Ingredient Branding - Related Literature

Brand extension, which is to put a new product created in another category under the name of an existing brand, is one of the most popular ways to achieve this (Jun-ying, 2007). Brand extension is always seen as a way for companies to seek growth while introducing a new product (Carolin, 2007). As it is a phenomenon in strong competitive market, previous studies report that failure rates are 80 percent of the extension (Völkner and Sattler, 2006). On the other hand, Besharat defined Co-Branding as a long term type of co – operation between two or more brands with equal or non-equal brand image in which identify of the associated brands is communicated through the inclusion of the brand name on the product or product packaging. Co-branding is an increasingly popular technique used primarily in domestic markets to transfer the positive associations of the partner brands to a newly formed co-brand (Ueltschy & Laroche, 2011). Ingredient branding will be analyzed and compared to existing theories on co-branding and brand extensions. This will be helpful on students to fully understand ingredient branding. Furthermore, based on these existing theories, it will be possible to identify issues for further research.
Brand communication is identified as the right mix of media vehicles that will maximize the brand’s potential to meet the goals like developing awareness, positioning and reminding the brand, its attributes, unique selling propositions and its benefit to the consumers set forth by the brand manager (Davis, 2002; Gupta et al., 2008). Brand communication creates brand image (Rio et al., 2001) and gives the brand a personality by using a constellation of brand associations (Sjodin and Torn, 2006). The better the brand communication the more the awareness perceived value and the intent of purchase (Gupta et al., 2008), which may lead to purchase and satisfaction thus leading to brand loyalty (Wonglorsaichon and Sathainrapabayut, 2008) and brand equity. Brand equity