Every new product introduction entails a branding decision: whether to name the product using a direct extension, a sub-brand, or a new brand. While previous research has focused on how consumers evaluate alternatives in lab settings, or, in studies based on secondary data, on the effectiveness of brand extensions in general, a comprehensive framework of the antecedents and consequences of new product branding decisions is lacking from the literature. The authors propose a theoretical framework that organizes product-, category-, and firm-level determinants of firms’ new product branding decisions, and empirically test the framework’s predictions using a large sample of new product introductions, documenting with real world data how managers choose among three branding alternatives. In addition, using both product-specific and firm-specific valuation metrics, the authors quantify the negative impact on firm value of misaligning the new product branding decisions with the conditions facing new products. Conceptually, the authors bridge the branding and new product performance literatures, and present findings that extend knowledge from behavioral research on brand extensions. Empirically, the authors provide evidence to managers on how to choose brand names for new products in a way that enhances the stock market value of firms.
We reiterate that our focus is on the naming decision of new product in relation to the brands that firms already own, rather than on the strategic reasons behind the introduction. From a naming perspective, our classification covers all branding decisions. We do control for co-branded status of a new product rather than treating co-branding as a separate strategy. This is because within co-branded products we observe firms using all three branding alternatives (e.g., Crunch Toons–a new brand introduced by Poore Brothers with Disney characters on the package; Pampers Feel ‘n Learn - Advanced Trainers Training Pants - Dora the Explorer – a sub-brand; Febreze - Candle - with Gain Original Scent – a direct extension).
A similar two-stage approach and deviation analysis has also been previously used in the context where the first stage model has a continuous dependent variable (e.g., Mooi & Ghosh, 2010).
Although this operationalization may appear to be a low threshold for a product to be categorized as innovative, only a small proportion of products in our sample (less than 4.5%) reached this standard.