{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02465331278890601, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015408320493066256, 'mean_word_length': 5.430693069306931, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of co-branding on consumers' purchase intention and evaluation of apparel attributes

Brand alliances have been advocated as a strategy to appeal to consumers by capturing favorable associations of two separate brands. Sportswear and fashion designer brands have consequently formed partnerships, although co-branding effects are not always as anticipated, and the effects of co-branding on consumer evaluations of apparel are unknown. This study employed a 3 (sportswear brand) × 3 (fashion designer brand) experimental design to test the effects of co-branding on consumers' evaluations of apparel attributes (practical good looks, comfortable fit, and value for quality) and their purchase intentions. Males and females evaluated the products differently. Males preferred branded over unbranded polo shirts, but did not differentiate a co-branded polo shirt from a single-branded one. Females preferred fashion brands and disliked co-branded polo shirts. All three apparel attributes significantly affected the decision to purchase a shirt for oneself, but only practical good looks and value for quality affected the decision to purchase a shirt as a gift. Findings demonstrate that co-branding apparel may not improve its attractiveness to consumers, regardless of reason for purchase.