)ofwhichstudents,workerswasrequestedtofillthequestionnaireoutthroughtwomethodsincludingE-mailandhandover,wereinformedthattheycouldvoluntarilyparticipateinthisresearchaboutcollaborationbrandproduct(refertothetable2).TheywereadministeredadetailedquestionnairedesignedtoassesstheImagecongruence,BrandattitudeandBrandrelationshipconsistingof12questionsofwhichfouraboutimagecongruence(imageofbrands,representmyimage,brandfitsmewell,representwhoIwanttobe).OtherfourquestionswereaboutBrandattitudenorms(attitudetowardbrands,willchoosethebrandeventhepriceisexpensive,choosethebrandamongothers,loyaltobrands).Therestoffourquestionswereaboutbrandrelationshipnorms(understandmyneeds,wouldyoupostponethepurchaseiftheproductisnotavailableatthemoment,howpleasedwiththebrand,assumingthatthebrandcomingaliveandbecomingaperson,thenhowheorshetreatsme).Theythenratedtheextenttowhichthebrandwasapplicableonseven-pointsemanticdifferentialscale.Tofurtherassess,allrespondentswereaskedtodothesamequestionnaireforeachcombinationofcollaborationaswellasnoncollaborationproduct,thatiseachbrandproducesameproduct.Allthequestionswereadministeredonaseven-pointsemanticdifferentialscale.39 Table1.CharacteristicofsamplesVariablesFrequencyPercentage(%)Age18-25204926-35174136-45410GenderMale1639Female2561NationalityAmerican512Asian3380European38EducationUniversitygraduate2459Postgraduate1741EmploymentstatusFulltime1229Parttime615Student1844Notinpaidwork512Notes:Thesumofeachitemis41.2.3.1.MethodTheexperimentswasa2x2designwithmobilemanufacture(Samsung,HTC)andfashiondesignhouse(Burberry,BottegaVeneta)Table2.ExperimentalTreatmentPlanSampleProductBrandAwarenessBrandCategoryPriceSamsungHighManufacturer500HTCLowManufacturer500BurberryHighDesignHouse500BottegaVenetaLowDesignHouse500Note:MonetaryUnit=U.S.dollars40 3.Study13.1.TheexperimentStudyrespondents(n=41)wererandomlyassignedtothefirstexperiment.Theexperimentrespondents,noneofwhomparticipatedinearlierpre-testforbrandawareness,werestudentsofShanghaiJiaotongUniversityandworkersallfrom12differentcountries.Sincethebrandawarenessofparticularonecountryhasquiteuniquefeatures,Iperformedtheexperimentwithvariousnationalityrespondentsfrom12countries,insteadofchoosingonlyonecountry(thismightaffecttotheclearresultofexperimentbecauseofvariousnationality).Afterreadingabriefintroductiononthecoverpageofquestionnaire,respondentswereinstructedtoreadthehypotheticalproductconcepttoanswerthequestionwell.Thequestionnaireconsistedofthreeparts.InthefirstpartIintroducedthehypotheticalproductandhowitismadebytwodifferentcompaniesofthattheoneismobilemanufactureandanotherisdesignhouse.Andalsoinformedthatthepriceoftheproductissameforeachcombinationofcompanies.Inthesecondpart,amainquestionnairewasgiventobemeasuredincludingthethreedependentmeasures,whichareImagecongruence,BrandattitudeandBrandrelationship.Inthelastparteachrespondentswereaskedtoanswergeneralinformationoftheircharacteristic,whichincludeGender,Nationality,Age,EducationandEmploymentstatus.Mainly,firstexperimentisaimtotestH1,H2andH3throughtheempiricaltestifthedifferenceofbrandawarenessofcollaborationproductaffecttoimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Toprovethis,totalof6differentcasesweretestedanditwasconsistedofdifferentlevelofbrandawarenessproduct.Accordingtoeachcompany’sbrandawareness,twoofhigh-highandhigh-low(low-high),oneofhigh-highandlow-low,oneofhigh-lowandlow-high,oneofhigh-lowandlow-lowandoneoflow-highandlow-lowweremade.EachofH1,H2andH3isconsistedof‘a’and‘b’.Eventuallysixcasesweretestedinthefirstexperiment.41 3.2.HypothesisTestingThefirststepinhypothesistestingwastoexaminewhetheranyofthecollaborationbrandaffectedthedependentvariables.AccordingtotheHypothesisH1,H2andH3,eachofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshiphadtobeaffectedbyseriesofdifferentcollaborationbrandmix.Inthetest,aseriesofANOVAwererunwithdifferentcombinationofcollaborationbrandmix(CellmeansarepresentedinTable3).H1forimagecongruencerevealedsignificantresult.Testshowsthatlow-highcombinationwassignificantlyaffectedbybrandawarenessdifference(MeanDifference=3.317,Sig.=0.015).Specifically,whenBrandawarenessofmanufacturewaslowandthebrandawarenessofdesignhousewashigh,customerscongruenttheirimagemorethanlowbrandawarenessofdesignhousewithhighbrandawarenessmanufacture.Meaning,whentherewasadifferenceonmanufacture’sbrandawareness,customersmoreconcernedcongruenceoftheirimageevenlowbrandawarenessmanufacturecollaboratedwithhighbrandawarenessofdesignhouse.ThisresultisquiteoppositetowhatIexpectedatthefirsttime.Iwasthinkingthatcustomerswouldmorecareaboutthedesignsincethedifferenceofqualityofeachmanufacturewasnotthatbig(ornotthepriorityamongotherconcerns).Buttheresultshowsthatcustomerseemedmorecongruenttheirimagewiththeproductundertheconsiderationofwhichmanufactureismorereliable.However,whenlowbrandawarenessdesignhousewasworkingwithhighbrandawarenessmanufacture,therewasnosignificantimagecongruencebetweentwohighbrandawarenesscombinationandonehighandonelowbrandawarenesscombination(MeanDifference=2.732,Sig=0.068),notinsupportofH1a.Whentwohighbrandawarenesscombinationmettwolowbrandawarenesscombination,therewasstrongimagecongruencebetweencustomerandbrands(MeanDifference=6.366,Sig.=0.000).UnlikeH1a,itisclearlyprovedthattwolowbrandawarenesscombinationcouldnotsupportcustomer’simagecongruencelevel,thatis,customerbelievedtheimportanceofwhichmanufacturecommittedratherthanwhatdesignhousecollaborate,insupportofH1b.42 H2forbrandattitudetestshowedthattherewasnosignificantinteractionbetweenbrandawarenessdifferentiationandbrandattitudelevel.Specifically,whentwohighbrandawarenesscombinationcollaboratedonehighbrandawarenessofmanufactureandonelowbrandawarenessofdesignhousecombination,therewasnodifferenceonbrandattitude(MeanDifference=2.146,Sig.=0.260).Inthesamemanner,whenonelowbrandawarenessofmanufactureandonehighbrandawarenessofdesignhousecollaboratedwithtwohighcombination,stillnodifferencewasobserved(MeanDifference=2.805,Sig.=0.079),notinsupportofH2a.However,stronginteractionwasobservedwhentwohighbrandawarenessbrandscollaboratedintermsofbrandattitude.Aswecanseeintable3,whentwohighbrandawarenesscompanieswerecomparedtotwolowbrandawarenesscompanies,therewasasignificantdifferenceinbrandattitude,thatis,customershadbetterbrandattitudetowardsthecollaborationbrandswhentheycombinedwithtwohighbrandawarenessbrands.Peopleusuallyarehesitatewhentheychoosesomethingthatdonothaveenoughinformationornotfamiliarwith,insupportofH2b.H3forbrandrelationshippostulatesbrandrelationshipwouldbehigherinthecaseoftwohighbrandawarenesscombinationcomparedtothosebrandcombinationhaslowerbrandawareness.TheexperimentshowsthatthereisnosignificantrelationshipbetweenonehighawarenessofmanufactureandonelowbrandawarenessofdesignhousewhichwasnotsatisfyingH3.Specifically,whenhighbrandawarenessofdesignhousecompetedtolowbrandawarenessofdesignhouse,customer’sbrandrelationshiptowardsthecaseweresame,thatis,differenceofdesignhousecouldnotaffecttothebrandrelationship(MeanDifference=2.463,Sig.=0.126),notinsupportofH3a.However,differenceofmanufactureaffectedtothecustomer’sbrandrelationship.Whenitcomestothemanufacture,customersmoreconsideredthequalityofproductsincethemobilephoneisnotacheapproductcategory.Moreover,customersaremorecarefulwhentheychoosetheproductthattheydon"thaveenoughinformationornotfamiliarwith.Sothecaseofdifferentmanufactures,customer’sbrandrelationshipwassignificantlystronggreaterthanthecombinationoflowmanufacture(MeanDifference=3.146,Sig.=0.026),insupportofH3b.43 Itbecomesmoreclearwhenthecaseoftwohighbrandawarenessgroupandtwolowbrandawarenessgroup.Customersreactedmoreclearlywhentwolowbrandawarenessgroupmatch.Sincehighbrandawarenessbrandhasmorechancetocommunicateandinteractwithcustomers,theirbrandrelationshipalsowouldbeaffectedpositivelycomparetothosenotinteractwithcustomersenough.Specifically,whentwohighbrandawarenessbrandscollaborated,theirbrandrelationshipwashigherthanthoseoftwolowbrandawarenessbrandscollaborated(MeanDifference=6.073,Sig.=0.000).Thus,theresultssupportH3bbutnotH3a.Insummary,thehypothesestestingprovidedsupportforH1b,H2bandH3b.PartialsupportforH1a,H3a,butH2awasnotsupported.44 Table3.MeancomparisonsforImagecongruence,BrandattitudeandBrandrelationshipImageCongruenceBrandAttitudeBrandRelationshipExperimentalTreatmentMeanMeanMeanSig.Sig.Sig.Diff.Diff.Diff.SamsungSamsungBurberryBottega2.7320.0682.1460.2602.4630.126(High-High)(High-Low)SamsungHTCBurberryBurberry3.317*0.0152.8050.0793.146*0.026(High-High)(Low-High)SamsungHTCBurberryBottega6.366*0.0005.390*0.0006.073*0.000(High-High)(Low-Low)SamsungHTCBottegaBurberry0.5850.9530.6590.9440.6830.930(High-Low)(Low-High)SamsungHTCBottegaBottega3.634*0.0063.244*0.0293.610*0.007(High-Low)(Low-Low)HTCHTCBurberryBottega3.049*0.0322.5850.1222.927*0.046(Low-High)(Low-Low)Notes:*.Themeandifferenceissignificantatthe0.05level.3.3.DiscussionEmpiricalresultsfromtheresearchprovidesupportforpreviouslyuntestedconceptsfromcollaborationstrategyandconsumer’simagecongruencetheoryintermsofbrandawareness,andalsoprovidingforunderstandingsomeofthefactorsthatassociatedwithbrandattitudeaswellasbrandrelationship.AmajortenetofimagecongruencetheoryisthatBrandisconsideredtohaveaparticular‘Image’thatmirrortheself-conceptofthetypicaluserofthebrandand“Consumerswerethoughttopreferproductswithimagesthatwerecongruentwiththeirself-concepts.”(Sirgy,1982)IfoundsupportforH1bandpartialsupportforH1a.inthesupportofH1aandH1b,whenHigh-LoworLow-HighandLow-Lowcombinationsalsoshowedthatthepresenceofhighbrandawareness(intotal)canimproveconsumer’sratingofimagecongruencecomparetothecomparableproduct.Thestatisticalresultssuggestthatwhenthesumofbrandawarenessoftwobrandsishigher,theirimagecongruencelevelisalsohigherthanthosethesumofbrandawareness45 oftwobrandsislower.ThisresultissupportedbythestatisticalresultsofHigh-HighversusLow-High,High-HighversusLow-Low,High-LowversusLow-LowandLow-HighversusLow-Lowcombination.“Asofawell-knownbrandismorelikelytobeconsideredforpurchase.”(SilkandUrban,1978)Consequently,akeyaspectofcollaborationstrategyisthatunderstandingthedegreeofbrandawarenessassociatedinthecollaborationstrategywhensomecompanyseekfortheirpartnertocollaborate.Keller(2003)arguedthat“Brandawarenessistheconsumer’sabilitytoidentifyabrandunderdifferentconditions.”Sinceconsumerscouldrecallasmallnumberofbrandsbutrecognizemanydifferentbrands,Spontaneousawarenessisakeyvariableinconsumerbehavior(Laurentetal.,1995).Theresultofthetestalsoprovedthatconsumerstendtocongruenttheirimagemoreontherelativelyhighbrandawarenessproductcomparetoitscomparableproduct.EventhoughIcan’tconcludethatconsumer’simagecongruencelevelforaproducthavingtwohighbrandawareness(High-High)brandsaresignificantlygreaterthanconsumer’simagecongruenceforthesameproducthavingtwodifferentbrandawareness(High-LoworLow-High)brandsorthesameproducthavingtwolowbrandawareness(Low-Low)brandsinallcases(AsSamsung-BurberryversusSamsung-BottegaVenetacombinationdidnotsupportofH1a),itisstillappropriatetoconcludethattherearesignificantrelationshipbetweenthelevelofbrandawarenessandimagecongruencelevel.“Consumersdonotalwaysspendagreatdealoftimeorcognitiveeffortinmakingpurchasedecisions.Theyoftentrytominimizedecision-makingbyusingaheuristicsuchas‘buythebrandIhaveheardof’or‘choosethebrandIknow’andthenpurchaseonlyfamiliar,well-establishedbrands.”(Keller,1993)Thissaysthatwhenthereisahighlevelofimagecongruenceontheproduct,mostlikelytheproducthashighbrandawarenessanditdirectlyconnecttotheconsumer’spurchase.Whenbothcompaniesassociatedwithcollaborationprojecthavelowbrandawareness,thestatisticalresultsrevealedthatdidnotgeneratedistinctbenefitfromcollaborationproject,becausenoneofbrandsinthecollaborationprojecthaveincentiveforcustomerstorecall,sothatfailedtogiveaprofoundimpression.Thereforeitishardtoletcustomerscongruenttheirimagetotheproduct.MacdonaldandSharp(2000)alsoarguedthat“brandawarenessplaysanimportantroleinconsumerdecision-makingbyinfluencewhich46 brandsentertheconsiderationset,whichofthesebrandsareusedasaheuristic,andtheperceptionofquality.”Besides“Consumer’sperceptionofqualityisusuallybasedonthebeliefthatthebrandhashighfamiliarity,thequalityoftheproductisalsohigh.High-perceivedqualityissaidtodriveaconsumertochooseonebrandabovecompetingbrands.”(Yooetal.,2000)Thisperceivedqualityissometimesfromitsbrandawareness.Theseimagecongruencelevel,brandawarenessandqualityperceivedissomehowallrelatedtogether.GrubbandGrathwohl(1967)arguethat“Aproductorbrandisusedasaninstrumentinimprovingself-conceptthroughtransferringsociallyattributedmeaningsoftheproductorbrandtooneself.Thisthenenhancesthevalueofself.”Withthisimagecongruencehypothesis,acollaborationconsistoftwobrandsoflowbrandawarenesshardlyexpectthatconsumerscouldimprovetheirself-conceptthroughpurchasingthecollaborationproduct.Thiscollaborationproductmightgetmarginalbenefitfromthecollaborationintermsoftransferringthiefimagetooppositebrandcustomersassociatedinthecollaboration,butstillhardtogetitconnectedtoitspurchase,becauseinconsumersstandofview,theycan’tenhancesthevalueofselffromthepurchase.Cantoretal.(1986)proposethat“Individualsareguidedbytheirfuturerepresentationsor``possibleselves"".Possibleselvesreflectindividuals"perceivedpotential,andincludewhatindividualscouldbecome,wouldliketobecomeorareafraidofbecoming.”Andalsoarguethat“Motivationdoesnotresideoutsidetheself-conceptbutisderivedfromself-knowledgethatrepresentsanindividual"spotential,desiresorvalues.”Forexample,whenyouabouttopurchaseamobilephone(oneofthoseIhypotheticallydesignedmodel),youwouldthinkmultipleoffeaturesoftheproductanddecidewhichonefityoumost,butnotjustthis.Youwouldalsoimaginewhowouldyouliketobecomeorafraidofbecoming.Whenwebuysomething(especiallyhighconcernedproduct),wealwaysimagineourfuturerepresentation,whichwewouldliketobecome.Ifacollaborationproductisconsistoftwobrandsofhighbrandawarenessormixofonehighandonelow,thishighbrandofhighawarenesswouldinfluencetotheotherassociatedbrandpositively.Thisisoneofthebiggestreasonsthatmorecompaniestrytoadaptcollaborationstrategytoimprovetheirbrandawareness.47 Sirgy(1982)proposedthat“Consumerswillbemotivatedtowardspositivelyvaluedproductstomaintainapositiveself-image;andwillpurchaseimagecongruentproductstopromoteself-consistencyandself-esteem.”InthecaseofH1b,itisveryclearthatcustomerstendtocongruenttheirimagewhenthecollaborationproductisconsistoftwobrandsofhighbrandawarenesscomparedtotwobrandsoflowbrandawareness.LikewhatSirgyargued,Highbrandawarenessproductgivegreatermotivationtocustomerstomaintainbetterself-image.Evenitwillbeconnectedtotheirfuturepurchasetopromoteself-esteem.Thestatisticalresultsshowthatinthemostcasesofcollaboration,respondentstendtocongruenttheirimagemoretothosehavegreaterbrandawarenesscombinationthanlowerbrandawarenesscombination.Itcanbeseenthatthebrandofhighawarenesscanaffecttothebrandoflowawarenessassociatedinthecollaborationprojectinthewayofdeliveringamotivationofhighself-esteemtocustomers.Greenwald(1989)proposed“Threestrategiesformaintainingself-esteemwhichweredirectlyrelatedtotheself:valueexpressivefunctionsassociatedwiththeprivateselfwhereselfworthisachievedbystrivingtomeetinternalizedstandards;andsocialadjustmentfunctionsassociatedeitherwithastrategicsenseofpublicselfwhichseekstoachieveself-worthbysecuringpositiveevaluationsfromsignificantothers;orwithagroupsenseofcollectiveselfwhichseekstomeetthegoalsofimportantreferencegroups.”Nowadays,customersarequitedifferentwitholdtimes.TheypursuemoreofprivateselfasGreenwaldmentionedinhisresearch.Notlikeoldtimes,theyarenotjustfollowingpromotionsandadvertisement.Astheyarebecomingsmarter,companiesarehavingmorehardtimetotargetthem.Inacurrentmarketsituation,collaborationstrategygivesusimportantimplicationintermsofmaintainingself-esteem.Itishardtodifferentiateoneproductinhighlysegmentedcategory,sincetoomanysimilarproductsexistinthesamecategory.Sothatgettinghardtoappealtocustomerintheaspectoffunctions.Insteadofthat,itisgettingimportanttodifferentiatetheirproductemotionally,butnotfunctionally.Collaborationproductcansatisfythisemotionalneedofcustomer.Collaborationsayssomethingmorethanjustproduct,itismorelikespeakingaboutyourselfandtheselfyouwouldliketobe.48 TheresultsshowthatonlytwocasesofHigh-HighversusLow-LowandHigh-LowversusLow-LowhadsignificantbrandattitudeeffectanditalsosupportH2b.Itisquiteclearthatwhencustomersconsidertheirchoicesbetweentwodifferentcombinationsbuthavedistinctbrandawarenessdifference,thelikelihoodthatchoosingthebrandofhighawarenessisextremelyhigh.HoyerandBrown(1990)foundthat“Whenconsumerswereaskedtoselectabrandfromagivenchoiceset,thosewhowerefamiliarwithabrandtendedtoselecttheknownbrandalthoughitwasrelativelylowerinquality,whilethosewhowereunfamiliarwiththebrandsinthegivenchoicesetsampledmorebrandsandselectedthehigher-qualitybrand.”Unliketheresultforimagecongruence,brandattitudedidn’tactuallyaffecttothecombinationconsistoftwohighawarenessversuscombinationconsistoftwodifferentbrandawareness.Whenitcomestothecombinationconsistoftwolowbrandawareness,however,thedimensionofbrandattitudeexisteditsdifference.WhenSamsung,whichhashighbrandawarenesscollaboratewithBottegaVeneta,whichhaslowbrandawareness,brandattitudeforitsproductwasdistinctlygreaterthantheproductproducedbythecombinationoftwolowbrandawarenesscompanies.Sincethehypotheticalproductwasmobilephone,itisanalyzedthatconsumerputthequalityandreliabilityoftheproductonprioritywhentheycomparedtothecombinationoftwolowbrandawareness.SimoninandRuth(1995)examinedtheeffectofspecificproductcombinationsbyexperimentingwithwithinorbetween-brandbundling,anactivityanalogoustoco-branding.Theyconcludedthatjoiningtwowell-likedproductsviabetween-brandbundlingcouldhelptomakecustomertodeveloptheirattitudesofbundlemorefavorably,andindirectly,towardthenewbrand.Intheirfurtherresearch,examinedhowtheconsumerattitudeisinfluencedbybrandalliance(collaboration).Theyarguedthatconsumer’sattitudeonaparticularbrandalliancecouldinfluenceitsattitudestowardseachbrandassociatedwiththebrandalliance.Outofexpectation,acaseofLow-HighversusLow-Lowshowedthattherewasnosignificantdifference.Itexplainsthateventhoughadesignhousehashighbrandawareness,couldnotmakepositiveanddistincteffectonitpartnerbrand(Inthecaseofapartnerbrandalsohaslowbrandawareness).49 However,therewasnoclearevidencefoundtosupportH2a.Intheresults,noneofthecombinationsconsistoftwohighawarenessbrandshadsignificantbrandattitudedifferencecomparetoitscomparablecombinations.Thiscanbeanalyzedthattheonebrandofhighbrandawarenessdeliverstheiruniquebrandasset,inthiscasebrandattitude,toitspartnerbrand.Sothattheconsumer’sbrandattitudewasassimilatedintothepartnerbrand,whichhaslowerbrandawareness.RaoandRuekert(1994)indicatedthat“ifonebrandnameonaproductgivesacertainsignalofquality,thenthepresenceofasecondbrandnameontheproductshouldresultinasignalthatisatleastaspowerful,ifnotmorepowerfulthan,thesignalinthecaseofthesinglebrandname.Inshort,brandalliancescanserveasqualitysignalswhenanindividualbrandisunabletosuccessfullysignalqualitybyitself.”Park,Jun&Shocker(1996)alsoarguedthat“Brandalliancemayimprovetheimageofoneortheotherpartnersandmaysignalgreaterproductquality”.“Brandalliancemaytriggerthetransferofconsumeraffectfromahigh-qualitybrandtoalow-qualitybrand”(Levin,Davis&Levin,1996).“Thetraditionalmethodofbrandmarketingmostlyappealstofunctionallinkswithconsumers,butconsumernowwithforamorecompellingexperience”(Schmitt,1999).Bythisreason,collaborationstrategycanappealconsumersonuniqueexperience.Thisuniqueexperienceheavilyaffectonbuildingbrandrelationship.Keller(2001)arguedthat“Consumer-brandrelationshipdependslargelyonthesuccessfulestablishmentofthebrandmeanings(i.e.,brandpersonality,brandassociation,brandattitudeandbrandimage)intheconsumer’smind.”ThestatisticalresultssupportH3bandpartiallysupportH3a.Whenthegapofbrandawarenessisbig,brandrelationshiptowardthecollaborationcombinationconsistoftwohighawarenessbrandsisstrong.“Arelationshipbetweenthebrandandtheconsumerresultsfromtheaccumulationofconsumptionexperience”(Evard&Aurier,1996).Additionally,Blackston(1992)statedthat“Understandingtherelationshipbetweenthebrandandtheconsumerrequiresobservingtwothings.Theoneisconsumerattitudetowardthebrandandtheotheroneisthebrandattitudetowardtheconsumer.”AswecanseeintheTable.3,whenbrandattitudeishigh,thebrandrelationshipisalsohigh.Thismeansconsumer’sattitudetowardsthebrandispositivelyrelatedtoitsbrandrelationshipaswell.Keller(2001)suggestedthat“Brandjudgment(brandattitude)createsanintensiveandactiveconsumer-brandrelationship.”Isuggested50 thathigherbrandawarenesscollaborationcombinationwouldhavehigherimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship,whichisrepresentedasH1a:b,H2a:bandH3a:b.However,IdidnotfindempiricalsupportforeachofH1a,H2aandH3a.Thosehypothesesareonlysupportedpartiallybutnotentirely.HenceIamnotabletoconcludethatHigh-HighversusHigh-Low(orLow-High)hassignificantdifferenceonthreedependentvariables.AboutH1b,H2bandH3b,thehypothesesarestronglysupportedbystatisticalmeasures.Whenthecomparablecollaborationcombinationsweretwooflowawarenessbrands,significantdifferencewasobservedinthetest.Therefore,Icanconcludethathighbrandawarenessbrandcanimproveevaluationforitsassociatedbrands’(partnerbrand)imagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship(onlyinthecaseofHigh-HighversusLow-Low).51 4.Study24.1.TheexperimentStudyrespondents(n=41)werethesamerespondentswhoassignedtothefirstexperiment.Themethodofsecondexperimentwasexactlythesamewiththefirstexperiment.Afterreadingabriefintroductiononthethirdpageofquestionnaire,respondentswereinstructedtoreadthehypotheticalproductconcepttoanswerthequestionwell.Thistime,thehypotheticalproductisdifferentcomparetothefirstexperiment,whichtheyconsistedofnon-collaborationproductthatproducedbysinglebrand.Themainpurposeofdoingseparatethosebrandwastocompareiftherewasanysignificantdifferencesbetweencollaborationproductandnon-collaborationproductintermsofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship,whichwasexactlythesamedependentvariableswiththefirstexperiment.Inthiswaythequalityoftheexperimentandcomparisoninbetweencollaborationandnon-collaborationcasescouldbeassured.Thequestionnaireconsistedofthreepartsjustlikethefirstexperiment.InthefirstpartIintroducedthehypotheticalproductandhowitismadebyonesinglecompanybutthesimilarproduct.Andalsoinformedthatthepriceoftheproductissameforeachcombinationofcompanies.Inthesecondpart,amainquestionnairewasgiventobemeasuredincludingthethreedependentmeasures,whichareImagecongruence,BrandattitudeandBrandrelationship.Inthelastparteachrespondentswereaskedtoanswergeneralinformationoftheircharacteristic,whichincludeGender,Nationality,Age,EducationandEmploymentstatus.Mainly,secondexperimentisaimtotestH4,H5andH6throughtheempiricaltestifthedifferenceofbrandawarenessofsinglebrandproductaffecttoimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipinthecomparisonofcollaborationbrands.Toprovethis,totalofeightdifferentcasesweretestedanditwasconsistedofcollaborationbrandsandnon-collaborationbrand(separatedfromcollaborationbrands).Accordingtoeachcollaborationbrandscombination,thesinglebrandrelatedtoitwasstandaloneforthecomparisonofthreedependentvariablesempirically.Eachoffourcollaborationbrandcombinationshadtwosinglebrandsmix.Eventuallyeightcasesweretestedinthesecondexperiment.52 4.2.HypothesisTestingThefirststepinhypothesistestingwastoexaminewhetherthereisasignificantdifferencesbetweencollaborationbrandandnon-collaborationbrandaffectingtothedependentvariables.AccordingtotheHypothesisH4,H5andH6,eachofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshiphadtobeaffectedbyseriesofdifferentcollaborationbrandandnon-collaborationbrandcombination.Inthetest,aseriesofANOVAwererunwithdifferentcombinationofbrandsmix(CellmeansarepresentedinTable4).Table4.Resultforcollaborationandnon-collaborationbrandmixBrandImageCongruenceBrandAttitudeRelationshipExperimentalTreatmentMeanMeanMeanSig.Sig.Sig.Diff.Diff.Diff.SamsungSamsung(H)1.6340.2911.2200.5842.3900.086BurberryBurberry(H)1.5850.3130.8290.7791.6830.293(High-High)SamsungSamsung(H)-0.3170.958-0.3410.9540.1950.982BottegaBottega(L)3.000*0.0242.829*0.0423.098*0.013(High-Low)HTCHTC(L)2.780*0.0332.5370.0562.689*0.029BurberryBurberry(H)-2.1220.134-2.1950.113-2.0490.124(Low-High)HTCHTC(L)-0.2680.9570.0490.999-1.1220.440BottegaBottega(L)-2.512*0.025-1.8780.139-1.8290.116(Low-Low)Notes:*.Themeandifferenceissignificantatthe0.05level.H4forimagecongruencerevealedinsignificantresult.Testshowsthatnoneofsinglebrandshadsignificantdifferencecomparetoitscollaborationbrandcombination.Specifically,whenBrandawarenessofcollaborationbrandwashighforitstwoassociatedbrands,therewasnosignificantdifferenceofimagecongruencelevelcomparetohighbrandawarenessofmanufacture(Meandifference=1.634,Sig.=0.291)andhighbrandawarenessofdesignhouse(Meandifference=1.585,Sig.=0.313).Meaning,whenthereisacollaborationprojectinbetweentwocompanieshavinghighbrandawareness,can’tmakebigdifferenceinimagecongruenceperspective.Thiscanbeanalyzedwhen53 consumersseeonesinglebrandthathashighbrandawareness,theyalreadycongruenttheirimagewiththebrand,sothatwhentheyseeacollaborationbrandincludingsomebrandtheyalreadycongruenttheirimage,thereisnotmuchspacetocongruenttheirimagemore,especiallyinthecaseoftwohighbrandawarenesscollaboration(High-HighcollaborationcombinationwasnotinsupportofH4)However,therewassignificanteffectwhenthelowawarenessbrandcollaboratedwithhighawarenessbrandratherthandoabusinessitself.Specifically,BottegaVeneta,whichhaslowbrandawarenesscollaboratedwithSamsungwithhighbrandawareness,therewasasignificantdifferenceofimagecongruencelevelcomparetowhenBottegaVenetaproducedasimilarproductbyitself(Meandifference=3.000,Sig.=0.024).Inthemeantime,SamsungdidnotgetanyadvantagesfromcollaboratingwithBottegaVeneta,whichhaslowbrandawareness(Meandifference=-0.317,Sig.=0.958).EventheresultshowedthatSamsunghadnegativeeffectfromcollaboratingwithBottegaVenetaintermsofimagecongruence.ThisresultalsosupportHigh-Highcollaborationcombinationcase,intheaspectofHighawarenessbranddoesn’tgetanyadvantagesfromthecollaborationstrategy(High-LowwasinsupportofH4onlycomparedtoBottegaVeneta,whichhaslowbrandawareness).InthecaseofLow-High,theresultshowedthatlowbrandawarenessmanufacturegotpositivefromcollaborationstrategyratherthanproducetheproductbythemselves(Meandifference=2.780,Sig.=0.033).However,whenHighawarenessdesignhousecollaboratedwithlowawarenessmanufacture,therewasnosignificanteffectinimagecongruenceperspective(Meandifference=-2.122,Sig.=0.134).Specifically,whenHTC,whichhaslowbrandawareness,collaboratedwithBurberry(Highbrandawareness),therewaspositiveeffectonimagecongruence.Thisissomethingthatlowbrandawarenessofdesignhousecouldgetpositiveinfluencefromtheassociatedmanufacturebrandwhenthemanufacturehashighbrandawareness.Itcanbeanalyzedthatoriginallydesignhousedoesn’thavecapabilitytoproduceanelectricproductlikemobilephoneregardlessoftheirbrandawareness,sothatwhentheymeetacompanywhohasthiscapability,thiscanhelpcustomer’sperceiveintheaspectofproductquality.Henceitdeliversapositiveeffecttothedesignhouseaswecanseeintheresult(High–LowandLow-HighwasinsupportofH4onlymeasurecollaborationcombinationagainstthebrandoflowawareness54 regardlessofbrandcategory).InthecaseofLow-Lowcollaborationcombination,noneofbothcompaniesgetpositiveeffectfromthecollaborationstrategy.WhenHTCproducedthemobilephoneitself,therewasnosignificantdifferenceofimagecongruencelevelcomparedtocollaborationcombination(Meandifference=-0.268,Sig.=0.957).Moreover,whenBottegaVenetaproducethemobilephoneitself,eventheycouldgetbetterimagecongruencefromcustomers(Meandifference=-2.512,Sig.=0.025).Simplythemanufacturehaslowbrandawarenesscouldnothelptheirassociatedbrand(Low-LowwasinsupportofH4onlycomparedtoBottegaVeveta,whichhaslowbrandawarenessbutnegatively).H5forbrandattitudetestrevealedthatonlyHigh-Lowcollaborationgroupwassignificantlydifferentcomparedtonon-collaborationgroup.WhenSamsungandBurberrymadeamobilephoneindependently,thebrandattitudeofitscollaborationcasedidnothavesignificantdifference(eachMeandifference=1.220,0.829andSig.=0.584,0.779),notinsupportofH5.However,whenitcomestomiddlelevelbrandawareness,whichisHigh-LowandLow-Highcase,therewasacleardifferenceofbrandattitudevariable.Specifically,whenSamsungandBottegaVenetacollaborated,consumer’sbrandattitudeforthemwassignificantlygreaterthanBottegaVenetaitself(Meandifference=2.829,Sig.=0.042),insupportofH5.ThismeansthatSamsung,whichhashighbrandawareness,couldpositivelyaffecttodesignhouse(inthiscaseBottegaVeneta),inotherwords,lowawarenessdesignhousebrandcouldgetadvantagefromthecollaborationstrategywithhighawarenessmanufacturebrand.Buttheoppositeisnotvalid.WhenSamsungproduceamobilephoneitself,theycouldbemoresuccessfulcomparedtothecollaborationwithlowawarenessbrand(Meandifference=-0.341,Sig.=0.954),notinsupportofH5.Inthesamemanners,BurberrycouldnotgetsuccessfulresultfromcollaborationwithHTC,asHTChaslowbrandawareness(Meandifference=-2.195,Sig.=0.113),notinsupportofH5.HTCalsohadnosignificanteffectfromtheircollaborationwithBurberry,whichhashighbrandawareness(Meandifference=2.537,Sig.=0.056).Thisresultisquiteanoutofexpectation.Inthehypothesis,theonewhowouldhavebenefitfromthecollaborationwasthecompanythathaslowbrandawareness.Buttheresultshowsthatnoneofbrandsgotthebenefitofthecollaborationstrategy,notinsupportofH5.FortheLow-Low55 combination,bothHTCandBottegaVenetahaveinsignificantdifferenceinbrandattitudeperspective(eachMeandifference=0.049,-1.878andSig.=0.999,0.139),notinsupportofH5.H6forbrandrelationshippostulatesbrandrelationshipwouldbehigherinthecaseofcollaborationcombinationcomparedtothoseproducesimilarproductthemselveswithoutcollaborationstrategy.Theresultshowsthattheconsumer’sbrandrelationshiptendstofollowwithbrandattitudebutmorepositivelyformanufacture.Thatmeanswhentherewasadifferenceinbrandattitude,brandrelationshipwasalsoeffectinthesameway.WhenSamsungandBurberrycollaborated,therewasnosignificantbrandrelationshipdifferencewithSamsungorBurberryitself(eachofMeandifference=2.390,1.683andSig.=0.086,0.293),notinsupportofH6.However,thecollaborationcombinationofSamsungandBottegaVenetahadsignificantdifferenceofbrandrelationshipcomparetowhenBottegaVenetaproducetheproductitself(Meandifference=3.098,Sig.=0.013),insupportofH6.WhenSamsungproducedtheproductitself,therewasnosignificantdifferencecomparetocollaborationcombinationwithBottegaVeneta(Meandifference=0.195,Sig.=0.982).Inthesamemanner,HTCcouldgetbenefitfromthecollaborationstrategythattheycouldnotgetiftheyproduceditbythemselves(Meandifference=2.683,Sig.=0.029),insupportofH6.Burberry,however,hasnoadvantagegotfromcollaborationstrategy,asBurberry’sbrandawarenessisalreadyhigh,thereisnovisiblebenefitcouldgetfromcollaboratingwithlowawarenessbrand,whichisHTCinthiscase(Meandifference=-2.049,Sig.=0.124).Itispossibletosaythatwhenthereiscollaborationconsistedofonehighawarenessbrandandonelowawarenessbrand,theonewhogetsbenefitfromcollaborationisthebrandhaslowbrandawareness.Inthecaseoflowandlowcollaborationcombination,insignificantresultwasobserved(eachofMeandifference=-1.122,-1.829andSig.=0.440,0.116),notinsupportofH6.ThisresulttendstofollowtheresultofH4(imagecongruence).Whenthereisacollaborationprojectbetweentwodifferentbrandawarenesscompanies,theonewhogetthebenefitfromitisthebrandoflowawarenessregardlessofitsbrandcategory.Insummary,thehypothesestestingprovidednoneofH4,H5andH6weresupportedsignificantlybutpartiallysupportedby56 High-LowandLow-Highcollaborationmixwhenitwascomparedtothebrandoflowawareness.4.3.DiscussionTheresultsofthisstudyrevealthatHigh-LowandLow-Highcollaborationcombinationscanfavorablyinfluenceeachofitsassociatedbrandsoflowbrandawarenessacrossalldependentvariables,whichareimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Samsung-BottegaVenetaversusBottegaVenetaitselfisanexampleofthis.Perhapsthemostinterestingresult,however,isthatthecollaborationeffectsvariedsignificantlydependingonwhetherthesubjectsassessedcompletelyindependentofoneanotherversustwobrandsstrategicallycollaboratedcombination.CollaborationeffectofthecombinationsofHigh-LowandLow-Highweresignificantlygreaterthanonesinglebrandoflowbrandawareness.WhenthecombinationsofLow-LowandHigh-High,however,didn’thavesignificanteffectcomparedtothesubjectsassessedindependently.RaoandRuekert(1999)arguedthat“Whenabrandcannotsuccessfullysignalitshighqualitybyitself,itwouldbeappropriateforittoenterintoanalliancewithasecondbrandthatcanassistincrediblysignalinghighqualitytothemarketplaceunderthepremisethatsecondbrandinthealliancesuccessfullysignalsthequalitythattheoriginalbrandcouldnotsignalbyitself.”Inthesamelogic,Dolich(1969)alsoarguedthat“Individualsacceptbrandswithimagessimilartotheselfconceptandrejectbrandswithimagesdissimilartotheselfconcept,becauseonlythoseproductsorbrandssymbolizedassimilartotheselfconceptwillmaintainorenhancetheself.”Theresultsofmyresearchshowthatthereputablebrandinthecollaborationtendedtoassistanotherreputation-lessbrandinthewayofconveyingcoincidedself-concept.Oncecollaborationstrategygetimagecongruence’levelenhanced,thenthisaffectedtothelevelofbrandattitudeandbrandrelationship.“Compositeconceptsarerelevantbecauseoftheimplicationsforthepositioningofthepartnerbrandnamesinthenewalliancebrandname.Ifthenewproductinthealliancecarriesbothnames,theroleofbothnamesintheallianceisimportant,asonebrandmaycarrygreaterweightthantheotherbecauseof,forexample,itsstrengthasaproductcategoryspecificbrand”(Parketal,1996).Thestatisticalresultsshowthatthelevelofbrandattitudeandbrandrelationshiptendtobegreaterthansinglebrandonlyin57 theoccasionthatthelevelofimagecongruencehassignificantdifference.Thatis,onlypartiallysupportH4,H5,andH6.Beside,itsuggestthatconsumer’simpressionsofthebrandhashighbrandawarenessmayaffecttotheimpressionsoftheotherbrandassociatedincollaboration.Itisverylikelythatonlywhenreputable-lessbrandcollaboratewithreputablebrand,reputable-lessbrandcanenjoyprivilegesofcollaborationintermsofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Thatisbecauseconsumerstendtoselectabrandofreputableandtrusted(AakerandJacobson,2001).58 5.Study35.1.TheexperimentThirdexperimentisaimtotestH7andH8basedontheresultofthefirstandsecondexperimentsbydeterminingwhethertheimagecongruencelevelaffecttobrandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Studyrespondents(n=41)werethesamerespondentswhoassignedtothefirstandsecondexperimentsbutthistimetheywerenotdirectlyparticipatedtotheexperiment.Thisexperimentwasperformedbycomparingthequestionnaireresultoftheimagecongruenceagainsttheresultofbrandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Totestiftheimagecongruenceaffecttoitsbrandattitudeandbrandrelationship,eachresultoffourcollaborationcombinationset(High-High,High-Low,Low-High,Low-Low)wasderivedfromthequestionnaire(n=164).Theotherfournon-collaborationbrand(Samsung,HTC,Burberry,BottegaVeneta)setwasnotchoosebecausethepurposeofthisstudyistoseewhethertheimagecongruenceofcollaborationproductaffectonitsbrandattitudeandbrandrelationship.5.2.HypothesisTestingToexamineifthesignificantrelationshipexistbetweenimagecongruenceandbrandattitude,brandrelationship,eachofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipresultwasusedinthehypothesistesting.AccordingtotheHypothesisH7andH8,eachofbrandattitudeandbrandrelationshiphadtobeaffectedbyimagecongruencederivedfromseriesofdifferentcollaborationbrand.Inthetest,thelinearregressionanalysiswasrunwitheachofdependentvariables,whichwerebrandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Thereasonofusingthismethodologywasthattheregressionmodelcanaccessingtheeffectsoftheimagecongruence(predictorvariable)ontheresponses(Brandattribute,Brandrelationship).Moreover,itcanbeusedforpredictingvaluesofthesetworesponsevariablesfromacollectionofimagecongruence(CellmeansarepresentedinTable5).59 Table5.RegressionanalysisforImagecongruenceModelSummaryCoefficientsDependentVariablesAdjustedRDurbin-Std.ErrorBBetaSig.SquareWatsonBrandAttitude0.7302.6782.1130.8690.8560.000BrandRelationship0.6972.7922.1830.8350.8360.000Notes:Eachofdependentvariableiscalculatedindependently.ForthetestofH7andH8,Allofthemeasuresachievedhighreliabilitylevels(rangingbetween0.697and0.730).Linearregressionanalysesindicatedthatforeachdependentvariable,theimagecongruencelevelhassignificantpositiveaffecttothem.Iconductedaseriesofplannedcomparisonstotestthehypotheses.TheresultsfromplannedcomparisonstestsarereportedinTable5.ForthetestofH7,Iproposedthatwhentheimagecongruencelevelfortheproductishigh,itsbrandattitudeisalsohigh.AswecanseeonTable5,adjustedRsquareindicatesthatthereisasignificantrelationshipbetweenimagecongruencelevelandbrandattitudelevelpositively(Sig.=0.000<0.05).Consistentwiththehypothesis,brandattitudesignificantlyriseupalongwithimagecongruencelevel.H7predictsstrongpositiverelationshipbetweenimagecongruenceandbrandattitudenomatterthelevelofbrandawareness.Thisregressionmodelcanexplain73%oftheentirevariance(AdjustedRsquare=0.730>0.6),whichmeanswecantrusttherelationshipofimagecongruenceandbrandattitudeattheratesof73%.Moreoverthemeansofcoefficientsshowsthatthecoefficientofbrandattitudeissignificantlyimportant(B=0.869)andissupportedbythemeanofBeta(Beta=0.856).Itestedwhetheranautocorrelationexistinthelinearregressionmodel.Wecanassumedthatthelikelihoodofbrandattitudebeinggoingupisgreaterifimagecongruenceishighthanifimagecongruenceislow.ThemeanofDurbin-Watson(d=2.113)isgreaterthandU(D-W=dL:1.72,dU:1.75whenα=5%,k=1,n=150),sothatwecanacceptthenullhypothesis,whichisthereisnosignificantautocorrelationeffect.ExaminingthemeangraphinFigure10showstheimagecongruencelevelsignificantlyinfluencestothebrandattitudeinpositive60 way.Thisobservationwasalsosupportedbystatisticalanalysis.Thisisimportanttonotethattherewasnocollinearitystatistics,insupportofH7.Thatisbecausetheregressionmodelwasperformedintheconditionofonedependentvariable.Thusitismeaninglesstogetameanofcollinearitystatistics(ToleranceandVIFwouldbe1).Figure10.CurveestimationofbrandattitudeLinearregressionresultspertainingtoeffectivenessoftheimagecongruenceonbrandrelationshipareshowninTable5.Thesamepatternofresultswasfoundforbrandattitude.Consistentwiththehypothesis,independentvariablesexplain69.7%ofthevarianceinbrandrelationship(AdjustedRsquare=0.697>0.6),whichmeanswecantrusttherelationshipofimagecongruenceandbrandrelationshipattheratesof69.7%.ForthetestofH8,Iproposedthatwhentheimagecongruencelevelfortheproductishigh,itsbrandrelationshipisalsohigh.Brandrelationship,reflectingH8,issupportedatthe5%levelofsignificanceorbetter.Asanticipated,imagecongruencelevelisrelatedpositivelytoconsumer’sbrandrelationship.AswecanseeonTable5,adjustedRsquareindicatesthat61 thereisasignificantrelationshipbetweenimagecongruencelevelandbrandattitudelevelpositively(Sig.=0.000<0.05).Moreoverthemeansofcoefficientsshowsthatthecoefficientofbrandrelationshipissignificantlyimportant(B=0.835)andissupportedbythemeanofBeta(Beta=0.836).LikeItestedtheautocorrelationexistinginthelinearregressionmodelforH7,thetestwasalsoperformedforH8.ThemeanofDurbin-Watson(d=2.183)isgreaterthandU(D-W=dL:1.72,dU:1.75whenα=5%,k=1,n=150),sothatwecanacceptthenullhypothesis(ρ=0),whichisthereisnosignificantautocorrelationeffectinthemodel.ExaminingthemeangraphinFigure11showstheimagecongruencelevelisrelatedpositivelytobrandrelationship.Thisobservationwasalsosupportedbystatisticalanalysis.ForthetestofH8,collinearitystatisticswasalsonotperformedinthesamereasonofH7,thatis,theregressionmodelwasperformedintheconditionofonedependentvariable.EachofToleranceandVIFmeanwouldbe1equally.62 Figure11.Curveestimationofbrandrelationship5.3.DiscussionThepurposeofH7andH8istodefinehowimagecongruenceaffecttobrandattitudeandbrandrelationship.Thestatisticalresultsprovethat,asIexpected,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshiphavesignificantpositiverelationshipwithimagecongruence.Theseresultsareconsistentwiththefindingsofotherresearches,thatis,self-imagecongruityaffectstotheattitudeofproductandbrandpositively(Erickesen,1996;Sirgyetal.,1997).Moreover,Graeff(1996)indicatedthataself-imagecongruencelevelhasapositiverelationshipwithconsumers’productevaluations.Allthesefindingsexplainthatconsumers,nowadays,arenotjustconsideringthefunctionalityofaproduct,buttheyalsoconcerntheself-imageofhowIlooklikewithaproduct.Productisnotasimplefunctionaldevice,butthesomethingthattellaboutmyself.“Thatiswhyindividualstendtobuybrandswhosepersonalitiescloselycorrespondtoindividuals’ownself-image”(SchiffmanandKanuk,2000).Themobilephone,whichisIsetasahypotheticalproductintheresearch,isadevice63 almosteveryonecarryingwithhim/hereveryday.Inotherwords,itcanbeusednotjustadevicewhenwecall,butalsoexpressourselvesinawayofhowIwantedtobeperceivedbyothers(WallendorfandArnould,1988).Oncethisimagecongruenceaffectstobrandattitude,thenbrandattitude,again,influenceconsumers’brandchoice(Haugtvedtetat.,1993).Thismechanismsomehowexplainswhywechooseparticularonebrandorproductamongothersinaproductcategory.Whenthismechanismcirculate,consumers’brandattitudealsoaffecttoitsbrandrelationshipbypurchasingrepeatedlyorpayingattentionontheproduct.“Abrandthattheconsumerholdsastrongattitudetoshouldperformbetterandbestrengthenedinanalliancethanonewithaweakattitude”(James,2005).ThisiswhyHigh-Lowcombinationismorepositivelyrelatedtothethreedependentvariablesthansinglebrandwithlowbrandawarenessinthestudy2.Providedthat,abrandhashighbrandawarenesscollaboratewithreputable-lessbrand,reputable-lessbrandcangetmoreprivilegeswasprovedthroughthetest.Althoughtherewasnosignificantinfluenceforreputablebranditself,stillstrikesmethattheotheradvantages,suchasenteringnewmarketwithoutrelativelyhugecost,sharingthecustomersofthebrandassociatedwithandmakingaluxuriousimagecanbecapturedbycollaborationstrategy.Thestudyresultsprovideusefulinformation.Oneofthemajorimplicationsofthisstudyforthemobileindustryandluxurybrandisthatthereisaclearevidenceofcollaborationeffect,thatis,whenreputable-lessbrandmeetreputablebrand,thisreputationfromsuperiorbrandaffecttoreputable-lessbrand.Sothatthismaystrengthenreputable-lessbrands’reputation.Furthermore,evenimagecongruenceeffectalsocanbedeliveredtoreputable-lessbrandandenhanceitatthesametime.Nevertheless,onethinghastokeepinmindisthatthecollaborationoftworeputable-lessbrandsortworeputablebrandsdidnothavesignificanteffecttobothbrandsintermsofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationship,butthisdoesn’tmeanthattheirpurchaseintentionwillbealsolow.64 6.ConclusionAsthisresearchhasdemonstrated,collaborationstrategyisnotjustsimplecombiningofseveralbrands.Atthemomentlately,manybrandsarecompetinginasamecategory.Inthiscircumstance,companiesarefocusonhowtodifferentiatetheirproductsfunctionally,sothattoomanyfunctionallysame(almost)productsexistinacategory,itmakesconsumerconfusedwhattochoose.Collaborationproductsusuallyhaveappealpointonitsemotionalsalience,notfunctionalsalience.Thisisthemostprominentdifferencewithothercompetitors,sinceconsumerswantsomethingdifferentthatcansatisfytheirpersonalizedspecialanduniqueneeds.Amongvarietyofmarketingstrategies,collaborationmightsomehowstimulatetheseneedsofpresentconsumers.Inthispaper,Iproposedanewanalyticalframeworkofcollaborationthatallowsmarketerstounderstandingoftheeffectsaswellasimportanceofcollaboration.Iidentifyconditionswhenandhowthelevelofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipcanbestrengthenedbyitspartnerbrand,whichhasgreaterreputation.Theseresultsareconsistentwiththenotionofthe‘win-win’thatcouldenhanceforaless-reputablebrandcollaborateswithareputablepartnerbrand.Aless-reputablebrandcouldenhanceconsumers’brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipthroughtheimagecongruenceincludingassociatedbothbrands.Signalingtheorypostulatethatbrandsmightallowconsumersknowthequalityoftheirexperienceproducts.Eventhoughconsumershaveneverexperiencedless-reputablebrand,reputablebrand-partnerbrandofaless-reputablebrand-givethissignaltoconsumersmakingthemcongruenttheirimagetobothbrands.Thisaffectsbrandattitudeandbrandrelationshiptowardbothbrandasempiricallyproved.Agrowingstreamofrelativeresearchsupportsthenotionthatcollaborationwithareputablebrandcanenhanceconsumer’sattitudeaswellasconsumerrelationshiptowardthebrand.Thisresearchstrengthensearlierresearchbyprovingthatcollaborationwithreputablebrand(SamsungandBurberry)enhancedevaluationsofless-reputablebrands(HTCandBottegaVeneta).Toconclude,thisresearchhasshedlightonwhenandwithwhomcollaborationstrategyiseffective.Thisanalyticalinformationisnecessarywhenmarketersaretounderstandhowconsumerresponsestocollaborationstrategy,especiallyassociatedbrandshavevariousbrandawareness.65 7.LimitationThismayimportanttonotethatIhavenotexaminedtheexistingcollaborationproduct.Rather,Iestablishthefictitiousproducttoexaminetheeffectsofcollaborationintermsofimagecongruence,brandattitudeandbrandrelationshipbasedonexistingresearch.Sincethetypeofcollaborationitemcouldsignificantlyaffectonconsumers’emotionalprocesstowardscertainbrand,itmightbebettertocollectmanycasesofexistingcollaborationproductsandperformthesametestinordertounderstandhowconsumersreactoncollaborationstrategy.66 AcknowledgementsFirstandforemostIexpressmybestgratitudetomysupervisor,Prof.HouJianRong,whosupportedmeallthewayofmystudywithhisinsightandknowledgeallowingmetoresearchmyownway.IascribethesuccessfulacquireofmyMastersdegreetohishelpandencouragement,besideIwouldnothavebeensuccessfullycompletedmythesiswithouthim.Onesimplycouldnotbebetterorfriendliersupervisor.Inmydailyworkandlife,Ihavebeenverypleasuredwith联兴楼fellowandfriends.SuminYoohasgivenmetheinspirationofmoststudiesandprovidedherexperienceformyproblemsaboutwritingathesis.GloriaSusanhasbeenagoodcompanionaswellasfriendforallthewayofstudiesandalsosharingdifficultyofstudies,too,lifeinabroad.IcannotforgetMoto’scontributionforfavorablecompleteofMultivariateStatisticClass.尹晶wasagoodcompaniononadviceofmypoorChineseandhelpedmeouttopublishChinesethesissmoothly.BeanandSorothavebeenalwaysgoodfriendsatthenearestplaceanditwasverycheerfulchatbreakingallthepressurefromthethesis.Thanksalsogototheotherresidents(Adorablecatsincluded)at联兴楼and保安(曹师傅，杜师傅),beinggoodfriendsaswellasadvisersmanytimes.TheCSChasprovidedChineseGovernmentScholarshipformystudiesandprovidedthesupporttocompletemythesis.Finally,IthankmyparentsforsupportingmeemotionallyandgavemeareasonthatIkeepstrivingeventhoughtheystayfarfromhere.AndalsounderstandmyaspirationtowardsstudiesevennotinearlyageandforpatienceonmydecisiongivingupthesecurejobinKorea.Thankyou.67 AppendixA.BrandAwarenessScaleQHaveyouheardofthisbrand1234567Ihaveanopinionaboutthisbrand1234567Iknowwhatthisbrandstandsfor1234567Ihaveaclearimageofthetypeofpersonwho1234567wouldusethebrandThisbrandisdifferentfromcompetingbrands1234567Thisbrandisbasicallythesamefromcompeting1234567brandsIcandescribeanyofitsadvertisement1234567Icanquicklyrecalltheimageofthisbrand1234567Icanfigureoutthisbrand’sproducteventhereis1234567nologoorlabelThisbrandisthetop-of-the-mindrecallwhenyou1234567hearaboutthecategoryNotes:1=Definitelyno/7=Definitelyyes68 AppendixB.ImageCongruence,BrandAttitudeandPurchaseIntentionmeasurescaleImageCongruenceTheimageofthisbrandis1234567Thisbrandcanrepresentmyimage1234567Theimageofthisbrandfitswellwithme1234567Thisbrandsaysalotaboutthekindofperson1234567IwouldliketobeBrandAttitudeMyattitudetowardthisbrandis1234567Iwouldchoosethisbrandeventhepriceis1234567relativelyexpensiveIwouldchoosethisbrandamongothers1234567Iwouldbeloyaltothisbrand1234567BrandRelationshipThebrandunderstandsmyneedsinthefashion1234567categoryIwouldbewillingtopostponemypurchaseifthe1234567productwastemporarilyunavailableIamcompletelypleasedwiththebrand1234567(Ifthebrandwasaperson),he/shewouldtreatme1234567wellNotes:1=Definitelyno/7=Definitelyyes69 References[1]Aaker,D.A.andKeller,L.L.(1990),“Consumerevaluationsofbrandextensions”,TheJournalofMarketing,Vol.54,No.1,pp.27-41.[2]Aaker,D.A.(1991),“ManagingBrandEquity”,TheFreePress,NewYork,NY.[3]Aaker,D.A.(1996a),“MeasuringBrandEquityacrossproductsandmarkets”,CaliforniaManagementReview,38(3),102-20,174.[4]Aaker,D.A.(1996b),Buildingstrongbrands.NewYork:FreePress.[5]Aaker,D.A.andJacobson,R.(2001),“Thevaluerelevanceofbrandattitudeinhigh-technologymarkets”,JournalofMarketingResearch,38(4),485-493.[6]Aaker,D.A.(2002),“Buildingstrongbrand”,UK:Freepressbusiness,7.[7]Aaker,J.,Fournier,S.,andBrasel,S.A.(2004),“Whengoodbrandsdobad”,JournalofConsumerResearch,Vol.31,No.1(June2004),pp.1-16.[8]Akerlof,G.A.(1970),“Themarketfor“Lemons”:Qualityuncertaintyandthemarketmechanism”,ThequarterlyJournalofEconomics,Vol.84,no.3(Aug.,1970),pp.488-500.[9]Alba,J.andAmitavaC.(1986),"SalienceEffectsinBrandNameRecall",JournalofMarketingResearch,23(November),363-369.[10]Beggan,J.K.(1992),“Onthesocialnatureofnonsocialperception:Themereownershipeffect”,JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,62,229–237.[11]Birdwell,A.E.(1968),"AStudyofInfluenceofImageCongruenceonConsumerChoice,"JournalofBusiness,41(January),76-88.[12]Blackston,M.(1992),“Observations:Buildingbrandequitybymanagingthebrand’srelationships”,JournalofAdvertisingResearch,32,79–83.[13]Carpenter,P.(1994),“Someco-brandingcaveatstoobey”,MarketingNews,28(23),4.70 [14]Cantor,N.,Markus,H.,Niedenthal.P.AndNurius,P.(1986),“Onmotivationandself-concept”,inSorrento,M.andHiggins,E.(Eds),HandbookofMotivationandCognition.[15]Desai,K.K.andKeller,K.L.(2002),“TheEffectsofIngredientBrandingStrategiesonHostBrandExtendibility,”JournalofMarketing,66(January),73–93.[16]Dolich,I.J.(1969),“congruencerelationshipsbetweenselfimagesandproductbrands”,JournalofMarketingresearch,Vol.6,No.1(Feb.,1969),pp.80-84.[17]Dolak,D.(2003),“Buildingastrongbrand:BrandsandBrandingBasics”,RetrievedNovember2008,fromhttp://www.davedolak.com/articles/dolak4.htm[18]Evard,Y.,andAurier,P.(1996),“Identificationandvalidationofthecomponentsoftheperson–objectrelationship”,JournalofBusinessResearch,37,127–134.[19]Ericksen,M.K.(1996),“Usingself-congruityandidealcongruitytopredictpurchaseintention:aEuropeanperspective”,JournalofEuro‐Marketing,Vol.6No.1,pp.41-56.[20]Fishbein,M.,andAjzen,I.(1975),Belief,attitude,intentionandbehavior:Anintroductiontotheory&research.Reading,MA:AddisonWesley.[21]Greenwald,A.G.(1989),“Whyattitudesareimportant:definingattitudeandattitudetheorytwentyyearslater"",AttitudeStructureandFunction,Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ,pp.429-40.[22]Grubb,E.andGrathwohl,H.(1967),“Consumerself-concept,symbolismandmarketbehavior:atheoreticalapproach"",JournalofMarketing,Vol.31,October,pp.22-7.[23]Graeff,T.R.(1996),“Usingpromotionalmessagestomanagetheeffectsofbrandandself-imageonbrandevaluations”,JournalofConsumerMarketing,Vol.13No.3,pp.4-18.[24]Hamel,G.,Doz,Y.L.andPrahalad,C.K.(1989),“Collaboratewithyourcompetitorsandwin”,HarvardBusinessReview,January-February,133-139.[25]Haugtvedt,C.P.,Leavitt,C.andSchneier,W.L.(1993),“Cognitive71 strengthofestablishedbrands:memory,attitudinalandstructuralapproaches”,inAaker,D.andBiel,A.(Eds),BrandEquityandAdvertising:TheRoleofAdvertisinginCreatingBrandEquity,LawrenceErlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ.[26]Heath,A.P.andScott,d.(1998),“Theself-conceptandimagecongruencehypothesis”,Europeanjournalofmarketing,Vol.32,No.11/12,1998,pp.1110-1123.[27]Heider,F.(1946),“Attitudeandcognitiveorganization”,Journalofpsychology,21,107-112.[28]Heider,F.(1958),“Thepsychologyofinterpersonalrelations”,NewYork,Wiley.[29]Hoyer,W.D.(1984),"AnExaminationofConsumerDecisionMakingforaCommonRepeatProduct,"JournalofConsumerResearch,11(December),822-829.[30]James,D.(2005),“Guiltythroughassociation:brandassociationtransfertobrandalliances”,JournalofConsumerMarketing,22/1(2005)14–24.[31]Hoyer,W.D.andBrown,S.P.(1990),"EffectsofBrandAwarenessonChoiceforaCommon,Repeat-PurchaseProduct",JournalofConsumerResearch,17(September),141-148.[32]Janiszewski,C.(1988),"PreconsciousProcessingEffects:TheIndependenceofAttitudeFormationandConsciousThought,"JournalofConsumerResearch,15(September),199-209.[33]John,R.D.,Loken,B.,andJoiner,C.(1998),"TheNegativeImpactofExtensions:CanFlagshipProductsBeDiluted?",JournalofMarketing,62(1),19-32.[34]Kanter,R.M.(1994),“Collaborativeadvantage:theartofalliances”,HarvardBusinessReview,72,4,96–108.[35]Keller,K.L.(1993),“Conceptualizing,measuringandmanagingcustomer-basedbrandequity”,JournalofMarketing,Vol.57,January,pp.1-22.[36]Keller,K.L.(2001),“Buildingcustomer-basedbrandequity”,MarketingManagement,10,14–19.[37]Keller,K.L.(2003),“StrategicBrandManagement:Building,MeasuringandManagingBrandEquity”,2nded.,Prentice-Hall,EnglewoodCliffs,72 NJ.[38]Kressmann,F.,Sirgy,M.J.,Herrmann,A.,Huber,F.,Huber,S.andLee,D.J.(2004),“Directandindirecteffectsofself-imagecongruenceonbrandloyalty”,JournalofBusinessResearch,59(2006)955–964.[39]Laurent,G.,Kapferer,J.andRoussel,F.(1995),“Theunderlyingstructureofbrandawarenessscores”,MarketingScience,Vol.14,March,pp.170-9.[40]Levin,A.M.,Davis,J.C,andLevin,I.P.(1996),“Theoreticalandempiricallinkagesbetweenconsumers"responsestodifferentbrandingstrategies”,InK.Corfman&J.Lynch(Eds.),Advancesinconsumerresearch,Vol.23,pp.296-300.[41]Levin,A.M.(2002),“contrastandassimilationprocessesinconsumers’evaluationsofdualbrands”,JournalofBusinessandPsychology,Vol.17,No.1,Fall2002,145-154.[42]Levy,H.andPorat,E.L.(1995),“Signalingtheoryandriskperception:Anexperimentalstudy”,JournalofEconomicsandBusiness,47:39-56.[43]Macdonald,E.,andSharp,B.(1996),“ManagementPerceptionsoftheImportanceofBrandAwarenessasanIndicationofAdvertisingEffectiveness”,MarketingResearchOn‐Line1,pp.1–15.[44]Macdonald,E.andSharp,B.(2003),“Managementperceptionsoftheimportanceofbrandawarenessasanindicationofadvertisingeffectiveness”,MarketingBulletin,Vol.14,January,pp.1-11.[45]Mattessich,P.W.,andMonsey,B.R.(1992),“Collaboration:Whatmakesitwork”,SaintPaul,MN:AmherstH.WilderFoundation.[46]Monga,A.B.andLau-Gesk,L.(2007),“BlendingCo-brandpersonalities:Anexaminationofthecomplexself”,JournalofMarketingResearch,44(3),389-400.[47]Motion,J.,Leitch,S.andBrodie,R.(2003),“Equityincorporateco-branding”,EuropeanJournalofMarketing,Vol.37No.7/8,pp.1080-1094.[48]Morris,D.andHergert,M.(1987),“Trendsininternationalcollaborativeagreements”,ColumbiaJournalofWorldBusiness,Summer,pp.15-21.73 [49]Ray,M.L.,AlanG.S.,MichaelL.R.,RogerM.H.,EdwardC.S.,andJeromeB.R.(1973),"MarketingCommunicationandtheHierarchyofEffects,"inNewModelsforMassCommunicationResearch,ed.PeterClarke,BeverlyHills,CA:Sage,147-176.[50]Nunnally,J.C.andIraH.B.(1994),“PsychometricTheory”,3ded.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.[51]Park,C.W.,Jun,S.Y,andShocker,A.D.(1996),“Compositebrandingalliances:Aninvestigationofextensionandfeedbackeffects”,JournalofMarketingResearch,33,453-466.[52]Shavitt,S.(1989),“Operationalizingfunctionaltheoriesofattitudes”,inPratkanis,A.R.,Breckler,S.J.andGreenwald,A.G.(Eds),AttitudeStructureandfunctionErlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ,pp.311-38.[53]Schiffman,L.G.andKanuk,L.L.(2000),ConsumerBehavior,7thed.,Prentice-Hall,EnglewoodCliffs,NJ.[54]Sirgy,M.J.(1982),"Self-ConceptinConsumerBehavior:ACriticalReview”,JournalofConsumerResearch,9(December),287-300.[55]Sirgy,M.J.,Samli,A.C.andClairborne,C.B.(1991),"Self-CongruityVersusFunctionalCongruity:PredictorsofConsumerBehavior,"JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,19(Fall).[56]Sirgy,M.J.,Grewal,D.,Mangleburg,T.F.,Park,J.,Chon,K.,Claiborne,C.B.,Johar,J.S.andBerkman,H.(1997),“Assessingthepredictivevalidityoftwomethodsofmeasuringself-imagecongruence”,JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,Vol.25No.3,pp.229-41.[57]Jacoby,J.,Syzabilo,G.J.,andBusato-Schach,J.(1977),“Informationacquisitionbehaviorinbrandchoicesituations”,JournalofConsumerResearch,3:209-16.[58]Schmitt,B.H.(1999),“Experientialmarketing:Howtogetcustomerstosensefeelthinkactrelatetoyourcompanyandbrands”,NewYork:TheFreePress.[59]Spence,M.andZeckhauser,R.J.(1971),"Insurance,Information,andIndividualAction",AmericanEconomicReview,May,61(2),pp.380-87.[60]Spence,M.(1976),“Informationalaspectsofmarketstructure:an74 introduction”,Thequarterlyjournalofeconomics,Vol.90,No.4(Nov.,1976),pp.591-597.[61]Simonin,B.L.andRuth,J.A.(1998),“IsaCompanyknownbythecompanyitkeeps?Assessingthespillovereffectsofbrandalliancesonconsumerbrandattitudes”,Journalofmarketingresearch,35(1):30-42.[62]Silk,A.J.andUrban,G.L.(1978),“Pre-Test-MarketEvaluationofNewPackagedGoods:AModelandMeasurementMethodology”,JournalofMarketingResearch,Vol.15,No.2(May,1978),pp.171-191.[63]Rao,A.R.andRuekert,R.W.(1994),"BrandAlliancesasSignalsofProductQuality",SloanManagementReview,36(Fall),87-97.[64]Rossiter,J.R.andPercy,L.(1987),“AdvertisingandPromotionManagement”,McGraw-Hill,NewYork,NY.[65]Wallendorf,M.andArnould,E.J.(1988),“Myfavouritethings:across-culturalinquiryintoobjectattachment,possessiveness,andsociallinkage”,JournalofConsumerResearch,Vol.14,March,pp.531-47.[66]Whinston,M.(1990),“Tying,ForeclosureandExclusion”,AmericanEconomicReview,80:4,pp.837-860.[67]Wyner,G.A.(1999).“Customerrelationshipmanagement”,MarketingResearch,11,39–41.[68]Yoo,B.,Donthu,N.andLee,S.(2000),“Anexaminationofselectedmarketingmixelementsandbrandequity”,JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,Vol.28,February,pp.197-213.75