When a luxury brand extends into new product categories, does its perceived personality durably change? A 2 (congruency) × 2 (typicality) × 2 (processing motivation) experiment on the HUGO BOSS brand (Phau, Matthiesen & Shimul, 2021) found that extension exposure diluted perceived brand personality — for both congruent and incongruent extension information — and that, contrary to schema theory, brand personality evaluations neither strictly followed the bookkeeping model in high-motivation conditions nor the subtyping model in low-motivation conditions in response to incongruent information, deviating from the pattern previously documented for brand-name evaluations. Whether this dilution generalizes beyond a student sample, a single brand, and a single market; whether brand commitment, brand ownership, and individual differences moderate it; whether it accumulates, attenuates, or reverses across repeated extension introductions over time; and whether strategic communication can undo it all remain unknown. The open problem is an evidence-based account of when and how luxury brand extensions durably change parent brand personality. A 2023 meta-analysis of extension feedback effects (first published online in 2022) consolidates one-shot attitude-dilution findings but does not address brand personality dynamics.

Background

When a firm launches a new product under an existing brand name — a brand extension — the extension is not evaluated in isolation: consumers' impressions of it feed back on the parent brand. These reciprocal (feedback) effects can enhance or dilute the parent brand. Research since the early 1990s established dilution for brand beliefs and brand-name evaluations: extension information inconsistent with the brand weakens specific brand beliefs (Loken & Roedder John, 1993), negative feedback on the parent brand depends on how the extension is branded relative to the parent name (Milberg, Park & McCarthy, 1997), and dilution of the parent brand name is driven by whether consumers categorize the extension under the parent (Sood & Keller, 2012).

A separate stream treats brand personality — the set of human-like attributes (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, ruggedness) consumers associate with a brand, measured with Aaker's (1997) scale — as a core component of brand equity, the added value a brand name confers on a product. For luxury brands, whose value rests heavily on prestige and sophistication imagery, shifts in perceived personality are a first-order strategic risk when the brand extends into categories of differing fit (Albrecht, Backhaus, Gurzki & Woisetschläger, 2013).

How new information updates an existing impression is usually modeled with schema theory from person perception. Two competing accounts originate there: the bookkeeping model, in which each piece of inconsistent information gradually revises the overall impression, and the subtyping model, in which inconsistent instances are quarantined into subcategories so that the overall impression survives (Weber & Crocker, 1983). In the brand domain, these models had been supported for brand-name and attribute evaluations, with consumers' processing motivation — how carefully they think about extension information — expected to determine which applies.

Phau, Matthiesen and Shimul (2021) provided a dedicated test of reciprocal extension effects on luxury brand personality, using a 2 (incongruent vs congruent extension information) × 2 (high vs low extension typicality, i.e., how representative the extension product category is of the parent brand) × 2 (high vs low motivation) experiment on the HUGO BOSS brand with two extension categories (watches and kidswear) and an Australian student sample. Two findings broke with the established picture. First, only dilution occurred: exposure to extension information weakened perceived brand personality regardless of whether the information was congruent or incongruent with the parent brand, and no enhancement condition emerged. Second, contrary to what schema theory predicts and what had been documented for brand-name evaluations, brand personality evaluations neither strictly followed the bookkeeping model in high-motivation conditions nor the subtyping model in low-motivation conditions in response to incongruent information. The study observed a single exposure in a single session, so nothing is known about what happens over time or across successive extension introductions.

Problem Statement

The source study leaves open the temporal and boundary structure of reciprocal brand personality effects in luxury branding. The unresolved question has four linked components for a luxury parent brand, all of which a resolving account must jointly address:

  1. Generalization — does the observed brand personality dilution hold beyond a student sample, beyond the single HUGO BOSS brand, and beyond the Australian market; that is, across diverse populations, other luxury brands, and different cultural contexts?
  2. Moderators — do brand commitment, brand ownership, and individual consumer differences moderate brand personality dilution and enhancement?
  3. Temporal dynamics and mechanism — how does luxury brand personality evolve over time and across repeated extension introductions: does dilution accumulate, attenuate, or reverse, and which cognitive updating process (bookkeeping, subtyping, or a distinct mechanism) governs brand personality change, given that brand personality evaluations in the source data neither strictly followed the bookkeeping model under high motivation nor the subtyping model under low motivation in response to incongruent information, contrary to the predictions confirmed for brand-name evaluations?
  4. Reversibility — can strategic communication reverse or mitigate established dilution effects?

These components jointly serve one scientific objective: an evidence-based account of when and how luxury brand extensions durably change parent brand personality — an account of the updating process responsible and of the consumer, brand, and market conditions under which dilution occurs, persists, or can be reversed. Resolving the question consists in establishing, for each of the four components, the evidence — or the study design and predicted outcomes — that would settle it, and does not require the collection of new data.

References

  1. Phau, I., Matthiesen, I.-M., & Shimul, A. S. (2021). Is HUGO still the BOSS? Investigating the reciprocal effects of brand extensions on brand personality of luxury brands. Australasian Marketing Journal, 29(4), 297–305 (online first 2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.02.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.02.003
  2. Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356. DOI: 10.1177/002224379703400304. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304
  3. Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact? Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 71–84. DOI: 10.1177/002224299305700305. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700305
  4. Milberg, S. J., Park, C. W., & McCarthy, M. S. (1997). Managing negative feedback effects associated with brand extensions: The impact of alternative branding strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(2), 119–140. DOI: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0602_01. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0602_01
  5. Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 961–977. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961
  6. Sood, S., & Keller, K. L. (2012). The effects of brand name structure on brand extension evaluations and parent brand dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 373–382. DOI: 10.1509/jmr.07.0418. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.07.0418
  7. Albrecht, C.-M., Backhaus, C., Gurzki, H., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2013). Value creation for luxury brands through brand extensions: An investigation of forward and reciprocal effects. Marketing ZFP, 35(2), 91–103. DOI: 10.15358/0344-1369_2013_2_91. https://doi.org/10.15358/0344-1369_2013_2_91
  8. Milberg, S. J., Cuneo, A., Silva, M., & Goodstein, R. C. (2023). Parent brand susceptibility to negative feedback effects from brand extensions: A meta-analysis of experimental consumer findings. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 21–44 (first published online 2022). DOI: 10.1002/jcpy.1282. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1282
  9. Khalifa, D., & Shukla, P. (2021). When luxury brand rejection causes brand dilution. Journal of Business Research, 129, 110–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.041
  10. He, Y., Mo, Z., & Fu, H. (2023). Effect of downward line extension on consumers' purchase intentions: power distance belief as a moderator. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 33(2), 207–219 (print issue 2024). DOI: 10.1108/jpbm-04-2023-4445. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-04-2023-4445
  11. Royo-Vela, M., & Pérez Sánchez, M. (2022). Downward price-based luxury brand line extension: Effects on premium luxury buyer's perception and consequences on buying intention and brand loyalty. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 28(3), Article 100198. DOI: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2022.100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2022.100198
  12. Činjarević, M., Alić, A., & Hašimović, N. (2025). Can You Feel the Luxe? Exploring Consumer-Brand Relationships with Luxury and Neo-Luxury Brands. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 20(1), 149–162. DOI: 10.2478/jeb-2025-0011. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeb-2025-0011
  13. Vuković, D., Kerum, F., & Žukina, M. (2024). Consumer Preferences and Reactions to Brand Expansion. Naše gospodarstvo/Our Economy, 70(2), 47–62. DOI: 10.2478/ngoe-2024-0011. https://doi.org/10.2478/ngoe-2024-0011
  14. Thaichon, P., Quach, S., & Ngo, L. V. (2022). Emerging Research Trends in Marketing: A Review of Australasian Marketing Journal. Australasian Marketing Journal, 30(3), 214–227. DOI: 10.1177/14413582221110450. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582221110450
  15. Huang, X. (2025). LV Collaboration Strategy: Dilution and Restoration of Brand Identity. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Branding, Marketing, and Media Communication, 254–259. DOI: 10.5220/0014731400004934. https://doi.org/10.5220/0014731400004934