1

Web Appendix

The following three studies examine theoretically derived boundary conditions of the

effect of FDP introduction timing documented in the main paper. Specifically, if consumers’

brand concepts evolve and impact their brand attitudes as they are exposed to brand extensions

(i.e., brand exemplars), then the documented effect should be moderated by the manner in which

the brand extension information is presented (Studies A1 and A2) as well as the positioning of

the individual products (Study A3).

Study A1: serially versus concurrent acquisition of extension information

Study A1 examines whether the influence of FDP introduction timing on brand attitudes

depends on whether the brand extension sequence is experienced serially (the brand’s products

are revealed one after the other in the order they were introduced by brand) or concurrently (i.e.,

all the products are revealed at one time, in a list organized in terms of when the brand

introduced them). Hypotheses 1-3 in the main document detail how brand concepts should

evolve as a function of serially encountered extensions. They predict differences between early

(vs. late) FDP introductions on brand attitudes due to differing numbers of exemplars in the

brand concept at the time the FDP is introduced. This implies that the documented effect should

only hold when extensions are introduced (or learned of) serially. If all products sold by the

brand are presented concurrently, as a set, then there is no difference, in terms of brand concept

structure, between early FDP and late FDP introductions. In both cases, the brand has three

exemplars in one general product category and one exemplar in a distinct category. Thus, FDP

introduction timing should not influence brand attitudes when the set of products sold by the

brand is presented concurrently. Study A1 tested this prediction.

2

Method Eighty-three paid AMT participants (48 females, 34 males, avg. age = 32.15) were

randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (information acquisition: concurrent vs.

serial) x 2 (FDP introduction: early vs. late) between-subjects design. Participants were told that

they would be learning about a brand (“Brand A”) that started business selling sweatshirts and

subsequently released one new product each year over the next three years. In all conditions, the

brand’s final portfolio of products was sweatshirts, exercise shorts, running shoes, and breakfast

cereal, as in the studies in the main document.

Participants in the concurrent-info conditions were shown the brand’s entire product

lineup in a table as presented in Fig. 1 in the main document, depending on the FDP introduction

condition to which they were assigned, at which point they evaluated the brand using the same

brand attitude measures collected in the studies reported in the main document. Hence, these

participants only evaluated the brand once because they received all the brand extension

sequence information at one time. Participants in the serial-info conditions completed the study

as did participants in Study 1 in the main text: The products were revealed sequentially, and the

participants rated the brand after each product was introduced.

The lone, but noteworthy, difference between Study 1 and Study A1 was that participants

in the latter saw the both brand’s core product and its first extension on the first screen before

making their first brand evaluations (i.e., brand attitudes were not measured in response to only

the brand’s core product). This design element did not allow us to test H1, as we cannot

determine the relative impact of the FDP on brand attitude change in the early-FDP introduction

condition. This is true for all three of the Web Appendix studies. Still, we are able to examine

final brand attitudes, which are the primary dependent variable of interest in these studies.

3

Results The complete brand attitude results are presented in Table 3 in the main paper. When

brand extension information was acquired serially, final brand attitudes were significantly lower

after a late (vs. early) FDP introduction (Mlate = 4.73 vs. Mearly = 5.77, F(1, 79) = 4.95, p < .03),

supporting H2 in the main document. In contrast, FDP introduction timing did not influence final

brand attitudes in the concurrent-info conditions (Mlate = 5.54 vs. Mearly = 5.58, F < 1), as

predicted.

The serial-info condition results revealed how participants’ brand attitudes evolved with

the introduction of each extension. A mixed-analysis ANOVA found a significant interaction

between the within-subjects, repeated brand-attitude measures (post 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd extension)

and the between-subjects FDP-introduction factor (early vs. late; F(2, 76) = 20.85, p < .001). As

shown in Table 3, participants in the late-FDP condition held more positive brand attitudes after

each of the first two extensions than did those in the early-FDP condition (F(1, 38) = 3.93, p

< .06 and F(1, 38) = 7.09, p = .01, respectively). By contrast, after the third extension final brand

attitudes were significantly more positive in the early- (vs. late-) FDP introduction condition

(analyzed above).

Discussion. When brand extension information was acquired serially, early FDP introductions

resulted in more positive final brand attitudes, replicating the results in the main document and

supporting H2. Conversely, final brand attitudes were not influenced by FDP introduction timing

when brand extension information was acquired concurrently, consistent with our mental

categorization account. Study A2 replicates the primary findings of Study A1 and extends them

in two important ways.

4

Study A2: the role of brand concept fluency

Study A2 tests whether brand concept fluency mediates the impact of FDP introduction

timing on brand attitudes (H3). To do so, brand concept fluency was measured at various stages

within the serial-info conditions, using the scale presented in Table 2 of the main document.

In addition, we introduced a different information acquisition-mode condition:

comparative. In both comparative and concurrent information acquisition modes the consumer

acquires all brand extension information at one time. However, as opposed to learning about a

single brand’s extensions—as is the case for concurrent acquisition—in the comparative

acquisition condition consumers learn about two (or more) brands’ extension sequences

simultaneously. Importantly, the comparative-info condition provides information about two

brands selling identical sets of products where one brand introduced its FDP early and the other

introduced its FDP late. Since the information for both brands is juxtaposed in comparative-

mode conditions, consumers are not likely to experience different levels of brand concept

fluency for the two brands, since each contains identical sets of exemplars. However, when two

brands offering products in the same categories are juxtaposed, the different brand extension

sequences will be a salient distinction between them. Consequently, it will be likely that the

order in which extensions were introduced will be used to evaluate the brands. Given that

consumers generally prefer order over disorder (Radomsky and Rachman 2004) and believe that

late FDP introductions “make more sense” (as found in Study A1), we predicted that when brand

extension information is acquired comparatively, final brand attitudes will be more positive for

the brand that using the late (vs. early) FDP introduction. However, while it provides

meaningful theoretical insight, this comparative condition is contrived and not externally valid,

5

as we discuss below.

Method One hundred fifty-one paid AMT participants (83 females, 68 males, avg. age = 35.57)

were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (information acquisition: comparative

vs. serial) x 2 (FDP introduction: early vs. late) between-subjects design. Participants in the

serial-info conditions were presented the same stimuli as in Study A1. In contrast, those in the

comparative-info conditions were presented lists for two brands—Brand A and Brand B—

offering the same sets of products (slightly different photographs of all four product categories

were used for Brand B). The brand (A vs. B) that had an early (vs. late) FDP introduction was

manipulated between subjects.

The same two brand attitude measures used in the studies presented in the main

documents were used in this study and combined into a single measure of brand attitudes.

Participants in the comparative-info conditions only evaluated Brand A (i.e., Brand B was

provided only for comparison and ratings for it were not collected). Participants in the serial-info

conditions evaluated the brand after each extension.

To investigate the process driving brand attitudes in this context, participants in the

serial-info conditions were randomly assigned to answer the brand concept fluency questions

after answering the brand attitude questions at either the first, second, or third brand extension

(i.e., each participant answered these questions only once after a randomly chosen extension).

In contrast, participants in the comparative-info conditions indicated their brand attitudes

after seeing the complete set of extensions for both brands and then responded to the brand

concept fluency questions. Finally, participants were asked, “Does the order in which Brand A

began producing products in these categories make sense to you?” (1 = no, 9 = yes).

6

Results: final brand attitudes The complete brand attitude results are presented in Table 3 in

the main paper. As expected, a significant interaction was found between information acquisition

(comparative vs. serial) and FDP introduction timing (early vs. late; F(1, 147) = 22.67, p < .001):

Neither main effect was significant. Final brand attitudes in the serial-info conditions were

significantly lower after a late (vs. early) FDP introduction (Mlate = 4.86 vs. Mearly = 6.45, F(1,

147) = 27.35, p < .001), replicating the results of both Study A1 and the studies in the main

document. In contrast, final brand attitudes in the comparative-info conditions were significantly

higher after a late (vs. early) FDP introduction (Mlate = 6.08 vs. Mearly = 4.82, F(1, 147) = 5.96, p

< .02), as predicted.

In the serial-info conditions, a mixed-analysis ANOVA revealed a significant interaction

between the within-subjects, repeated brand-attitude measures (post 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd extension)

and the between-subjects FDP-introduction factor (early vs. late; F(2, 220) = 51.94, p < .001).

Once more (and shown in Table 1 in the main paper), participants in the late-FDP condition held

more positive brand attitudes after each of the first two extensions than did those in the early-

FDP condition (F(1, 110) = 5.68, p < .02 and F(1, 110) = 3.66, p < .06, respectively). However,

after the third extension, final brand attitudes were again significantly more positive in the early-

FDP (vs. late-FDP) condition (analyzed above).

Mediation The four highly correlated brand concept fluency measures (α = .88) were collapsed

into a single measure. As expected, brand concept fluency did not vary based on FDP

introduction timing in the comparative-info conditions (F < 1), but did in the serial-info

conditions. More important, participants’ brand concept fluency mediated the impact of brand

7

extension introductions on immediate brand attitudes (95% C.I., lower = .2407, upper = 1.0775;

Hayes 2013) in the serial-info conditions, supporting H3 in the main document. Thus, when

extension information was acquired serially, brand concept fluency mediated the influence of

brand extension introductions on evolving/immediate brand attitudes.

The extent to which the order of products introductions “made sense” was also

significantly influenced by FDP introduction timing (Mlate = 4.97 vs. Mearly = 3.73, F(1, 147) =

16.11, p < .001), qualified by a significant interaction (F(1, 147) = 7.17, p < .01). While late FDP

introductions were perceived as more sensible in both information acquisition conditions, the

difference was considerably more pronounced in the comparative-info (Mlate = 6.50 vs. Mearly =

3.42, F(1, 147) = 15.10, p < .001) than in the serial-info (Mlate = 4.45 vs. Mearly = 3.83, F(1, 147) =

1.73, p < .20) condition. Further, the degree to which participants felt the extension sequence

“made sense” was a significant mediator of the impact of brand extension sequence on final

brand attitudes in the comparative-info conditions (95% C.I., lower = .5512, upper = 2.3754),

consistent with the preference for order over disorder (Radomsky and Rachman 2004).

Discussion Study A2 again demonstrated that FDP introduction timing has a significant effect on

final brand attitudes. When extension information is acquired serially, early FDP introductions

lead to significantly more positive final brand attitudes than late FDP introductions (H2). The

opposite holds when extension information is presented comparatively. Further, brand concept

fluency mediated the immediate impact of brand extensions on brand attitudes as predicted (H3)

in the serial-info conditions.

While the final brand attitude results were reversed in the comparative-info conditions,

this is not particularly concerning or insightful for managers. Specifically, although these

8

conditions generated the pattern of results consistent with managerial, lay, and academic

intuition, they do so in a very contrived context: When, if ever, will a consumer be exposed to

the brand extension sequences of two brands offering identical sets of products differing only in

terms of the timing of when those products were introduced? Never, seems the most reasonable

answer to us. Thus, these conditions provide theoretical insight, but little substantive value.

Reference:

Radomsky, A. S. & S. Rachman (2004). Symmetry, ordering and arranging compulsive

behavior. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(8), 893-913.

Study A3: brand extension–level positioning

Study 2 in the main document found that altering the overall positioning of a brand—

without changing its products—could make extensions seem more or less distant and, thereby,

moderate the impact of FDP introduction timing. In Study A3 we focus on positioning specific

brand extensions (versus the overall brand), while holding the set of products offered by the

brand constant. Specifically, we vary the endorser (spokesperson), packaging, and retail outlet of

a specific extension to manipulate the perceived distance of that extension from the brand’s core

product/category. An FDP should have a less negative impact on brand attitudes if it is

positioned closer to the brand’s core product/category by making it easier for the consumer to

integrate the FDP into their brand concept.

In contrast to the previous studies, the brand in this study ultimately offered two products

(snack bars and cookies) that were distant from its core product (running shorts), and one product

(running shoes) that was close to its core product in terms of physical qualities and typical usage.

Also distinct from the previous studies, the products were introduced in the same order in both

Close Positioning Condition

Distant Positioning Condition

9

conditions in this study. What was manipulated was the positioning of the FDP by altering its (1)

packaging (color), (2) spokesperson (Usain Bolt vs. Homer Simpson), and (3) marketing channel

(Dick’s Sporting Goods vs. 7-Eleven).

Figure A1: Stimuli

Method One hundred seventy-three paid AMT participants (demographic data was not collected

in the study) were randomly assigned to one of two FDP-positioning conditions. In the distant-

positioning condition, the snack bars (the first distant product introduced by the brand) had the

same color packaging, spokesperson, and retail outlet as the cookies. In the close-positioning

condition, the snack bars had the same combination as the running shoes and shorts (Fig. A1).

Study A3 used the same brand attitude measures as the preceding studies (collected after

10

the introduction of each brand extension). In addition, participants were randomly assigned to

answer the four brand concept fluency questions after answering the brand attitude questions for

either the first, second, or third brand extension (i.e., each participant answered these questions

only once), as in Study A2.

Results The brand attitude items were again averaged into a single measure and submitted to a 2

(FDP positioning: close to vs. distant from the brand’s core product) x 3 (repeated brand attitude

measures) mixed-analysis ANOVA. The complete brand attitude results are presented in table 3

in the main paper. As expected, there was a significant two-way interaction (F(2, 342) = 11.80, p

< .001; Fig. A2). Planned contrasts revealed the expected patterns. Brand attitudes were not

significantly different after the first brand extension (running shoes; F < 1) or third brand

extension (cookies; F < 1). However, brand attitudes were significantly higher after the second

brand extension (snack bars) when that extension was positioned as close (vs. distant) to the

brand’s core products (F(1, 171) = 10.53, p < .002).

As shown in Fig. A2, the pattern of brand concept fluency mirrored that of brand attitude.

Importantly, formal mediation analyses showed that participants’ brand concept fluency ratings

mediated the influence of brand extension introductions on brand attitudes (95% C.I., lower

= .0415, upper = .2142; Hayes 2013), supporting H3.

It is notable that final brand attitudes were not significantly different across the two

conditions given the positive influence of positioning on brand attitudes after the second

extension. This can be explained by the brand concept fluency results. Specifically, the fluency

of consumers’ mental representations of the brand concept seems to be most impacted by the

first distant product. Subsequent distant products have less of an impact. Hence, equal levels of

11

disfluency were reported after all products had been introduced in this study. Thus, brand

concept fluency increases if the brand continues to introduce products distant from the core

product but close to each other (i.e., several new food products).

Figure A2: Brand Attitude and Brand Concept Fluency Evolution

Brand Attitudes

Shoes Snack Bars Cookies4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

6.34

5.44

4.95

6.50

6.27

4.69

Distant Close

Brand Concept Fluency

Shoes Snack Bars Cookies2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

6.83

3.89

3.15

6.98

5.63

3.25

Distant Close

12

Discussion As expected, using marketing tactics such as spokespeople, packaging, and retail

outlets to position the FDP closer to the brand’s core products mitigated the negative impact of

the FDP on participants’ brand concept fluency and, consequently, on brand attitudes.

Importantly, the bulk of negative consequences (in terms of brand attitudes) from introducing

distant products are experienced with the introduction of the first distant product.

Additional relevant literature related to multiple brand extensions

Previous literature, as discussed in the main text, has focused on a more gradual,

sequenced approaches to brand extension introductions. However, our research shows how

introducing a distant product (without intervening extensions of gradually increasing distance

from the core) early in an extension sequence can lead to more favorable evaluations after all

planned extensions have been introduced. Accordingly, we discuss many related topics and

previous results in the main text. However, we were unable to cover all related topics there.

Thus, following is a list of papers examining the topic of brand coherence. Broadly speaking, the

main takeaway is that brands that are seen as more cohesive and “hang together” better are

evaluated more positively. But, in the interest of inclusiveness, we have also included three

papers examining cross-brand effects.

1. Dacin, P., & Smith, D. C. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer

evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 229–242.

a. When a brand’s portfolio is comprised of products of consistent quality, a positive

relationship emerges between the number of products offered by the brand and the

consumers’ confidence in their evaluations of subsequent extensions made by the

13

brand.

2. Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2003). The effect of expected variability of product quality and attribute

uniqueness on family brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 105-114.

a. Findings from three experiments suggest that the expected variability of individual

product quality within the brand and attribute uniqueness systematically influence

information processing and family brand evaluations. Consumers are more likely to

use “on-line (vs. memory-based) processing of information to form family brand

judgments is more likely when expected [individual product quality] variability is low

(vs. high) and when the attributes are shared (vs. unique) within the family brand.”

Since on-line processing generates primacy effects, while memory-based processing

produces recency effects, differences in expected product-quality variability and

attribute uniqueness systematically influence family brand evaluations.

3. Lei, J., Dawar, N., & Lemmink, J. (2008). Negative spillover in brand portfolios: Exploring

the antecedents of asymmetric effects. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 111-123.

a. The magnitude of spillover between two brands is a function of the strength of inter-

brand associations and the direction of those associations. For instance, the extent to

which a sub-brand may spillover to a parent brand is determined more by the extent

to which the sub-brand is associated with the parent brand than the extent to which

the parent brand is associated with the sub-brand.

4. Morrin, M. (1999). The impact of brand extensions on parent brand memory structures and

retrieval processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 517–525.

a. Consumers’ ability to correctly categorize parent brands is improved with exposure to

extensions from those brands. This effect is stronger for non-dominant brands

14

introducing high-fit extensions.

5. Rahinel, R., & Redden, J. P. (2013). Brands as product coordinators: Matching brands make

joint consumption experiences more enjoyable. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1290-

1299.

a. People enjoy the joint consumption of two or more products when those products are

from the same brand (vs. different brands). This is because people believe that the

two products were coordinated to go uniquely well together.

6. Shine, B. C., Park, J., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (2007). Brand synergy effects in multiple brand

extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 663–670.

a. Among promotion-oriented consumers, simultaneously introducing two brand

extensions can have a positive influence on their evaluations when the extensions are

complementary (e.g., a digital camera and a digital photo printer), as opposed to

being substitutes (two models of digital cameras) or from unrelated categories (a

digital camera and a snowboard).