品牌延伸战略规划：品牌类别的个性契合度和非典型的经验估计[外文翻译].doc

毕业论文外文翻译题目：某企业品牌延伸的风险及规避对策一、外文原文标题：brand extension strategy planning: empirical estimation of brandcategory personality fit and atypicality原文：brand extensionsthe use of an existing brand name on a new product in a new category to benefit from the existing brand names awareness and associations-leverage, the investments a company makes in its existing brand names and hedge against the risk of new product failures. the popularity of this strategy is due to the belief that it leads to higher consumer trial than the use of a new brand name because of the awareness levels and association (imagery) equities of the brand name being leveraged (keller 2003, p.582). many companies today also seek to leverage their existing brand assets through licensing deals to other manufacturers in other categories (e.g., the caterpillar brand on boots, made by wolverine footwear) or through co branding arrangements (e.g., harley-davidson with ford trucks). these “extendibility” advantages significantly contribute to a brands financial value because they raise the estimate of its future revenues (keller 2003, p. 499).however, not all brand extensions succeed, and there is a risk that failure will backfire on the image of the parent brand (martinez and pina 2003). in the united states, new products experience failure rates between 80% and 90%, and brand extensions fail at a somewhat lower rate (keller 2003, pp. 58182). thus, there has been a burgeoning academic research stream on the factors that promote or reduce the success of brand extensions. this academic research has highlighted the contributing role of the breadth and abstractness of the extending brands associations and imagery and the fit of these with the target category. this article fills a void in the literature by proposing a methodology to estimate these constructs by separately measuring the association imagery of the extending brand, its “parent category”, and that of the product category into which it is being extended. using a bayesian factor-analytic model (ansari and jedidi 2000; ansari, jedidi, and dube 2002) for brand and category personality, we derive measures of a brands atypicality with respect to its parent category and fit with the target category. in the empirical study, we estimate the brand personality model and brand atypicality and fit measures with a nationally representative sample. we then validate these measures by predicatively testing proposed brand extensions with a second, independent, nationally representative sample. the methodology provides key strategic insights for generating and assessing successful brand extension, licensing, and co branding opportunities. the brand extension literaturea brand extension uses an existing brand name on a new product in a new category to benefit from the existing brand names attribute and imagery awareness and associations to gain consumer trial, retailer distribution, and so forth, in the new category. for example, a cross-category brand extension could be one in which a car brand, such as porsche, extends into categories such as pens or eyeglasses. presumably, consumers favorable disposition toward porsche and its associations with prestige and exciting style would extend to the new entries. consequently, the literature argues that the extending brand name must first possess high awareness and associations that are salient, strong, positive, relevant, and unique (keller 2003, pp.600601).these brand associations must then also fit the category being extended into and be “broad and abstract” enough to accommodate the needs of that new category.fitextensions of a brand into a new category face the particular challenge of needing to fit (be perceived as close to) the new product category being entered. thus, while the imagery surrounding the national geographic brand name may fit the category requirements for travel clothing, travel shoes, or binoculars, the fit would likely be poorer if money magazine were to launch these same brand extensions. the necessity and basis for this fit have been the primary subjects of most academic research on brand extensions in the last 15 years (aaker and keller 1990; for a review, see keller 2003, pp. 608623). an existing brand name from another category fits a new product category if there appears to be a match at the level of concrete attributes (e.g., microprocessors, for intel) or based on abstract imagery or personality attributes (e.g., prestige and exciting style, for porsche) (batra, lehmann, and singh 1993; john and loken 1993; park, milburg, and lawson 1991). the more salient, shared associations there are between the brand name and the new extension category, the greater is the perception of fit. the greater the perceived fit, the greater is the degree to which consumers will view the perceptions and preference of the extending brand to “carry over” to its new product category. fit at the level of imagery is often a greater determinant of brand extension success than the degree of favorable overall attitudes toward the extending brand or the degree of physical similarity between the parent and the entered-into product categories (broniarczyk and alba 1994).current methods of measuring fit simply ask consumers for their overall perceptual assessments, using direct rating scales such as “how well does the proposed extension fit with the parent brand” (keller 2003, p. 604). there are at least three issues with the use of such measures. first, as klink and smith (2001) show, consumers answers to such direct questions are necessarily based on preconceived ideas of brand extendibility and may be confounded with prior attitudes,yielding problematic estimates of fit. second, these “overall fit” estimates do not offer any diagnostic insight into the “basis” of these fit assessments; understanding the specific associations that contribute to or detract from fit judgments could be important for the identification of brand extension opportunities and strategy planning. third, the prevalent “concept-testing” approach does not allow for the generation of new brand extensions or licensing or co branding ideas; it simply allows for the testing of a limited number of already-generated concepts.addressing these limitations, we present a no attitudinal method for empirically generating information about a brand extensions fit without asking for direct consumer judgments of fit and similarity between the extended brand and the new category, thus addressing some of the weaknesses of such approaches (see klink and smith 2001). we show through two validation studies from an independent sample of consumers that our approach, which does not rely on typically used attitudinal measures of extension potential, can nonetheless predict them well. our approach also enables strategic insights into the contributing sources of extension fit for a particular brand because it explores which of many candidate brands and categories represents the highest potential extension, licensing, or co branding opportunities by studying their attribute and imagery associations. importantly, our approach can be applied to generate, not merely to test, brand extension concepts, thus making it of much greater strategic use than current methods. atypicalityin addition to possessing a high degree of fit with the category being extended into, brands with high extension potential also benefit from other qualities, according to prior literature. an important finding from brand extension research is that abstract associations are easier to extend than concrete associations and that a brand name that is too strongly identified with only its parent category, relative to an abstract quality that spans multiple categories, can be more difficult to extend outside the category (aaker and keller 1990; farquhar et al. 1992). this finding is consistent with prior research (johnson 1984; rosch et al. 1976) that abstract associations (e.g., entertainment) are inherently more inclusive and super ordinate (or broader, and thus fit into more product/service categories) than concrete associations(e.g., television sets). therefore, brands that are marketed on the basis of inherently more abstract “lifestyle” associations (e.g., rallauren) have historically proved to be extendible into many other seemingly disparate product categories (e.g., table linen, sunglasses, paint). for example, heinekens strong association with the concrete “beer” category might make it less extendible than another beer, such as corona, which also has a broader lifestyle association of a partygoer or beach relaxation. another example is cloroxs failure to extend successfully into the detergent category in the late 1980s, apparently limited by its too strong association with the “bleachness” quality of its parent bleach category. the literature suggests that the degree to which a particular brands associations and imagery are atypical of (and thus allow it to go beyond) the associations discriminate and imagery of its parent product category affects the degree to which the brand possesses a quality of abstractness that enhances its ability to extend into other categories.to empirically assess the degree and type of fit and atypicality for a brand extension, we chose to work in the domain of “brand personality”, instead of associations with regard to concrete brand attributes or benefits (though our approach is applicable to these as well), because these personality associations are inherently more abstract and therefore may be considered more relevant across a wide set of product categories (keller 2003, p.614). indeed, the recent growth of “lifestyle mega brands” (e.g., ralph lauren, martha stewart, nike) into multiple physically unrelated product categories testifies to the extension power of these abstract brand personality associations. we now turn to a discussion of the literature on these personality associations at both the brand and the category levels.brand personalityalmost 50 years of research in marketing (levy 1959; martineau 1958) has shown that consumers perceptions of and associations with brands go beyond their functional attributes and benefits and include nonfunctional, symbolic qualities, often referred to as “brand image.” among these aspects of brand image are perceptions and associations about the brands personality, or the “set of humanlike characteristics associated with a brand” (aaker 1997, p. 347). for example, among soft drinks, consumers often perceive pepsi as more “young,” coke as more “real and honest,” and dr pepper as more “nonconformist and fun” (aaker 1997, p. 348). as we discussed previously, these personality aspects of a brand extension often play a major role in consumer judgments of its fit and leverage in the new category into which it extends (batra, lehmann, and singh 1993; park, milburg, and lawson 1991).measuring brand personalitythe appropriate measurement of existing brand personality imagery has been studied for approximately 25 years (plummer 1984). researchers have attempted to develop a valid and reliable measurement (survey) instrument of brand personality ,that is usable across various product categories and consumer segments, drawing on the extensive literature on human personality (digman 1990; mccrae and costa 1987) but also going beyond it when necessary (batra, lehmann, and singh 1993). the measurement instrument used most often is that developed by aaker (1997).category personalityprior literature also suggests that entire product categories (e.g., beverages) or subcategories (e.g., beer, wine, milk), not only brands within them, possess a “personality.” as levy (1986, pp. 21617) writes, “a primary source of meaning is the product (category) itself”; he notes that within the beverage category, liquor connotes, wine connotes snobbism, beer connotes sociability and democracy, soup connotes tradition, and juice connotes virtue. coffee is viewed as stronger and more masculine, whereas tea is viewed as weaker and more feminine. levy (1981, p. 55) also highlights how user stereotypesa common source of brand personality (keller 1993)differ for specific food categories: for example, chunky peanut butter for boys versus smooth peanut butter for girls, lamb chops and salads for women versus steaks for men. other researchers (e.g., lautman 1991) have also noted that consumers appear to have a “schema” for different categories, clusters of interconnected emotions, facts, and perceptions stored in memory as a unit. durgee and stuart (1987) find that consumers associate “fun” with the entire ice-cream category. batra and homer (2004, p. 321) find that potato chips were rated as more “fun” than expensive cookies, which were rated as more “sophisticated and classy.”perhaps because of such background “category context,” depending on the category, some brand personality measurement scale items appear to pick up functional product category characteristics rather than brand personality ones. thus, in one study, the brands rated highest on “energetic” were energizer drinks, while the item “sensuous” was most associated with ice-cream brands (romaniuk and scale interaction in the ehrenberg 2003). given the well-known concept literature on measurement with scales, such as semantic differentials (komorita and bass 1967; osgood, suci, and tannenbaum 1957), it is not surprising that certain brand personality measurement items (in aakers scales or others) might mean different things in different product categories (caprara, barbaranelli, and guido 2001). importantly for our approach, these findings also suggest that the net personality perceptions of a brand are influenced by both the personality of the overall category of which it is a part and its own idiosyncratic brand personality aspects.出处：batra rajeev; lenk peter; wedel michel. brand extension strategy planning j. journal of marketing research 2010,47(2), p335-p347.二、翻译文章标题：品牌延伸战略规划：品牌类别的个性契合度和非典型的经验估计译文：品牌延伸，把现有品牌名称使用在新类别新产品上使其受益于现有的品牌名称的认知度和关联影响的应用，公司在其现有的品牌制造的投资以对冲新产品失败的风险。这一策略的普及是由于相信相对于使用一种新品牌它会引导更高的消费者试验，因为被杠杆作用的品牌名字的权益的意识水平和联想(意象)（凯勒，2003，p.582）。今天，许多公司还寻求通过授权合同的手段，把其现有的品牌资产授权给其他制造商用于其他类别（如，卡特彼勒品牌应用在靴子上，由金刚狼鞋业制造）或通过合作品牌的安排（如，哈雷戴维森与福特车）。这些“可扩展性”的优势极大地促进了品牌的财务价值，因为它们提高其未来的收入估计（凯勒2003，p.499）。然而，并非所有的品牌延伸都能成功，而且有失败会对其母品牌的形象造成反效果的风险（martinez and pina，2003）。在美国，新产品的体验的失败率在80和90之间，品牌延伸的失败率较低（凯勒，2003，p581-p582）。因此，一直有一个在研究推动或降低品牌延伸成功因素的新兴的学术研究流派。这些学术研究对突出了延伸品牌的关联和意象的幅度和抽象性，以及与目标品类的适合度的有促进作用。本文通过提出一种用分别测量延伸品牌正在被延伸出来的产品种类的“父类”的关联意象来评估这些构念的方法，来填补这篇文献中的空隙。对品牌和品类的个性使用贝叶斯因子分析模型（ansari and jedidi，2000； ansari， jedidi and dube，2002），我们从其相关父类的品牌的非典型性中汲取措施，以与目标品类相符合。在实证研究中，我们根据全国代表性样本估量品牌个性模式和品牌非典型和适合的措施。然后，我们通过用次要的、独立的、全国代表性的样本断然地测验被推荐的品牌延伸证实这些措施。该方法为生成和评估成功的品牌延伸，许可和合作品牌机会提供了关键的战略上的深刻见解。品牌延伸文学品牌延伸是把现有品牌名称使用在一个新类别新产品上，新产品受惠于现有的品牌名称的属性、形象意识和关联，希望能增加新类别的消费者试用，零售分销，等等。例如，一个跨类品牌的延伸可以是一个汽车品牌，如保时捷，延伸到其他类别，如钢笔或是眼镜。据推测，消费者对保时捷和信誉的关联及令人兴奋的风格的赞成倾向是将其扩大到新的项目。因此，文献认为，延伸品牌的名称必须首先具备很高的知名度和突出的，强有力的，积极的，中肯的和独特的关联性（凯勒，2003，pp.600 - 601）。这些品牌关联性必须也与被扩展的品类相符合，并且“广泛而抽象的”足以适应新类别的需要。适合一个品牌的延伸进入一个新的类别面临着需要与被进入的新产品类别相适应（被视为接近）的特定的挑战。因此，当围绕国家地理品牌名称的意象可能适合旅行服装，旅游鞋，或望远镜种类的需求，如果money杂志推出这些同一品牌扩展那么这适应性很有可能会更低。这适应度的必要性和基础已经成为在过去15年的大部分品牌延伸学术研究的主要课题（aaker and keller，1990；进行检讨，看keller 2003，p608-p623）。如果有一个似乎是在具体的属性级别（如英特尔，微处理器）或基于抽象的意象或个性特质（例如保时捷，声望和令人激动的风格）与之相匹配，那么另一个类别的现有品牌名称符合一个新的产品类别（batra, lehmann, and singh，1993；john and loken，1993；park，milburg，and lawson 1991）。品牌名称及新的扩展类拥有的共同关联越突出，那么适合的感觉就越大。感知的适合度越大，消费者将考虑对正在延伸的品牌的感知和偏好“传递”到新的产品类别的程度就越大。意象水平的适合往往是比延伸品牌的良好的整体态度的程度或是在母公司和被进入的产品种类之间的物理相似程度的一个更大的使品牌延伸成功决定因素（broniarczyk and alba，1994）。当前的测量方法，可直接使用评定量表如“如何使被提及的延伸与母品牌有好的契合”，适合简单地询问消费者的整体感知评估（keller，2003，p604）。至少有三个这类措施的使用问题。首先，根据klink和smith（2001）显示，消费者对这种直接的问题的答案必然基于对品牌可扩展性的事先形成的观念，可能会混淆了先前的态度，产生对拟合不确定的估算。其次，这些“整体配合”估计将不提供对于这些适合评估的“基础”任何诊断的见解；了解特殊的有助于判断或减损适应性的辨别力的关联可能对鉴定品牌延伸的机遇和战略规划非常重要。第三，普遍的“概念测试”方法不允许新的品牌延伸或品牌授权或合作品牌思想的生成；它只是允许为有限数量已经生成的概念的测试。为解决这些限制，我们提出一种非主观的以经验为主生成的不用直接询问消费者关于被延伸的品牌和新类别的适应性和相似性的辨别力的关于品牌延伸的契合度的方法，从而解决这些办法的某些弱点（见klink 和smith，2001）。我们通过两个对消费者的独立样本的效度研究，说明我们的方法，它不依赖于通常用于扩展潜力的态度的措施，还是能够很好地预测他们。我们的方法也使得对扩展的贡献来源在战略上见解能够适合某一特定品牌，因为它通过研究它们的属性和意象关联来探测了许多候选品牌和类别代表中哪个是最有潜力的延伸，许可或是合作品牌机遇，到适合的贡献来源。重要的是，我们的方法可以适用于生成品牌延伸的概念，不仅是为了测试，因此它使用于战略比通用的方法更多。非典型根据事先文学，除了拥有与被扩展的种类有很高的契合程度，高扩展潜力的品牌也受益于其他品质。一项来自品牌延伸研究的重要发现是，抽象的关联比具体的关联更容易延伸和一个太强烈只认同它的父类品牌的名称，相对于一个跨度众多种类的抽象品质来说，更难以扩展以外的类别（aaker和keller，1990；farquhar 等人，1992）。这一发现与先前的研究一致（johnson，1984；rosch等人，1976）即抽象的关联（如娱乐）本质上是比具体的关联（如电视机）更具包容性和超坐标（或更广泛，从而融入更多的产品或服务类别）。因此，基于本质上更抽象的“生活方式”的关联上被推广的品牌（如拉夫 劳伦）在历史上已经被证明是可延伸到许多其他看似不相干的产品类别上（如餐桌，太阳眼镜，油漆）。例如，喜力和具体的“啤酒”一类的强烈关联，可能会使它比其他啤酒如也有一个更广泛的社交常客或海滩休闲