Good times and bad: responsibility in brand alliances

Abstract

PurposeMarketing managers have strategic choices when forming brand alliances. One such choice is integration, defined as the extent to which the offering is a fusion in the form and function of the partner brands. The paper aims to investigate how integration affects consumer attribution of responsibility to brand alliance partners.Design/methodology/approachThis paper builds on the previous study on brand alliances and attribution theory. Multiple experiments are used to test three hypotheses.FindingsThis research shows that consumers are sensitive to the level of alliance integration, which, in turn, affects attributions of responsibility for the joint offering. Consistent with attribution theory, results show that responsibility for each brand varies systematically by integration and lead brand status vis-à-vis the alliance: while consumers perceive both brands as equally responsible for higher integration brand alliances, responsibility attributions diverge in lower integration alliances based on whether the brand is the alliance host. This pattern also holds for product-harm events.Research limitations/implicationsIt is important to explore brand alliance characteristics and to date, the level of integration between the partners has not been considered from a consumer standpoint. Consumers are sensitive to the level of partner brand integration and this perception influences perceptions of responsibility.Practical implicationsManagers should be aware that the level of brand alliance integration and lead brand status lead to different attributions of responsibility, which is strategically important, as brands seek to take credit in positive contexts and avoid blame for negative events.Originality/valueThis paper explores brand alliances via the level of integration and leads brand status, which are key determinants of consumer attributions of responsibility.