臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討延伸產品類別(extension product type)和品牌故事具體程度(concreteness of brand story)主效果對於品牌延伸評價的影響，並且討論品牌強度、消費者與品牌自我ㄧ致性(self-brand congruity)、消費者品牌知識、以及延伸產品類別相似度對於品牌延伸評價之干擾效果以及交互作用之影響。
本研究分別以兩個模式探討研究假設，並透過實驗設計法來進行實驗假設推論之驗證。模式一為五因子組間實驗設計；為2 ( 延伸產品類別：形象產品類別、功能產品類別) * 2 (品牌強度：弱勢品牌、強勢品牌 ) * 2 (自我品牌ㄧ致性：低一致性、高ㄧ致性) * 2 (品牌知識：低品牌知識、高品牌知識) * 2 (延伸產品類別相似度：低相似、高相似)的實驗矩陣。模式二為2 ( 品牌故事具體程度：抽象品牌故事、具體品牌故事) * 2 (品牌強度：弱勢品牌、強勢品牌) * 2 (自我品牌ㄧ致性：低一致性、高ㄧ致性) * 2 (品牌知識：低品牌知識、高品牌知識) * 2 (延伸產品類別相似度：低相似、高相似)的實驗矩陣。
本研究採用兩個運動休閒鞋真實品牌故事，Camper以及K-SWISS，利用前測結果將延伸產品類別分為形象產品類別(symbolic product)和功能產品類別(functional product)，品牌故事區分為抽象品牌(abstract brand story)故事和具體品牌故事(concrete brand story)，做為實驗材料；問卷共有16個問卷版本，收集432個有效樣本，進行統計分析並對研究假設進行測試，研究結果如下：
本研究結果顯示延伸產品類別對於品牌延伸評價沒有顯著影響，表示延伸產品類別對於品牌延伸評價的影響，需搭配其他變數做探討。研究發現，品牌強度、消費者與品牌的自我ㄧ致性和延伸產品類別相似度，確實與延伸產品類別存在交互作用，繼而對品牌延伸評價有顯著的影響。對於一強勢品牌，延伸至形象產品類別所獲得之延伸評價，顯著比延伸至功能性產品類別高。也就是說，強勢品牌延伸至形象產品，受測者會有較佳的延伸評價。相反地，對於弱勢品牌，延伸至功能性產品類別所產生的延伸評價，顯著比其延伸至形象產品類別高。另外，當消費者與品牌ㄧ致性低時，延伸至功能性產品類別的評價顯著高於延伸至形象產品類別。然而當消費者為高品牌ㄧ致性時，消費者對於此品牌延伸至形象產品類別會有較高的延伸品價。研究結果也顯示，當延伸至低相似產品類別時，功能性產品會產生較高的品牌延伸評價，而當延伸至高相似度產品類別時，形象性產品會比起功能性產品產生較高的品牌延伸評價。另外，研究結果也顯示，受測者的品牌知識和延伸產品類別，並沒有存在交互作用。
模式二研究結果顯示，品牌故事之具體程度對於品牌延伸評價並沒有顯著影響，表示品牌故事之具體程度對於品牌延伸的評價的影響，必須搭配其他變數做探討。研究發現，品牌強度、消費者與品牌的自我ㄧ致性與品牌知識，確實與品牌故事具體程度存在交互作用，而產品類別相似度和品牌故事具體程度並沒有產生交互作用。結果顯示，強勢品牌搭配具體的品牌故事所產生的延伸評價，顯著高於搭配抽象品牌故事；相反地，對於弱勢品牌，搭配抽象品牌故事所產生的品牌延伸評價，顯著高於搭配具體品牌故事；也就是說，強勢品牌搭配應具體品牌故事，而弱勢品牌需搭配抽象品牌故事。另外，對於高品牌ㄧ致性的受測者，具體品牌故事所產生的延伸價，顯著高於抽象品牌故事所產生的品牌延伸評價。也就是說，品牌ㄧ致性高的受測者，對於具體的品牌故事會有較好的延伸評價。對於低品牌一致性的受測者而言，抽象品牌故事相較於具體品牌故事會產生較高的品牌延伸評價。另外，具體品牌故事所產生之延伸評價，在高品牌知識的受測者下，顯著高於在低品牌知識的受測者。然而，抽象品牌故事在高知識受測者和低知識受測者，所產生的延伸評價，並沒有顯著差異。
根據本研究結果，一個在市場地位高的強勢品牌，若要採取品牌延伸策略，在延伸的產品類別考量上，應優先延伸至形象類別的產品；而在品牌故事的選取上，應採用較具體品牌故事(concrete brand story)，會有較佳的品牌延伸。而對於一個弱勢品牌，延伸至功能產品類別比起延伸至形象產品類別，會有較佳的品牌延伸效果，弱勢品牌應優先考慮延伸至功能性產品類別；而採取較形象性的抽象品牌故事(abstract brand story)，能使弱勢品牌之品牌延伸有較佳的效果。另外，若市場調查顯示目標客戶為高品牌一致性消費者，本研究顯示，相較於功能性產品，高品牌一致性的消費者對於形象產品類別的品牌延伸，會有較佳的評價；因此行銷業者應以形象類別的產品，作為品牌延伸策略。然而當目標客戶為低品牌ㄧ致性消費者時，行銷業者應以功能性產品類別，作為品牌延伸考量。

This study intends to examine the effects of extension product types and concreteness of brand story on evaluation of brand extension, and the degree to which these effects are moderated by brand strength, self-brand knowledge, brand knowledge, and product category similarity. Model One is a five-factor between-subjects design: 2 (Extension Product Type: Symbolic and Functional) × 2 (Brand Strength: Strong and Weak) × 2 (Self-Brand Congruity: High and Low) × 2 (Brand Knowledge: High and Low) × 2 (Product Category Similarity: High and Low) experimental design. Model Two is also a five-factor between-subjects design: 2 (Concreteness of Brand Story: Abstract and Concrete) × 2(Brand Strength: Strong and Weak) × 2 (Self-Brand Congruity: High and Low) × 2 (Brand Knowledge: High and Low) × 2 (Product Category Similarity: High and Low) experimental design. This study has the following conclusions: (1) brand strength does moderate the effect of extension product type on evaluation of brand extension, but extension product type has no significant influence on evaluation of brand extension. (2) Self-brand congruity does interact with extension product type to influence evaluation of brand extension. (3) Brand knowledge does not moderate the effect of extension product type. (5) Product category similarity does moderate the effect of extension product type. (6) Concreteness of brand story does not significantly influence evaluation of brand extension (7) Brand strength does moderate the effect of concreteness of brand story on evaluation of brand extension. (8) The effect of concreteness of brand story is moderated by self-brand congruity. (9) Brand knowledge does moderate the effect of concreteness of brand story on evaluation of brand extension.

Table of Contents
Title Page i
Letter of Approval ii
Letter of Authority iii
Chinese Abstract iv
English Abstract vii
Acknowledgements viii
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xiv

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation 4
1.3 Research Questions 5
1.4 Research Objectives 6
1.5 Research Procedure 6

Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIW 8
2.1 Brand 8
2.2 Brand Extension 11
2.3 Product Type 17
2.4 Narrative 23
2.5 Abstract and Concrete Matephor 27
2.6 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) 31
2.7 Brand Knowledge 32
2.8 Hypotheses Inference 37

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 57
3.1 Research Framework, Experimental Design 57
3.2 Operational Definitions and Measurements 62
3.3 Pilot Studies 70
3.4 Questionnaire Design 81
3.5 Statistical Methods 85

Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSES AND RESULTS 86
4.1 Sample Descriptives 86
4.2 Reliability Analysis 89
4.3 Manipulation Check 94
4.4 Hypotheses Testing-Model One 97
4.5 Hypothesis Testing—Model Two 112
4.6 Summary of Hypotheses Testing 130

Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 133
5.1 Conclusions 133
5.2 Contributions and Implications 141
5.3 Limitations and Further Research 144

Chinese Reference 148
English Reference 149

APPENDIX 154
Appendix One: Pilot Study One—Classifying Brand Stories into Seven Categories 155
Appendix Two: Pilot Study Two Questionnaire—Choosing Concrete and Abstract Brand Story 185
Appendix Three: Pilot Study Three Questionnaire: Choosing Strong and Weak Brand 194
Appendix Four: Focus Group Questionnaire 197
Appendix Five: Pilot Study Four Questionnaire 200
Appendix Six: Experiment Questionnaires 201


List of Tables

Table 2-1: Approaches to Classifying Products 18
Table 2-2: The Effects of Self-Esteem and Self-Consistency Motives on Purchase Motivation 43
Table 2-3: Summary of Research Hypotheses 55
Table 3-1: Experimental Design of Model One 59
Table 3-2: Experimental Design of Model Two 61
Table 3-3: Final Brand Story Materials—Abstract and Concrete 68
Table 3-4: Selected Brand Stories after Pilot Study One 71
Table 3-5: Results of Pilot Study Two—Identifying between Abstract and Concrete Brand Story (Sneaker Shoes) 73
Table 3-6: Results of Pilot Study Two—Identifying between Abstract and Concrete Brand Story (Watch) 74
Table 3-7: Chosen Materials Based on the Pilot Study Results 74
Table 3-8: Pilot Study Three Results: Identifying between Strong and Weak Brands 76
Table 3-9: General Conclusion from the First Three Pilot Studies 77
Table 3-10: Paried Sample T-Test of Brand Strength 77
Table 3-11: Paried-Sample T-Test of Abstract and Concrete Brand Story 77
Table 3-12: The Final Brand Story Material 78
Table 3-13: Results of Pilot Study Four 80
Table 3-14: The Chosen Product Category 80
Table 4-1: Valid Sample Size 87
Table 4-2: Sample Descriptive 88
Table 4-3: Reliability of Evaluation of Brand Extension 90
Table 4-4: Reliability of Brand Strength 90
Table 4-5: Reliability of Self-Brand Congruity 91
Table 4-6: Grouping Manipulation Check of Self-Brand Congruity 91
Table 4-7: Reliability of Brand Knowledge 92
Table 4-8: Grouping Manipulation Check of Brand Knowledge 92
Table 4-9: Median of Self-Brand Congruity and Brand Knowledge 93
Table 4-10: Manipulation Check of Concreteness of Brand Story 94
Table 4-11: Manipulation Check of Brand Strength 95
Table 4-12: Mean and Std. Deviation of Product Category Similarity 96
Table 4-13: Manipulation Check of Product Category Similarity 96
Table 4-14: Experimental Design Matrix 97
Table 4-15: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type 98
Table 4-16: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Brand Strength —Mean, Standard Deviation 100
Table 4-17: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Brand Strength: Two-Way ANOVA 101
Table 4-18: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Brand Strength: Tukey HSD 101
Table 4-19: Plan Contrast of Extension Product Type at Brand Strength 103
Table 4-20: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Self-Brand Congruity 105
Table: 4-21: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Self-Brand Congruity—Two-Way ANOVA 105
Table 4-22: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Self-Brand Congruity—Tukey HSD 106
Table 4-23: Plan Contrast of Extension Product Type at Self-Brand Congriuty 107
Table 4-24: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Brand Knowledge—Mean, Std Deviation 108
Table 4-25: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Brand Knowledge—Two-Way ANOVA ……………………………109
Table 4-26: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Product Category Similarity…………………...………….….110
Table 4-27: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Product Category Similarity—Two-Way ANOVA 111
Table 4-28: Plan Contrast of Extension Product Type at Product Category Similarity 112
Table 4-29: Experimental Design Matrix—Model Two 113
Table 4-30: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story—One-Way ANOVA 114
Table 4-31 Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Strength — Mean, Std Deviation 117
Table 4-32: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Strength—Two-way ANOVA 117
Table 4-33: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Strength —Tukey HSD 118
Table 4-34: Plan Contrast of Concreteness of Brand Story at Brand Strength 119
Table 4-35: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Self-Brand Congruity—Mean, Std. Deviation 120
Table: 4-36: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Self-Brand Congruity—Two-Way ANOVA 120
Table 4-37: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Self-Brand Congruity—Tukey HSD 122
Table 4-38: Plan Contrast of Concreteness of Brand Story at Self-Brand Congruity 123
Table 4-39: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Knowledge— Mean, Std. Deviation 125
Table: 4-40: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Knowledge—Two-Way ANOVA 125
Table 4-41: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Knowledge—Tukey HSD 126
Table 4-42: Plan Contrast of Brand Knowledge at Concreteness of Brand Story 127
Table 4-43: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Product Category Similarity—Mean, Std. Deviation 129
Table: 4-44: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Product Category Similarity—Two-Way ANOVA 129
Table 4-45: Summary of Hypotheses Testing 130


List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Research Procedure 7
Figure 2-1: Construct of Brand Knowledge 36
Figure 3-1: Research Framework—Model One 58
Figure 4-1: Mean Plot—Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type 99
Figure 4-2: Mean Plot: Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Brand Strength 103
Figure 4-3: Mean Plot— Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Self-Brand Congruity 107
Figure 4-4: Mean Plot—Evaluation of Brand Extension by Extension Product Type by Product Category Similarity 112
Figure 4-5: Mean Plot—Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Strength 119
Figure 4-6: Mean Plot—Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Self-Brand Congruity 123
Figure 4-7: Mean Plot—Evaluation of Brand Extension by Concreteness of Brand Story by Brand Knowledge 127

Chinese Reference

王家偉，2006年，「品牌故事組成元素對品牌形象知覺之影響：產品類別、訊息訴求、自我一致性及品牌強度調和效果之探討」，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。

李怡寬，1993 年，「影響品牌延伸領域及消費者對品牌延伸評估因素之研究」，中央大學企業管理研究所。

別蓮蒂，2003年，「產品契合度與品牌特值連想對品牌延伸效果的影響」，管理評論，第二十二卷，第二期，頁87-109。

別蓮蒂，2003年，「企業品牌策略之企業名稱被書效果」，管理學報，第二十卷。

張茂嵩，2003年，「契合度與產品知識對品牌策略效果之影響」，國立政治大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文。

陳振遂，1996 年，「顧客基礎的品牌權益衡量與建立之研究」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文。

游純瑜，2001 年，「混合產品來源國資訊組合效果之研究–產品類別之干擾影響」，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。

湯立群，2001 年，「來源國屬性與產品資訊特性搭配一致性之研究–產品類別的干擾效果」，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。


English Reference

Aaker, D. A. (1990), “Brand Extensions: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31, pp. 47-56.

Aaker, D. A. and Keller, K. L. (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extension,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 27-41.

Aaker, D. A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1992), “The Value of Brand Equity,” Jornal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13, pp. 27-32.

Aaker, J. L. (1999), “The Malleable Self: The Role of Self-Expression in Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, pp. 45-57.

Aaker J. L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 347-356.

Agrawal, J. and Kamakura, W. A. (1999), “Country of origin: A competitive advantage?,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 16, pp. 255-267.

Anderson, J. R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W.R., and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,”Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 644-656.

Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 15, pp. 139-168.

Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J. (1989), “The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 511-561.

Beverland M. (2006), “The “real thing”: Branding Authenticity in the Luxury Wine Trade,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, 251~258.

Bhat, S. and Reddy, S. K. (1998), “Symbolic and Functional Positioning of Brands,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 32-43.

Boush, D. M. and Loken, B. (1991), “A Process-Tracing Study of Brand Extension Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research; Vol. 28, pp. 16-28.

Broniarczyk, S. M. and Alba, J. W. (1994), “The Importance of the Brand in Brand Extension,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11, pp. 214-28.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V. and Sherry, J. (2003), “Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, pp. 19-33.

Dolich, I. J. (1969), “Congruence Relationships between Self Images and
Product Brands,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 80-84.

Escalas, J. E. (2004), “Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to
Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 168-180.

Escalas, J. E., and Bettman, J. R. (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence
of Reference Groups on Consumer Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13, pp. 339–348.

Fournier, S. M. (1998), “Consumer and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Marketing,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp.343-73.

Govers, P. C. M. and Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005), “Product Personality and Its Influence on Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 189-197.

Holbrook, M. B. and Elizabeth, C. (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging
Concepts, Methods and Proposutions,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, September, pp. 92-101.

Holbrook, M. B. and Elizabeth, C. (1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 9, pp. 132-140.

Keller, K. L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 595-600.

Keller, B. and Sood, K. L. (2000), “Communication Strategies for Brand Extensions: Enhancing Perceived Fit by Establishing Explanatory Links,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29, pp. 1-11.

Khalil, E. L. (2000), “Symbolic Products: Prestige, Pride and Identity Goods,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 49, pp. 53-77.

Kim, J. Y. (2003), “Communication Message Strategies for Brand Extensions,” Journal of Product and Brand Management,” Vol. 12, pp. 462-476.

Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management, 7th edition, Prentice-Hall International, Inc. New Jersey.

Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J, Herrmann A., Huber, F., Huber, S., and Lee, Dong-Jin (2006), “Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-Image Congruence on Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59, pp. 995-964.

Landon, E. L. (1974), “Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Consumer Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 44-51.

Lefkoff-Hagius, R. and Mason, C. H. (1990), “The Role of Tangible and Intangible Attributes in Similarity and Preference Judgments,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 135-143.

McCabe, A. (1988), “Effect of Different Contexts on Momory for Mataphor,” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, Vol. 3, pp. 105-132.

Midgley, D. F., “Patterns of Interpersonal Information Seeking for the Purchase of a Symbolic Product,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 20, pp. 74-83.

Murphy, E. P. and Enis, B. M., (1986), “Classifying Products Strategically,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 24-42.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., and Maclnnis, D. J. (1986), “Strategic Brand
Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 135-145.

Percy, L. and Rossiter, J. R. (1992), “Advertising Stimulus Effects: A Review,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 14, pp. 76-91.

Reddy, S. K., Susan, L. H., and Subodh, B. (1994), “To Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 243-262.

Rossiter, J. R. and Larry, P. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Sirgy, M. J. (1982). “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 287-300.

Sirgy, M. J. (1985), Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 13, pp. 195-206.

Smith, D. C. and Park, C. W. (1992), “The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 296-311.

Swan, J. E. and Coms, L. J. (1976), “Product Performance and Consumer Satisfaction: A New Concept,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, pp. 25-33.

Tauber, E. M. (1988), “Brand Leverage: Strategy for Growth in a Cost-Control World,” Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28, pp. 26-30.

Tauber, E. M. (1988), “New Product Benefits from Existing Brand Names,” Business Horizons, Vol. 2, pp. 36-41.

Troutman, C. M., and Shanteau, J. (1976), “Do Consumers Evaluate Products by Adding or Averaging Attribute Information?,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, pp. 101-106.

Wright, N. D., Claiborne, C. B., and Sirgy, M. J. (1992), “The Effects of Product Symbolism on Consumer Self-Concept,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 311-318.

Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 1–14.

Yoo, C. and MacInnis, D. (2003), “The Brand Attitude Formation Process of Emotional and Informational Ads,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 1397–1406.