영화가 흥행한 후, 드라마로 방송되기도 하고 심지어 컴퓨터 게임으로 출시되기도 한다. 그렇다면 영화가 드라마로 방송되는 경우와 컴퓨터 게임으로 제작되는 경우의 차이는 무엇인가? 인식상의 거리로 볼 때, 영화와 드라마는 매우 가깝지만 영화와 컴퓨터 게임의 거리는 멀다. 즉, 영화에서 드라마로의 확장은 가까운 확장이며, 영화에서 컴퓨터 게임으로의 확장은 먼 확장이다. 응집성 이론(cohesiveness theory)에 의하면, 정보를 일목요연하게 배치하여 정보비교를 쉽게 하는 경우 응집성이 높다고 한다. 반면에 산만하고 흐트러져 해석이 난해한 정보배치에 대해서는 응집성이 낮다고 한다. 따라서 영화에서 드라마로의 확장은 응집성 높은 확장인 반면에 영화에서 컴퓨터 게임으로의 확장은 응집성이 낮은 확장이다. 그렇다면 응집성이 높은 확장인 드라마로의 확장은 원작영화와 유사해야 하는가? 아니면 차별적이어야 하는가? 반면에 응집성이 낮은 컴퓨터로의 확장은 역시 원작인 영화와 유사해야 하는가? 차별적이어야 하는가? 이에 대해서 본 연구는 3번의 실험을 통해 원작과 유사해야 하는 상황 및 그렇지 않은 상황을 밝혔다. 실험 1은 응집성이 반영된 확장(e.g., 영화 “실미도”를 바탕으로 한 드라마 제작 vs. 영화 “실미도”를 바탕으로 한 컴퓨터게임 제작)에서 응집성이 높은 확장에서는 원작영화와 차별화될수록 소비자의 반응은 긍정적이었다. 반면에 응집성이 낮은 확장에서는 원작영화와 차별화할수록 소비자 반응이 긍정적이었다. 실험 2는 영화에 대한 관여도(involvement) 효과를 조사하였다. 연구결과, 관여도가 낮은 소비자의 경우에는 영화의 브랜드 확장에서 응집성 효과가 나타났다. 그러나 관여도가 높은 소비자에게서는 응집성 효과는 나타나지 않았다. 이는 관여도가 높은 경우, 정보의 응집성 등과 같은 맥락효과보다는 내용의 본질적인 면에 더 주목하기 때문이다. 실험 3은 독특성 욕구(NFU: need for uniqueness) 효과를 조사하였다. 연구결과, 독특성 욕구가 높은 소비자는 응집성 효과와 정반대의 연구결과를 보였다. 독특성 욕구가 높은 소비자는 캐릭터의 일치를 선호하였다. 그러나 응집성이 낮은 확장에서는 캐릭터 변화를 선호했다.
The cartoon “Thazza”had extended toward the movie that hit a big success. After, the movie extended toward TV drama that did not win. The play “Yi”had extended toward the movie that overrode the success of the original version. The movie “Chinkoo”, however, translated to TV drama that did not win relatively. Recently, cross extensions (e.g. movie, cartoon, fiction, drama, game, character toy etc.) are being tried actively. But, the main factors for success are rarely explored yet. Why did the movie “Thazza”win, but why did not the drama? Considering the good performance of Zhang Hyuk in the drama “Choono”, it cannot be said that the acting of Zhang Hyuk in the drama “Thazza”was inferior than the performance of Zhou Seong Woo in the movie “Thazza”. So, why did the difference happen? Movies or dramas are the typical examples of experience goods. According to the prior research, the serial versions of experience goods are likely to cause the satiation of consumers easily. So, it is more desirable that the serial version focuses on the differentiation to the original. For example, the movie “Rambo II”that had taken the different story line compared with “Rambo I”hit a success. “Rambo III”that had the same structure with “Rambo II”did not win. Suggesting the differentiation strategy for satiation-reduction is also interesting and creative. However, all case may not fit this theory. Also, when Rambo I extended its serial version, it was important to differentiate. But, how would happen if the movie Rambo extend the computer game with its same title? It may be desirable that the game “Rambo”would have the same character image with the movie Rambo. This prediction says it is needed to discriminate the line extension of movie from the brand extension of movie. Maybe, it is probable that the line extension fit with the differentiation, but that the brand extension fit with the similarity strategy. By the way, the brand extension of movie is needed to discriminate between near vs. far extension. It may be the near extension in case of extension of movie toward drama, but may be the far extension when movie toward computer game. By any chance, could the discrimination between near vs. far extension of movie be explained by a theory?The concept of “cohesiveness”can provide an insight for this question. Cohesiveness means how the information mode is systematic, clear, and easy-structured. For example, the table information is more cohesive than the sentence. And, twins look like each other cohesively, but the uncle and nephew look like each other less cohesively. According to the cognitive psychology, cohesiveness is related with the consistency to the consumers’schema.Not yet, the brand extension is explained by cohesiveness. But it is probable that the near extension (e.g. Pulmoowon bean sprouts extend toward Pulmoonwon green bean sprouts) may be cohesive extension. The far extension (e.g. Pulmoowon bean sprouts extend toward Pulmoowon bicycle) may be less cohesive extension. Specifically, bean sprouts and green bean sprouts are closely related in the schema. But, bean sprouts and bicycle relate as just desultory link.Consumers are likely to focus on the differences in the cohesive condition. For example, twins are often observed in respective of difference. Consumers, however, are likely to focus on the similarity in the less cohesive condition. For example, uncle and nephew are often observed in respective of the common features. In this point of view, the cohesive extension of movie must stress on the different character image compared with their prior version’s. But, the less cohesive extension must take importance of the commonality with their original version’s.This study explored the hypotheses that suggest the relationship between cohesiveness of extension and character similarity. Exp. 1 designed 2?between-subject setting. The first independent is the level of extension (cohesive vs. less cohesive), and the second is character image (similar vs. different with their original version’s). In results, the cohesive extension (e.g. the movie “Silmido”toward the drama) are advantageous in case of the different character. But, the less cohesive extension (e.g. the movie toward the computer game) are better when the same character image. These results was showed as <Figure 1>. <Figure 1> Consumer Attitude for Movie ExtensionExp. 2 explored the moderating role of consumer involvement for movie. So, the 2×2×2(cohesiveness, similarity, and involvement) mixed design are executed. We predicted that high involved consumers are influenced by the cohesiveness effect because they might focus only on the intrinsic contents rather that extrinsic contest like the cohesiveness. Results are presented as <Table 1>.<Table 1> Consumer Attitude by Movie InvolvementLess Cohesive ExtensionCohesive ExtensionSimilar CharacterDifferent CharcterSimilar CharacterDifferent CharcterLow Involvement5.323.213.505.77High Involvement4.224.504.194.65Exp. 3 explored the another moderator -“NFU, need for uniqueness”. So, the 2×2×2(cohesiveness, similarity, and NFU) mixed design are executed. We predicted that high NFU consumers might show the opposite patterns in compared with the general consumers. Results are presented as <Figure 2>.
