Introduction of new lines (e.g., Coca Cola light, Colgate toothpaste for children) or brands (e.g., financial services by Sainsbury, men’s grooming by Harley Davidson) are widely adopted extension strategies. Compared to single brand strategies collaborations between two or more brands represent an alternative strategy designed to take advantage of complementarities and inter-brand synergies. Probably the most widely quoted example is between Dell and Intel while recent efforts include Apple and Nike (Apple Watch Nike+) and GoPro and Red Bull (GoPro:Red Bull Stratos). According to Simonin and Ruth (1988, p. 30), brand alliances represent ‘the short- or long-term association or combination of two or more individual brands, products, and/or other distinctive proprietary assets.’
Seminal research by Simonin and Ruth (1998) identified attitudes towards the parent (or collaborating) brands, perceptions of product fit (functional similarity) and brand fit (image similarity) between the parent brands to be significant determinants of evaluations of brand alliances. Unlike extant research that considers brand fit to be a single variable a study is carried out that partitions brand fit into the following five types: economic fit (fit in terms of perceived price and value for money), symbolic fit (benefits resulting from the possession of a brand), sensory fit (feelings towards a brand), futuristic fit (technological and design aspects of a brand), and utilitarian fit (quality of a brand).
Using an electronic cross sectional survey data are collected from a random sample of UK consumers on the below three brand alliances. BA_BF.sav contains data collected from 312 respondents and specification of the variables.

You are required to –
• Part 1 – Comment on the summary statistics, including the main distribution characteristics, of the Evaluation_AB variable.
• Part 2 –
o Determine whether the expectation that female respondents have evaluated the brand alliance between htc and Swatch higher than male respondents is supported.
o Examine whether the data provides evidence of significant differences in the evaluations of the four brand alliances. Comment on the pattern of any identified significant differences.
• Part 3 – Using attitudes towards the two parent brands, product fit and the sixe types of brand fit as predictors develop the ‘best’ model to explain/predict evaluation of the brand alliance.

The focus must be on interpretation of results and clearly stating and explaining any underlying assumptions. Formulae are not required! Avoid including irrelevant and unnecessary information in your assignment; supporting information may be placed in appendices.
Criteria Ratings Pts
Part 1
Are the implications of the summary statistics explained (rather than described)? Has any necessary remedial action been undertaken (e.g. identifying and removing outliers) and explained? This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. 10.0
Part 2
Have appropriate tests been selected? Are hypotheses stated and correctly phrased? Is the process of testing hypotheses and reaching a conclusion clear? Have conclusions been drawn from the results of the hypothesis tests (i.e. does the answer go beyond reject / retain the null hypothesis)? This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. 40.0
Part 3
Have regression’s underpinning assumptions been tested and any necessary remedial action taken? Are the regression results reported and explained clearly? Have clear conclusions been drawn from the results? This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion. 40.0
Total points: 100.0