A brand reputation is constantly in danger of being tarnished whether it is by their owninability to meet consumers’ standard when it comes to product quality, their disregardfor ethical business, or being unlucky with the force of nature. But one crisis is seldomlike another, and neither are their effects. This study utilizes dimensions of consumerbased brand equity in order to explore how reputational crises stemming in a corporation’sown ability to produce quality goods and reputational crises stemming in corporate socialirresponsibility affect those dimensions and to see, is there a difference? The theory used based on Aaker, a marketing researcher who has come to be a prominentfigure in terms of consumer based brand equity, Brown & Dacin who are largely to creditfor making the discussion regarding different types of crises relevant, and authors whomore often than not refer to the works of the previously mentioned prominent figures. In order to find out if there is a difference in consumer reaction between corporate abilityand CSR related crises a quantitative approach where means from a population, dividedinto two groups which received similar questionnaires with the same brand but thecorporate ability or CSR crisis being the difference, were compared in order to find anypotential differences between the groups. The results from the survey were that corporate ability and CSR had a negative effect onpurchase intention while there was no difference in the magnitude of the negative effect,likewise regarding product evaluation CSR and corporate ability had a negative effectwhile there was no difference in the magnitude of the effect, and for corporate evaluationCSR had a negative effect while corporate ability had no negative effect. To elaborate onthis study, further research which includes variables such as brand loyalty while usingother types of product categories is proposed

Termed corporate associations, consumer corporate brand perceptions influence evaluations of new products made by consumers. Corporate associations are conceptualized as falling within two categories (Brown and Dacin 1997): a corporation may develop a reputation for Corporate Ability (CA) by developing quality products or for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through its corporate commitment to societal obligations. Past research suggests that product-related CA associations lead to more favorable product evaluations than CSR, which is a contextual association that is less product-related. However, past research has been limited to line extensions, which are evaluated in a piecemeal cognitive process. Unlike line extensions, evaluations of brand extensions include an intervening categorization process that determines consumers' evaluative strategies. This research merges the corporate association and brand extension literature streams and, in four studies, contributes to the literature by establishing that brand extension fit moderates the influence of corporate associations on product evaluations. This finding is developed further by demonstrating that both individual differences (self-construal) and brand-related attributes moderate this interaction.