An Exploratory Study on the

Impact of Two Ingredient

Branding Strategies
on the Host Brand
by Marie-Hélène Abbo*
June 2005

The author grants special thanks to Hélène Cailly, Marketing Research Assistant, for her active and
helpful collaboration to this paper.

Abstract

This exploratory study seeks to examine the impact of an ingredient branding strategy on the atti-
tude toward and perceived quality of the host brand, depending on the partner brands’ initial
levels on these former variables. To better understand this impact, a review of the most relevant
theories on co-branding, perceived quality and attitude toward the brand is first presented. Based
on this literature review, a conceptual framework is proposed concerning the evolution of the asso-
ciations tied to the host brand, the perceived quality and consumer attitude toward this brand,
before and after an ingredient branding initiative. In an experiment, two ingredient branding cases
are studied, semi-directive interviews of potential consumers being used to test the framework.
Then, the research findings are compared to the theories previously developed. Finally, manage-
rial implications, study limitations and further research areas are presented.

Key words

Brand Attitude, Brand Image, Exploratory Study, Ingredient Branding, Host Brand, Partner
Selection, Perceived Quality.

(*) Marie-Hélène Abbo is Professor and Head of the Marketing Department at Pau Business School. She is Associate Professor of
Marketing at the University of Pau & Pays de l’Adour.

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
17
 Impact de deux stratégies de co-branding
fonctionnel sur la marque d’accueil :
une étude exploratoire

Résumé
Cette étude exploratoire cherche à étudier l’impact d’une stratégie de co-branding fonctionnel sur la qua-
lité perçue et l’attitude envers la marque d’accueil, en fonction des niveaux initiaux des marques parte-
naires sur ces variables. Afin de mieux comprendre cet impact, une revue de la littérature sur le co-bran-
ding, la qualité perçue et l’attitude envers la marque est d’abord présentée. A partir de cette revue de
littérature, un modèle conceptuel est proposé au sujet de l’évolution des associations liées à la marque
d’accueil, de sa qualité perçue et de l’attitude des consommateurs envers cette dernière, avant et après
une opération de co-branding fonctionnel. Au travers d’une expérimentation, deux cas de co-branding
fonctionnel sont étudiés ; des entretiens semi-directifs avec des consommateurs potentiels sont menés
pour tester le modèle proposé. Les résultats de l’étude sont ensuite confrontés aux théories énoncées au
préalable. Enfin, les implications managériales, limites de l’étude et voies de recherche future sont
exposées.

Key Words
Attitude envers la marque, Co-branding fonctionnel, Etude exploratoire, Image de marque, Marque d’ac-
cueil, Qualité perçue, Sélection des partenaires.

18 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
Introduction

In today’s fast-changing economy, companies try to find new ways to maintain their competitive advan-
tage, which helps them to better manage the commercial key success factors of their market
(Trinquecoste, 1999). They long paid attention to their tangible resources, such as products, but there
is a consideration shift toward intangible resources, such as brands (Kapferer, 2001). Organizations
develop brands, which create value for both the consumer and the company, as a way to attract and keep
customers by promoting value, image or lifestyle, included in their brand identity. They continually look
for new means of exploiting their brands, a capital to be managed with appropriate marketing tools and
strategies. The strategies most used to leverage the potential of brands are brand extensions and co-bran-
ding (Rooney, 1995). However, brand owners tend to recognize that all brands have their limitations.
This has encouraged an increasing number of firms to “consider co-branding ventures in preference to
single-handedly undertaking risky and expensive brand extension, expansion or diversification plans”
(Boad, 1999).
Co-branding, which consists in marketing a product representing two brands or more, is increasingly
used. There are different ways in which co-branding may be turned to advantage. Among these are redu-
ced investment costs and risks, or faster paybacks (Boad, 1999). The literature distinguishes two types
of co-branding strategies: symbolic co-branding and ingredient branding. The first strategy consists in
associating to the host brand a second brand that will give it symbolic additional attributes (Cegarra and
Michel, 2000). In the second one, key attributes of one brand are incorporated into another brand as
ingredients (Desai and Keller, 2002). In the French co-branding literature, Michel and Cegarra (2003)
further state that, apart from collaboration on physical attributes, ingredient branding can also be a com-
bination of two recognized know-how or expertises to manufacture the co-branded product. In a co-bran-
ding context, the host brand is the “brand originary from the product category in which the co-branded
product is launched” (Cegarra and Michel, 2000), while the ingredient brand is the brand that manu-
factures the ingredient, or possesses the know-how, to be incorporated into the final product.
Co-branding, and especially ingredient branding, is becoming increasingly popular among marketers.
Previous research has shown the benefits (Norris, 1992) and negative effects (Shocker, 1995) of such
a strategy for the brands involved, or its impact on consumer product evaluations (Hillyer and Tikoo,
1995). The initial perceived quality of and attitude toward the partner brands might have implications
on the outcome of an ingredient branding strategy, as well as on the selection of ingredient brands by
host brand managers. The aim of this exploratory study is to examine if and how the elements formerly
introduced influence the outcome of an ingredient branding operation for the host brand.

Review of the Literature

According to Rooney (1995), a branding strategy is essentially aimed at building the brand image,
increasing the brand’s value to the customer and leading to brand loyalty. Branding is considered as a
major success factor of many products and services, both in consumer and industrial markets. “The
value of branding has also been recognized by suppliers who produce ingredients or components that are
incorporated into final products” (Norris, 1992). Ingredient branding is an alliance between two brands,
based on their cooperation for designing and signing the product (Michel and Cegarra, 2003). “Mixing
two or more brands to create a co-branded product has become a common strategy during the last deca-
de, especially in the food industry” (Bengtsson, 2002a). As co-branding strategies develop, Simonin and
Ruth (1998) highlight that “the line of research focused on consumer perceptions becomes even more
critical for academics and practitioners alike.” Ingredient branding is not suited for all companies or
brands. This strategy can be very beneficial to both partner brands if successfully implemented (Norris,
1992), but can also entail some risks (Boad, 1999). Consequently, when contemplating entering an
ingredient branding strategy, host brand managers have to select the right partner to be the ingredient
brand. Moreover, Simonin and Ruth (1998) argue that “brand alliance evaluations have spillover effects
on attitudes toward each partner brand.” As a particular type of brand alliance, ingredient branding may
modify consumers’ evaluations and perceptions of the brands involved.

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
19
 Zeithaml (1998) defines perceived quality as the consumer’s judgment about a product’s overall excel-
lence or superiority. This definition can be transposed to brands: “A brand will have associated with it a
perception of overall quality not necessarily based on a knowledge of detailed specifications” (Aaker,
1991). It constitutes an intangible, overall feeling about a brand, but is usually based on dimensions
including characteristics of the products to which the brand is attached. Perceived quality is an impor-
tant brand characteristic because it directly influences purchase decisions and brand loyalty. According
to Aaker (1991), it provides a reason-to-buy and a point of differentiation.

Brand equity is defined “as the added value that a brand brings to a product” (Changeur and Dano,
1996). It can be viewed as a set of assets linked to the brand, these assets including brand loyalty, name
awareness, perceived quality, and associations (Aaker, 1991). Faircloth, Capella, and Alford (2001)
define brand image as “a holistic construct formed from a gestalt of all the associations related to the
brand”, while Keller (1993) views it as “the perceptual beliefs about a brand's attribute, benefit, and
attitude associations, which are frequently seen as the basis for an overall evaluation of, or attitude
toward, the brand.” Brand associations correspond to “the mark left in consumers’ memory by all the
communications and products of the brand” (Changeur and Dano, 1996). They are informational nodes
linked to the brand node in memory, which contribute to and ultimately define the brand's image to the
consumer (Keller, 1993). These associations play an important role in consumers’ product evaluations
and choices (van Osselaer and Janiszewski, 2001). Changeur and Merunka (1999) add that “the main
basis of added performance relies on the brand specific associations”.

Keller (2003) defines brand attitudes in terms of consumers’ overall evaluations of a brand. Michel
(2000) and Lendrevie and Lindon (2000), further distinguish three dimensions of the attitude toward
the brand. The first dimension is the cognitive component, which concerns the knowledge accumulated
about the brand. In this paper, the evolution of the cognitive dimension is characterized by the evolu-
tion of the associations attributed to the host brand, following ingredient branding operations. The
second dimension is the affective component, which concerns the brand evaluation summarizing all the
beliefs about a brand in a global orientation, positive or negative. Here, the evolution of the affective
dimension is characterized by both the evaluation of the co-branded products and the evolution of the
host brand’s overall evaluation, before and after their presentation. The third dimension corresponds to
the tendency of consumers to buy or reject the brand’s products. The purchase likelihood of branded pro-
ducts is a traditional indicator of this dimension. This exploratory study focuses on the outcome of an
ingredient branding initiative for the host brand itself, so it addresses the cognitive and affective dimen-
sions of the attitude toward the brand. Rust, Lemon, and Narayandas (2005) argue that customer atti-
tude toward the brand is critical in building brand equity: “If customers develop more favorable attitu-
des toward the brand, they are more likely to purchase the brand”. Keller (2003) also views attitudes as
important brand characteristics because “they often form the basis for actions and behavior that consu-
mers take with the brand.” Faircloth, Capella, and Alford (2001) conceptualize brand attitude as just
one of the various associations used in the formation of brand image.

In fact, Aaker (1991) highlights that all the brand equity dimensions have causal interrelationships. For
instance, perceived quality will in part be based upon associations (Aaker, 1991) and it is sometimes
considered as a global assessment that can be likened to attitude (Zeithaml, 1998). Keller (2003) fur-
ther states that customers may hold a lot of attitudes toward brands, but that the most important relate
in various ways to the perceived quality of the brand.

The perceived quality, associations of, and attitude toward a brand constitute important characteristics
of a brand’s equity (Aaker, 1991). Consequently, in an ingredient branding context, it seems important
to understand their influence on the outcome for the host brand. This exploratory study partly examines
the impact of ingredient branding strategies on the host brand’s equity: it focuses on the previous varia-
bles without dealing with brand loyalty and name awareness, the other two dimensions of brand equity
according to Aaker (1991).

As formerly stated, a branding strategy is essentially aimed at building brand image (Rooney, 1995).
Therefore, the host brand entering an ingredient branding initiative can expect positive effects from such
a strategy on its perceived quality, associations, and attitude. Indeed, a host brand will use ingredient

20 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
branding to improve its brand equity, and more particularly its associations (cognitive dimension of the
attitude toward the brand), overall evaluation (affective dimension), as well as its perceived quality.

Co-branded products can provide a clue to product quality, leading to improvement of consumer product
evaluation and acceptance (McCarthy and Norris, 1999). Consumers’ perceptions of the co-branded pro-
duct quality can, in turn, improve or reinforce the quality image of the host brand (Rao and Ruekert,
1994). McCarthy and Norris (1999) also examine how consumers evaluate moderate- versus higher-qua-
lity host brands where branded ingredients are added to the product. They manipulate different host
brands of varying quality (moderate- or high-quality) and high-quality ingredient brands. Their findings
suggest that consumers evaluate a moderate-quality host brand more favorably when a high-quality bran-
ded ingredient is added, and that a high-quality host brand is only slightly more favorably valued when
featuring a high-quality branded ingredient.

Taking the same moderate-quality host brand and two ingredient brands of varying quality, it is inferred
that the initial perceived quality of these ingredient brands will influence the quality perception of the
host brand. It is also assumed that the higher-quality ingredient brand will entail higher quality percep-
tions of the host brand than the moderate-quality ingredient brand.

According to Simonin and Ruth (1998), brand alliances also have the potential to modify subsequent
attitudes toward the partner brands: “judgments about the brand alliance are likely to be affected by
prior attitudes toward each brand, and subsequent judgments about each brand are likely to be affected
by the context of the other brand.” Moreover, Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal (2000) state that host brands
can use ingredient brands to exploit their brand equity and associations. Simonin and Ruth (1998) fur-
ther argue that brand alliances influence how the partner brands are evaluated by developing new asso-
ciations. “When the brand associations of the secondary brand (named ingredient brand in this paper)
are favorable, co-branding will enhance the evaluation of the primary brand (named host brand in this
paper) on all salient dimensions, including evaluative dimensions not associated with the secondary
brand” (Hillyer and Tikoo, 1995). Furthermore, as the host brand becomes more credible by the incor-
poration of the branded ingredient, the co-branded product is evaluated more favorably than a single
branded product (Malaval, 1998). As a particular type of brand alliance, ingredient branding may modi-
fy the partner brands’ associations and the attitude consumers hold toward them. As in a co-branding
initiative a brand associates not only with another brand but also with its values and image (Cegarra and
Michel, 2000), the ingredient brands’ initial associations may entail an evolution of the host brand’s
associations (evolution of the cognitive dimension of the attitude toward the brand). It can also be pre-
sumed that an ingredient brand with favorable associations will entail a more positive evolution of the
host brand’s associations than an ingredient brand with less favorable associations. In the same way, it
can be alleged that the former overall evaluations of the ingredient brands will influence the evaluation
of the co-branded product and the subsequent host brand’s overall evaluation. It can be supposed as
well that an ingredient brand with a higher initial overall evaluation will entail a better co-branded pro-
duct’s and host brand’s overall evaluation than an ingredient brand with a lower initial overall evaluation.

Based on these assumptions, the following conceptual framework can be proposed:

Presentation of the
co-branded products

Perceived quality Evolution of the host

of the partner brands brand’s perceived quality

Associations tied Evolution of the host

to the partner brands cognitive dimension brand’s associations

Evaluation of the
Overall evaluation of co-branded product
the partner brands affective dimension
Evolution of the host
brand’s evaluation
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
21
 Methodology

According to Hoeffler and Keller (2002), “branding effects are interpreted in terms of consumer kno-
wledge about the brand and how it affects consumer behavior.” As the impact of an ingredient branding
strategy on the host brand is measured in terms of consumers’ evaluations and perceptions, an experi-
ment is the research strategy that best suited the paper purpose. As argued by Evrad, Pras, and Roux
(1998), the main goal of experiments is to research causal relationships between phenomena.
Experiments address questions such as “Between two ads, which is the better?” or “Which is the effect
on the sales of a shelf increase granted to a product?” In an experiment, causality hypotheses often
translate into a comparison of the effects of different elements.

Therefore, the previous authors consider necessary to precise both the elements to be compared and the
criteria chosen to measure their efficiency or effects (for instance, sales, consumers’ attitude...). This
exploratory study was aimed at seeking the impact on the host brand of the initial perceived quality of,
and attitude toward the partner brands, in an ingredient branding context. Hence, two ingredient bran-
ding cases involving brands with different initial perceived quality and consumer attitudes were compa-
red. In an experiment, these cases represent what Evrard, Pras, and Roux (1998) call “the independent
variable”, which splits here into two levels. “The dependent variables” represent the criteria through
which the comparison between the two cases was made. In this experiment, these criteria were the part-
ner brands’ perceived quality and attitude. The persons or entities that are part of the experiment
are called “experimental units”. Here, the experimental units were the potential consumers that were
interviewed.

To collect data, a host brand, named Brossard, was first selected. Brossard, acquired by the group
Saveurs de France, designs, manufactures and markets long preserving pastry products, snacks and fro-
zen foods. It is present on two major markets: frozen foods and ambient industrial pastry. The consumer
goods market selected for the study is the food industry because co-branding is a strategy widely used
in this sector (Bengtsson, 2002a).

After the selection of the host brand, two ingredient brands were selected according to their initial per-
ceived quality and the attitudes consumers hold toward them, compared to Brossard. The first ingredient
brand was Weight Watchers, which had similar initial perceived quality and consumer attitudes than the
host brand. It is an American global consumer company and the leading provider of weight loss services,
operating in 30 countries around the world. Brossard and Weight Watchers recently allied their experti-
se and launched low-fat chocolate cakes. The second ingredient brand chosen for the experiment was
Nutella, belonging to the Italian Ferrero group. Nutella is a chocolate spread which became the number
one selling sweet spread in the world. In a list of several brands, it was chosen by potential consumers
as presenting higher perceived quality levels and more favorable attitudes than Brossard and Weight
Watchers. For the purpose of the research, once Nutella had been selected, a fictitious co-branded pro-
duct, Brossard chocolate cakes with Nutella chocolate, has been imagined. Furthermore, the two ingre-
dient branding strategies that were studied both concerned the same host brand, in order to compare
their impact on the latter more easily.

To identify important brand associations, free association tasks, focus groups, projective techniques or
depth interviews are methods that are generally used (Dobnl and Zinkhan, 1990; Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993). In this experiment, free elicitation approaches were used during the interviews. After creating an
interview guide for each ingredient branding strategy studied, semi-directive interviews to 16 potential
consumers were carried out. Giannelloni and Vernette (2001) highlight that semi-directive interviews are
particularly suited to collect data about the elements of brand image. This method was appropriate since
the purpose was to identify consumers’ attitude toward and perception of the host brand, which consti-
tute elements of its image. Moreover, the first principle in an experiment is repetition (Evrard, Pras, and
Roux, 1998). In short, each level of the independent variable has to be tested on more than one expe-
rimental unit. Therefore, the interviews were carried out eight times for each strategy considered.

22 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
The interviews were conducted in French at the interviewees’ home. They were tape recorded and trans-
cribed verbatim. In order to examine the feedback effects of the two strategies on the attitude toward
and perceived quality of the host brand, the interviewees answered questions both before and after expo-
sure to the co-branded products. The method of asking questions before and after exposure to the pro-
duct (derived from a marketing strategy) is widely used in the analysis of the consequences of such a
strategy (Aaker and Keller, 1990). Attitude scales in seven points (Evrard, Pras, and Roux, 1998) were
also included in the interview guide to measure the overall evaluation of the partner brands the inter-
viewees made before and after exposure to the co-branded products (1 = very unfavorable, 7 = very favo-
rable), as well as their perceptions of the partner brands’ quality (1 = very low, 7 = very high). The inter-
view guides, and the presentation of the two co-branded products, were composed as follows:

Identification of the Identification of the Identification of the

imaginary associated imaginary associated imaginary associated
to the host brand to the ingredient brand to the product

Presentation of the
co-branded product

Evaluation of the
co-branded product

Influence of the ingredient

branding strategy
on the attitude toward
and perceived quality
of the host brand

Figure 2: Structure of the interview guide

T-tests were used to evaluate the validity of the experimental results.

METHODOLOGICAL REMINDER
T-test is used when the standard deviation is unknown and when the sample size is small (<30).
The population variance is estimated by the sample variance. It assumes that the random variable is normally
distributed. T-test can either be applied on paired or independent samples. It works when taking into account
a significance level, called α (α usually equals 0.05 or 0.10). In order to validate the experimental results,
it was decided to apply a T-test on paired samples. This method is the most appropriate in this case,
even if the variable is a discrete variable with 7 levels: the experiment is carried out on a small sample
(2x8) and the same interviewees answer twice.

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
23
 BROSSARD AND WEIGHT WATCHERS LAUNCH CHOCOLATE CAKES
Chocolate Cakes, lightened in fat content and made with cereals, in individual packages.
The pack of eight Chocolate Cakes (8 x 19g) is sold 2,51€.
« Discover this new product on the photo below. »

BROSSARD AND NUTELLA LAUNCH CHOCOLATE CAKES

Chocolate Cakes, made with cereals and sold in individual packages.
The pack of eight Chocolate Cakes (8 x 19g) is sold 2,51€.
« Discover this new product on the photo below. »

24 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
Results and Findings

The experimental results are presented in the tables hereafter:

Brossard's associations
Interviewees Before exposure to After exposure to Weight Watchers’ Nutella's
the co-branded the co-branded associations associations
product product Brossard-
Weight Watchers
1 cakes, biscuits, diversity, taste, diet,
pleasure, tasting, happiness deprivation
good products
2 cakes, delicacies, sweet things, diet,
sweet things smooth, treats, advertising
good products
3 grandpa, childhood, drop in age, diet,
afternoon snack, cakes women,
practical, dietetics
easy to carry
4 frustration, Weight Watchers meal substitutes,
marble cake, diet, powder bag,
Consumers chocolate, cakes, chemical,
interviewed pastry boat, easy advertising
to carry, fruit filling
about
Brossard 5 Savane, marble chocolate cakes, health programme,
and Weight cake, grandpa quality follow-up,
ready-cooked meals,
Watchers desserts, dietetics
6 grandpa, innovative, Slim Fast,
gingerbread, health-oriented, balanced products,
cakes, marble traditional advertising, quality
cakes, chocolate manufacturing
7 teddy bear, nothing diet, low-fat,
grandpa, cakes loyalty points,
weighing, follow-up
8 grandpa, quality, slimness, low-fat,
advertising, taste, taste, advertising,
Savane, marble token pleasure, diversity
cake, cakes
After exposure to the
co-branded product
Brossard-Nutella
9 savanna, grandpa industrial spread paste
10 biscuits, greed, cakes, delicacies chocolate,
sponge fingers hazelnuts
11 grandpa, nothing pleasure
sponge fingers
12 sponge fingers, range widening piece of bread,
charlotte biscuits afternoon snack
Consumers
13 quality, children family, diversity spread paste
interviewed
about 14 cakes, grandpa same associations children, chocolate,
milk
Brossard
and Nutella 15 cakes, afternoon practical, afternoon the Nutella instant,
snack, children snack, easy to carry, conviviality, family,
children friends, any time of
the day, dinner,
afternoon
snack, snow
16 teddy bear, chocolate, hunger, the Nutella instant,
advertising, milk piece of bread, spread
easy to carry paste, milk, hazelnuts

Figure 3: Associations stored in the interviewees’ mind about the three brands

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
25
 Brossard after
exposure to the
Brossard Weight Watchers Nutella co-branded product
Brossard-Weight
Watchers
Overall Perceived Overall Perceived Overall Perceived Overall Perceived
Interviewees evaluation quality evaluation quality evaluation quality evaluation quality
1 5 4 4 5 5 4
2 5 5,5 6 6 5 4
Consumers 3 4 4,5 3 5 4 5
interviewed
about 4 6 5 3 3 5 4,5
Brossard 5 4 5 3 5 5 7
and
6 4 4 5 3 4 4
Weight
Watchers 7 5 5 6 4 6 5
8 4,5 6 6 5 6 7
Average 4,7 4,9 4,5 4,5 5 5,1
Brossard after
exposure to the
cobranded product
Brossard-Nutella

9 5 5 7 7 6 5
10 6 6 7 7 6 6
Consumers 11 3 5 7 7 4 4
interviewed 12 5 5 5,5 6 5 5
about
Brossard 13 5 5 7 6 5 5
and 14 5 4 7 6 5 5
Nutella 15 5 5 7 7 5 5
16 3 5 7 6 5 6
Average 4,6 5 6,8 6,5 5,1 5,1

Figure 4: Marks for the overall evaluation and perceived quality of the three brands studied

As expected for the experiment, there is no significant difference between Brossard’s and Weight
Watchers’ initial overall evaluations, at a significance level of α = 0.05: on a scale from 1 to 7, Brossard’s
and Weight Watchers’ average marks concerning the interviewees’ overall evaluation are respectively 4.7
and 4.5. In the same way, there is no significant difference between Brossard’s and Weight Watchers’
initial perceived quality (respectively 4.9 and 4.5), at a significance level of α = 0.05. The experimen-
tal findings also suggest that Nutella has a higher initial overall evaluation than Brossard, at a signifi-
cance level of α = 0.05: Brossard’s and Nutella’s average marks concerning the interviewees’ overall eva-
luation are respectively 4.6 and 6.8. In the same way, Brossard and Nutella are respectively rated 5 and
6.5 on average, for perceived quality. Therefore, Nutella has a higher initial perceived quality level, at a
significance level of α = 0.05. In the experiment, two different samples evaluate Brossard, and their eva-
luations have a similar level, so statistically these two samples can be compared.

McCarthy and Norris (1999) emphasize that consumers evaluate a moderate-quality host brand more
favorably when a high-quality branded ingredient is added. In this experiment, Brossard can be consi-
dered as a moderate-quality host brand compared to Nutella, a high-quality branded ingredient. A slight
evolution of Brossard’s perceived quality is noticed after the presentation of both co-branded products
(5.1 vs. 4.9 initially, for the Brossard-Weight Watchers product; 5.1 vs. 5 initially, for the Brossard-
Nutella one). This appears to back up what McCarthy and Norris (1999) state. However, this evolution
is based on a limited number of observations (2x8) so it appears difficult to conclude on a significant
difference, at a significance level of α = 0.05.

26 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
In addition, the experimental results reveal that, when it is either paired with Weight Watchers or with
Nutella, the host brand’s perceived quality is rated equally (5.1). Therefore, it seems that the higher-
quality ingredient brand, Nutella, does not entail higher quality perceptions of the host brand than
Weight Watchers, the moderate-quality ingredient brand.

Keller (1993) states that brand associations, which can be positive or negative, contribute to and ulti-
mately define the brand’s image to the consumer. In this experiment, the evolution of the cognitive
dimension of brand attitude (Michel, 2000; Lendrevie and Lindon, 2000) is characterized by the evo-
lution of the associations attributed to the host brand. To measure this evolution, Brossard’s associations
are compared before and after exposure to the two co-branded products. After exposure to the Brossard-
Weight Watchers product, and compared to the associations initially made to Brossard, six positive asso-
ciations remain tied to the host brand, and ten new associations, among which nine are positive and one
negative, appear to be attributed to it. In the same way, after exposure to the Brossard-Nutella product,
and compared to Brossard’s former associations, seven positive ones remain tied to Brossard,
and six new associations appear to be attributed to the host brand, among which one has a negative
connotation.

Hence, it seems that the ingredient brands’ initial associations entail an evolution of the host brand’s
associations (evolution of the cognitive dimension of the attitude toward the brand), which appears to
confirm that brand alliances influence how the partner brands are evaluated by developing new asso-
ciations (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). Nevertheless, the associations attributed to the host brand by the
interviewees appear to evolve more favorably after exposure to the Brossard-Weight Watchers product
than after the presentation of the Brossard-Nutella one. It seems that an ingredient brand with favora-
ble associations does not entail a more positive evolution of the host brand’s associations than an ingre-
dient brand with less favorable associations.

As for the affective dimension of brand attitude, it concerns the brand evaluation summarizing all the
beliefs in a global orientation, positive or negative (Michel, 2000). In this experiment, the evolution of
the affective component is first characterized by the evaluation of the co-branded products. It is impor-
tant to consider the evaluation of these products because it can influence the evaluation of the host
brand itself (Norris, 1992). Indeed, if a co-branded product is negatively evaluated by a consumer, it
may entail that the latter also negatively evaluates the host brand and decides not to purchase its pro-
ducts anymore. The experimental findings suggest that the Brossard-Weight Watchers product is positi-
vely evaluated by five out of the eight interviewed consumers, the three others evaluating it in a negati-
ve way. Concerning the Brossard-Nutella product, it is evaluated in a positive way by seven of the inter-
viewees, while the remainder evaluates it negatively. It seems that the initial overall evaluations of the
ingredient brands influence the evaluation of the co-branded product. On a 1 to 7 scale, Weight
Watchers’ and Nutella’s average marks concerning the interviewees’ initial overall evaluation are respec-
tively 4.5 and 6.8, and the co-branded product featuring Brossard and Nutella is evaluated positively by
more interviewees than the one gathering Brossard and Weight Watchers. Therefore, it seems that an
ingredient brand with a higher former overall evaluation entails a better co-branded product’s evaluation
than an ingredient brand with a lower former overall evaluation.

The affective dimension of the attitude toward the brand is also characterized by the evolution of the
host brand’s overall evaluation (Michel, 2000). In this experiment, this evolution represents the diffe-
rence between the host brand’s overall evaluation before and after the presentation of the co-branded
products. A positive evolution of Brossard’s overall evaluation is perceived after the presentation of both
co-branded products (5 vs. 4.7 initially, for the Brossard-Weight Watchers product; 5.1 vs. 4.6 initially,
for the Brossard-Nutella one). At a significance level of α = 0.05, this evolution is based on a limited
number of observations (2x8) so it seems difficult to conclude on a significant difference in both cases.
Yet, at a significance level of α = 0.10, the positive evolution of Brossard’s overall evaluation after the
presentation of the Brossard-Nutella product is significant. Therefore, at a significance level of α = 0.10,
Nutella, the ingredient brand with a higher former overall evaluation, entails a better host brand’s ove-
rall evaluation than the ingredient brand with a lower former overall evaluation.

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
27
 Conclusion and Managerial Implications

In an ingredient branding context, if there is any evolution, it must be an evolution of the overall eva-
luation of the host brand, rather than an evolution of its perceived quality. In this case, it seems bene-
ficial to the host brand to partner with an ingredient brand possessing high initial perceived quality and
overall evaluation. On the other hand, the evolution of the host brand’s perceived quality is not directly
noticeable, and an alliance with an ingredient brand possessing high initial perceived quality and ove-
rall evaluation does not seem to have an impact on the host brand’s perceived quality.

This might be explained by what McCarthy and Norris (1999) call “cue redundancy.” Indeed, a branded
ingredient acts as a quality clue, but adding a high-quality branded ingredient to a host brand already
considered to be of high quality provides little, if any, additional quality information. Therefore, it might
deprive the high-quality perceptions of the ingredient brand from transferring to the host brand during a
co-branding initiative. Due to the limited number of observations in this experiment, the conceptual fra-
mework that was proposed cannot currently be either validated or rejected. However, this framework pro-
ves to be shedding light on interesting relationships between the initial attitude toward the partner
brands, and the impact of an ingredient branding operation on the host brand’s overall evaluation. As a
consequence, this framework deserves further investigations on wider samples.

Selecting an ingredient brand for initiating an ingredient branding operation is not easy. The experiment
indicates that host brand managers should pay particular attention to specific variables (perceived qua-
lity and attitude toward the brand) when choosing a partner. An ingredient brand with high perceived
quality and overall evaluation can have an impact on the operation outcome for the host brand. Yet, this
impact will not always be more positive than when the host brand is paired with an ingredient brand
having lower perceived quality and overall evaluation. Consequently, host brand managers should check
if the marginal cost for associating with a strong brand is worthwhile. At the same time, they should
consider the potential risk of partnering with a less strong ingredient brand. Their decision will depend
on their objectives, and preliminary studies are really recommended before initiating a co-branding ope-
ration. For such an operation to be successful and beneficial to both partner brands, it is also necessa-
ry to reach some fit between them.

The experimental findings suggest that pairing a host brand with an ingredient brand of higher initial
overall evaluation entails better evaluations of the co-branded product than when this host brand part-
ners with an ingredient brand of similar initial overall evaluation. However, positive evaluations of a co-
branded product do not necessarily mean that the host brand’s overall evaluation will improve, as it is
the case after the presentation of both co-branded products (at a significance level of α = 0.05).
Therefore, to understand and measure the impact of an ingredient branding strategy, brand managers
should not only examine the co-branded product’s evaluation, but also the evolution of the host brand’s
overall evaluation after the presentation of this product.

Limitations and Further Research

This experiment was carried out on a small number of potential consumers, which constitutes its major
limitation. However, the conceptual framework seems to shed light on interesting relationships between
the initial attitude toward the partner brands, and the outcome of an ingredient branding operation for
the host brand. Therefore, further research should be conducted on wider samples, first to validate the
conceptual framework and, then, to integrate the notion of “image risk”, depending on the type of part-
ner brand.

28 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
Another limitation is tied to the study of the feedback effects of ingredient branding strategies for the
host brand only, without measuring this impact on the ingredient brands involved. As a consequence, it
would be useful to investigate what the effects for them are.

As defined by Boad (1999), co-branding consists in marketing a product representing two brands or
more. Consequently, it would be very interesting to compare the impact for the partner brands of a co-
branding operation involving more than two brands: for instance, Justin Bridou’s Just’En-Cas, a kit of
Justin Bridou salami, a Joker brand juice drink carton and a Brossard brand chocolate brownie.

Moreover, the research focus on food brands provides a limitation because the findings about non-food
co-branded products may be different from those of this experiment (Bengtsson, 2002b). These findings
may not be valid for ingredient branding cases in other product categories. Nevertheless, further studies
could consider, for instance, the automobile (Renault Twingo Kenzo or Citroën Saxo Bic), computer
(Compaq or HP computers with Intel Inside) or clothing industries (clothes made with Lycra or Gore-Tex).
Other investigations could also be carried out using a cross countries approach and comparing, for
instance, the effects of a co-branding strategy on international brands in France, India, and the United
States.

C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4
29
 References
Aaker, D. A. (1991), ‘Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name’, The Free Press
Aaker, D. A. and Keller, K. L. (1990), ‘Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions’, Journal of Marketing,
Volume 54, January, pp. 27-41
Bengtsson, A. (2002a), ‘Unnoticed Relationships: Do Consumers Experience Co-branded Products?’,
Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 29
Bengtsson, A. (2002b), ‘Consumers and Mixed-Brands: On the Polysemy of Brand Meaning’, Lund Business Press
Boad, B. (1999), ‘Co-branding Comes of Age’, Managing Intellectual Property, Issue 94, November
Cegarra, J. J. and Michel, G. (2000), ‘Co-branding : clarification du concept et proposition d’un modèle
d’évaluation’, Cahier de Recherche du GREGOR 2000-02, February
Changeur, S. and Dano, F. (1996), ‘Aux sources du capital-marque: Le concept d’associations de la marque’,
Actes du 12ème Congrès de l’Association Française du Marketing (Poitiers), Working Paper n° 456, CEROG - IAE
Aix-en-Provence, May
Changeur, S. and Merunka, D. (1999), ‘What is brand territory? A theoretical and empirical investigation’,
Working Paper n° 546, CEROG - IAE Aix-en-Provence, March
Desai, K. K. and Keller, K. L. (2002), ‘The Effects of Ingredient Branding Strategies on Host Brand Extendibility’,
Journal of Marketing, Volume 66, January, pp. 73-93
Dobnl, D. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990), ‘In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis’, Advances in Consumer
Research, Volume 17
Evrard, Y., Pras, B. and Roux, E. (1998), ‘Market: Etudes et recherches en marketing’, Nathan Editions,
2nd edition, September
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M. and Alford, B. L. (2001), ‘The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand
equity’, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Volume 9 Issue 3, Summer, pp. 61-76
Giannelloni, J. L. and Vernette, E. (2001), ‘Etudes de marché’, Vuibert Editions, 2nd edition, November
Hillyer, C. and Tikoo, S. (1995), ‘Effect of Cobranding on Consumer Product Evaluations’, Advances in Consumer
Research, Volume 22
Hoeffler, S. and Keller, K. L. (2002), ‘Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing’,
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Volume 21, Spring, pp. 78-89
Kapferer, J. N. (2001), ‘Les Marques, Capital de l’Entreprise: Créer et développer des marques fortes’,
Editions d’Organisation, 3rd edition, October
Keller, K. L. (1993), ‘Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity’,
Journal of Marketing, Volume 57, pp. 1-22
Keller, K. L. (2003), ‘Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity’,
Prentice Hall, 2nd edition
Lendrevie, J. and Lindon, D. (2000), ‘Mercator’, Dalloz Editions, 6th edition
Malaval, P. (1998), ‘Stratégie et Gestion de la Marque Industrielle: Produits et Services Business to Business’,
Publi Union Editions
McCarthy, M. S. and Norris, D. G. (1999), ‘Improving competitive position using branded ingredients’,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Volume 8 No. 4, pp. 267-285
Michel, G. (2000), ‘La stratégie d’extension de marque: facteur d’évolution de la marque’, Vuibert Editions, May
Michel, G. and Cegarra, J. J. (2003), ‘Co-branding : Evaluation du produit co-marqué’, Cahier de Recherche
du GREGOR 2003-03, March
Norris, D. G. (1992), ‘Ingredient Branding: A Strategy Option With Multiple Beneficiaries’,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 9 No. 3, Summer
Rao, A. R. and Ruekert, R. W. (1994), ‘Brand Alliances as Signals of Product Quality’, Sloan Management Review
Rooney, J. A. (1995), ‘Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow’, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Volume 4 No. 4, pp. 48-55
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N. and Narayandas, D. (2005), ‘Customer Equity Management’, Pearson Prentice Hall
Shocker, A. D. (1995), ‘Positive and Negative Effects of Brand Extension and Co-branding’, Advances in
Consumer Research, Volume 22
Simonin, B. L. and Ruth, J. A. (1998), ‘Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes’, Journal of Marketing Research, Volume 35, February,
pp. 30-42
Trinquecoste, J. F. (1999), ‘Pour une clarification théorique du lien marketing-stratégie’,
Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Volume 14 No. 1, pp. 59-80
Vaidyanathan, R. and Aggarwal, P. (2000), ‘Strategic brand alliances: implications of ingredient branding for
national and private label brands’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Volume 9 No. 4, pp. 214-228
Van Osselaer, S. M. J. and Janiszewski, C. (2001), ‘Two Ways of Learning Brand Associations’,
Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 28, September
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988), ‘Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of
Evidence’, Journal of Marketing, Volume 52, July, pp. 2-22

30 C A H I E R d e R E C H E R C H E N°4