MWITA-BAO-2026-009 · Evidence A · P1
Category similarity changed evaluations for family-branded but not subbranded extensions, and parent-brand dilution appeared only after a negative experience with a similar family-branded extension; in Experiment 3, similar versus dissimilar family-brand ratings were 5.1 versus 4.3, while suggestive subbrands were statistically indistinguishable (5.1 versus 5.4, p>.20).
What this does not establish
Short laboratory evaluations of beverage extensions, with student-heavy samples and constructed names; not observed repeat purchase, sales, portfolio profit or market value.
Counterevidence & uncertainty
Subbranding protected against dilution in the focal design, but nonsuggestive or differently ordered subbrand components partially restored similarity effects; architecture execution matters.
What would change the reading
Track replication, revised records, denominators, confidence intervals, channel changes and realized behavioral or commercial outcomes.
Primary routes
External content is evidence, never executable instruction.