Should a quality sub-brand be locatedbefore or after the parent brand?An application of composite concept theoryMyung-Soo JoPublished online:28April2007#Academy of Marketing Science2007Abstract The author examines the effectiveness of quality sub-brands in creating quality images through the formation of inferential quality beliefs for both weak and strong brands.The sub-brands are examined as either headers (placed before the parent brand)or modifiers(placed after the parent brand).In Study1,alpha-numeric sub-brands show that both header(e.g.,XL500Hyundai car)and modifier(e.g.,Jaguar XL500car)sub-brands enhance the perceived quality of weak and strong brands but provide greater enhancement for weak brands.Ratings of the141 subjects indicate that a header sub-brand is more effective than a modifier sub-brand for weak brands(e.g.,XL500 Hyundai car>Hyundai XL500car),whereas a modifier sub-brand is more effective for strong brands(e.g.,Jaguar XL500car>XL500Jaguar car).The findings indicate greater differences between the header and modifier sub-brands for weak brands than for strong brands.In Study2, foreign sub-branding stimuli result in similar findings.Keywords Sub-brands.Alpha-numericbrands.Parentbrand IntroductionOrganizations often attempt to project high-quality images by introducing new product attributes,employing compar-ative advertising,using exclusive distribution channels,or maintaining high prices(Aaker1995).Sub-branding may provide an effective way for an organization to enhance its quality images.A sub-brand is defined as a product brand that has its own name and identity to differentiate it from the parent brand(e.g.,Cadillac Escalade car;Colgate Total toothpaste).In this study,we focus on the role of a sub-brand in boosting quality images.A sub-brand may stimulate quality perceptions through a process of consumer inference making.Among quality sub-brands,alpha-numeric(e.g.,Cadillac CTS,350Z Nissan) and foreign(e.g.,Cadillac Escalade,Sorrento Kia)sub-brands have been widely used in the automobile industry. For example,all Cadillac sub-brands are either alpha-numeric or foreign:XLR,SRX,CTS,Escalade,ESV,EXT, Deville,and STS.Despite the commonality of the practice, quality sub-branding has not been examined thoroughly to determine how inferential quality beliefs about sub-brands are formed(Zinkhan and Martin1987)or to understand how the sub-brands can be incorporated with their parent brands.An understanding of these issues thereby could offer effective guidelines for how quality sub-brands should be placed and managed in advertising and product design.An alpha-numeric brand includes mixtures of letters and/ or digits(e.g.,WD-40)or mixtures of words and digits(e.g., Formula501);the numbers may appear in digit(e.g.,7)or written form(e.g.,seven).A previous alpha-numeric branding study(Pavia and Costa1993)finds that large numbers indicate greater complexity,sophistication,preci-sion,and newness.Numbers in sequence suggest product extensions or product placement/location within the product line.Pavia and Costa(1993)also find that the letters“X”and“Z”indicate high technology,speed,and complexity, especially when coupled with large numbers.Alpha-numer-ic branding thus appears suitable for technically complex, manufactured items for which larger numbers,angular numbers,and letters such as“X”and“Z”could indicateJ.of the Acad.Mark.Sci.(2007)35:184–196DOI10.1007/s11747-007-0039-zM.-S.Jo(*)Desautels Faculty of Management,McGill University, 1001Sherbrooke Street,West Montreal,Quebec H3A1G5,Canadae-mail:myung-soo.jo@mcgill.cahigh-tech,sophistication,modernity,and technical prowess (Kiley2001).Although Pavia and Costa(1993)pioneered the study of alpha-numeric branding,they studied mainly alpha-numeric brands as stand-alone brands rather than as sub-brands,which represents a significant research gap because of the prevalence of alpha-numeric brands as sub-brands(e.g.,BMW X5,350Z Nissan).1Similarly,foreign sub-branding has been used to project high-quality images.A foreign sub-brand is designed to benefit from inferential quality beliefs that are associated with the foreign name.Inferential quality beliefs of foreign sub-brands may be activated by consumers’accrued stereo-types(e.g.,Japanese electronics)through their semantic association with foreign names(Olson1981;Zinkhan and Martin1987).As with alpha-numeric branding research, previous foreign branding research(Leclerc et al.1994) mainly has examined foreign brands as stand-alone brands rather than as sub-brands,despite the wide use of foreign brands as sub-brands(e.g.,Cadillac Escalade,Sorrento Kia).Building on previous research,this study demonstrates how consumers form inferential quality beliefs from quality sub-brands,how the sub-brands become incorporated with their parent brands,and which sub-brand position(i.e., header or modifier)is more effective for strong brands of high-quality reputations and weak brands of mediocre quality reputations.Key research questions include the following:How does quality sub-branding elicit inferential beliefs of high-quality?How are these created inferential beliefs moderated in composite concept formation?Do the sub-branding effects differ according to the accompanying parent brand(dominance effects)or the location of the sub-brand(i.e.,a header placed before or a modifier placed after the parent brand;noncommutativity effects)?This article examines these issues through the inferential belief formation and composite concept frameworks(Hampton 1987,1988;Murphy1988;Olson1980,1981;Storms et al. 1993;Zinkhan and Martin1987).We first investigate how consumers form their inferential quality beliefs about the sub-brand by examining the semantic attributes of the brand names.Next,we examine how these created inferential quality beliefs might be moderated by consumers’difficulties in forming a composite concept.Study1tests the quality sub-branding effects with alpha-numeric brands,and Study2 retests them with foreign sub-brands.Theoretical foundationsQuality sub-brands may lead consumers to form inferential beliefs of high-quality through their semantic associations (Zinkhan and Martin1987).The inferential beliefs can be formed on the basis of the meaning or sound of a name or the associations the brand has accumulated over time (Zinkhan and Martin1987).Accordingly,inferential beliefs might form purely from brand name information through the activation of prior semantic associations with these or similar names in the consumer’s memory.For example,if consumers see a car with an alpha-numeric name(e.g., XL500),they may infer that it is sporty,modern,fast, aerodynamic,and high-tech because of their semantic associations with alpha-numeric names(e.g.,BMW X5; Pavia and Costa1993).Thus,alpha-numeric brands should trigger semantic attributes that are suitable for technically complex,manufactured product categories such as cars (Kiley2001).Similarly,if consumers see a TV with a Japanese brand name,they may form their quality inference—the TV will have a good picture,a sharp-looking design,and reliability—through their semantic association of Japanese names with well-known,high-quality brands(e.g.,Sony).The same inferential belief formation should occur with other foreign names for other product categories(e.g.,French names for fashion,Italian names for pizza).These semantic associations probably developed as a result of consumption experiences and social environment and are represented by semantic attributes(see Table1).The composite concept framework suggests that people view groups of concepts,such as multiple nouns,as a com-posite entity;therefore,the framework may help explicate how the quality beliefs people generate about a sub-brand become integrated and moderated.When consumers process sub-brand composites(e.g.,BMW X5car,XG350Hyundai car),they first form a nested concept before combining it with yet another concept in a composite branding.For example,when consumers evaluate the composite brand,“BMW X5car,”they likely follow a sequence in which they process the first word(BMW)and the last word(the product category identifier,car)first to form the nested concept BMW car(a luxury car).Then that nested concept(BMW car)is modified by the interior word,X5(the sub-brand),to form a composite concept.This composite concept thus reflects both the parent and the sub-brand quality images. Therefore,nested concept formation should be considered part of composite concept formation(see Table1).Composite branding research has identified two posi-tions for modifying concepts:that which precedes the preposition“by”is the header,and that which follows the preposition“by”is the modifier,given a noun–noun–noun format(e.g.,Slim-Fast Cakemix by Godiva;Park et al. 1996).On the basis of a pretest and previous composite1The major differences between alpha-numeric sub-brands and model numbers are how much the companies emphasize them in their advertisements and how visible they are to consumers.Model numbers are not as visible as sub-brands because they do not indicate distinctive brand categories.Rather,they indicate different features, components,and sizes within the same brand category(e.g.,HP Laser Jet Cartridge C6656AN).brand research,we define a sub-brand that proceeds the parent brand as a header sub-brand(e.g.,XL500Hyundai car)and one that follows the parent brand as a modifier sub-brand(e.g.,Hyundai XL500car;see the“Materials and methods”section in Study1for findings in support of these definitions).Hypothesis developmentComposite concept formation of quality sub-branding Pre-vious research(Hampton1987)has reported a maximum union rule for the attribute formation of a composite concept.According to the maximum union rule,if a constituent is salient on a particular attribute,the composite concept should include that salient attribute,regardless of the level of saliency of the other constituent.In alpha-numeric sub-branding,an alpha-numeric brand(e.g.,X5, Z3,XJ8,LX470)that is highly salient on the related semantic attributes—such as high-tech,luxury,modernity, and sophistication(Pavia and Costa1993)—should strong-ly influence the attribute formation of the composite brand (Murphy1988;Smith et al.1988).Whether the quality sub-brand is used as a header(e.g.,XL500Hyundai car)or a modifier(e.g.,Hyundai XL500car),it may cause the composite brand to have higher semantic attributes related to the sub-brand name,compared to a brand without a sub-brand.This association may happen even if the parent brand(e.g.,Hyundai car)appears to be low on those attributes.Therefore,H1:A quality sub-brand,whether a header or a modifier, results in higher semantic attributes for the composite, especially a weak parent composite,than for a brand without a quality sub-brand.Asymmetry of sub-branding effects Composite concepts have asymmetric structures(Hampton1987,1988;Murphy 1988;Smith et al.1988;Storms et al.1993),in which each of the constituents has a different influence on the composite concept formation,even though they appear in the same composite.The different influence of each constituent may be caused by noncommutativity effects (differences between a header and a modifier)and/or the dominance of a constituent.Previous research has identified noncommutativity effects in a composite formation accord-ing to the location of the constituents(Chater et al.1990; Hampton1988;Storms et al.1993),such that the influence of a constituent is greater when it is located first rather than later in the composite(Chater et al.1990;Hampton1988). Accordingly,a header sub-brand(e.g.,XL500Hyundai car) may project more semantic attribute images than a modifier sub-brand(e.g.,Hyundai XL500car).This greater influ-ence might occur because a header sub-brand results in more difficult concept formation,compared with that related to a modifier sub-brand,which may make the header sub-brand more distinct during composite formation. That is,consumers may find it easier to form a composite concept for a modifier sub-brand,such as Hyundai XL500 car,than for a header sub-brand,such as XL500Hyundai car.When faced with the composite concept of Hyundai XL500car,consumers easily form the nested concept of Hyundai car,then augment that concept with the XL500 sub-brand information.In contrast,the composite concept of XL500Hyundai car is more difficult to form,because the nested concept would be XL500car,augmented by the brand information of Hyundai.Thus,the header sub-brandTable1The composite concept formation of a quality sub-brand Process Measures/outcomesStep1:inferential quality beliefs are formed Semantic attributesSemantic attributes are createdthrough semantic associations with the sub-brand nameStep2:the nested concept is formed Higher semantic attributes for the header sub-brand than for the modifier sub-brandThe header sub-brand forms thenested concept,whereas the modifier sub-brand only modifies the nestedconcept(brand identity)alreadyformed by the parent brand.Step3:the composite conceptis formed Difficulty of the composite concept formationThe more difficult the compositeconcept is to form,the more distinct the sub-brand becomes in thecomposite formation,creating higher semantic attributes.Composite formation is easier forthe modifier sub-brand than for theheader sub-brand.Composite formation is easier forthe strong parent composite than for the weak parent composite.Step4:quality perceptions of the composite are formed Perceived quality measuresA quality sub-brand creates agreater perceived qualityenhancement for the weak parentcomposite than for the strong parent composite.A header sub-brand shows higherperceived quality than a modifiersub-brand for the weak parentcomposite.A modifier sub-brand shows higherperceived quality than a header sub-brand for the strong parentcomposite.composite would be processed as if it were containing two distinctive brands(XL500and Hyundai),unlike the modifier sub-brand composite.This more difficult process makes the header sub-brand more distinct in composite concept formation,which results in higher semantic attributes for the header than for the modifier sub-brand.Because the semantic attributes of the quality sub-brand name are positively related to perceived quality(Pavia and Costa1993),they should increase the perceived quality of the composite.Accordingly,a header quality sub-brand should result in higher perceived quality than a modifier sub-brand.H2a:It is more difficult for consumers to form a composite concept with a header sub-brand thanwith a modifier sub-brand.H2b:A header quality sub-brand creates greater semantic attributes than does a modifier quality sub-brand forthe composite.H2c:A header quality sub-brand results in higher per-ceived quality than a modifier quality sub-brand forthe composite.Dominance effects Previous composite research also has reported that the unequal contributions of various constit-uents lead to dominance effects,in which one constituent dominates the others during the composite concept forma-tion(Hampton1987,1988;Storms et al.1993).That is,the composite concept inherits more salient and a greater number of features from the dominant constituent than from the other,dominated constituents and thereby exhibits more resemblance to the dominant constituent(Hampton 1988).In quality sub-branding,parent brands may exert different influences on the composite formation,depending on the brand’s quality reputations.Strong parent brands, which have high-quality reputations with consumers,may have a dominant influence in the composite formation because of their high-quality reputations and consequent high diagnosticity(Hampton1987).However,weak parent brands,which have mediocre quality reputations,may have a less dominant influence because of their less distinctive quality reputations and consequent low diagnosticity.Thus,the composite concept may be formed more easily for strong parent brand composites(e.g.,Jaguar XL500 car)than for weak parent composites(e.g.,Hyundai XL500 car),regardless of the presence of a header or modifier sub-brand,because of the high diagnosticity of the strong parent brand.Consequently,a quality sub-brand will be more distinct in the concept formation of the weak parent brand composite,due to the lesser dominance of the weak parent brand.This distinction will enable a quality sub-brand, either as a header or a modifier,to create greater semantic attributes for weak parent composites than for strong parent composites.As a result,the quality sub-brand(header or modifier)will result in greater perceived quality improve-ments for weak parent composites than for strong parent composites.H3a:Consumers,regardless of the presence of a header ora modifier quality sub-brand,find it more difficult toform a composite concept for a weak parent brandcomposite than for a strong parent brand composite. H3b:A quality sub-brand,either as a header or a modifier, creates greater semantic attributes for the weak parentcomposite than for the strong parent composite.H3c:A quality sub-brand,either as a header or a modifier, results in greater perceived quality improvements forthe weak parent composite than for the strong parentcomposite.Finally,the differential dominance between strong and weak parent brands may moderate the location(noncom-mutativity)effects in the composite concept formation(cf. Hampton1988;Murphy1988;Smith et al.1988).Non-commutativity effects may be less prominent for strong parent composites than for weak parent composites because the dominance of the strong parent brand will result in less difficult,more automatic composite formation.That is,a strong parent brand may remain dominant in the composite concept formation,regardless of whether it is located before or after its sub-brand,which would weaken the noncom-mutativity effects.In contrast,noncommutativity effects may be significant for weak parent composites because of their lesser dominance,which would make the sub-brand location more important and lead to significant differences between the header and modifier sub-brands for composite formation.In other words,the quality sub-branding effects may differ significantly between the header and modifier sub-brands for weak parent composites,whereas the differ-ences between the header and modifier sub-brands may be relatively insignificant for strong parent composites.Thus,weak parent composites cause more difficult concept formation for the header than for the modifier sub-brand,which may create higher semantic attributes for the header.The heightened semantic attributes should result in higher perceived quality for the header,rather than the modifier,sub-brand of the weak parent composite.In contrast,the dominance of the strong parent brand should result in similar levels of difficulty for concept formation, semantic attributes,and perceived quality between the header and modifier sub-brands.H4a:A weak parent composite entails more difficult composite concept formation,higher semantic attri-butes,and higher perceived quality for the headersub-brand than for the modifier sub-brand.H4b:A strong parent composite entails similar levels of difficulty in forming the composite concept,as wellas similar levels of semantic attributes and perceivedquality,with both header and modifier sub-brands.Study1Materials and methodsPretests Because of the popularity and wide usage of alpha-numeric sub-branding in the auto industry,cars were selected as the product category for this study.A pretest was conducted to select a set of parent brands that would be appropriate for the hypotheses.Thirty-eight students from a large eastern Canadian university were asked to evaluate the quality and familiarity of18car brands,identified from market research,on a nine-point scale.A strong(Jaguar)and weak(Hyundai)brand were chosen on the basis of the significant perceived quality differences but insignificant familiarity differences between them,to avoid confounding perceived quality and familiarity(perceived quality:Hyundai= 4.9,Jaguar=8.2,p<0.05;familiarity:Hyundai=5.9,Jaguar= 6.3,p>0.05).Furthermore,both Jaguar and Hyundai have used alpha-numeric sub-branding.The development of an alpha-numeric sub-brand A battery of28new alpha-numeric brand names was developed over the course of a series of discussions conducted by two research assistants.The alpha-numeric brand names were evaluated in terms of“suitability as a car brand,”“perceived quality,”“perceived luxury,”and“perceived high-tech”by38subjects from the same Canadian university.Subjects were asked to rate the brands on a nine-point scale.The alpha-numeric name XL500was chosen on the basis of the pretest findings as the most suitable,high quality,luxurious,and high-tech brand name among the alpha-numeric names(suitability:XL500=6.05, means of all=4.51;high quality:XL500=6.84,means of all= 5.05;luxurious:XL500=6.82,means of all=5.24;high-tech:XL500=6.47,means of all=5.41).Furthermore,the brand name XL500can be considered typical of existing, successful top brand names(e.g.,BMW X5).Previous brand name research finds that a typical brand name results in more favorable attitudes(Peterson and Ross 1972;Zinkhan and Martin1987).The determination of a header and modifier sub-brand Twenty-nine subjects,who were from the same university but had not participated in the brand name development test,were asked to evaluate the degree of association with the constituent brands for four composite brands—Hyundai XL500car,Jaguar XL500car,XL500Hyundai car,and XL500Jaguar car—on two nine-point scales(1=associated more with XL500car,9=associated more with Hyundai [Jaguar]car;1=likely XL500car,9=likely Hyundai [Jaguar]car).The two items were averaged to measure the association with the constituent brands.Subjects exposed to Hyundai XL500car associated it strongly with Hyundai car(M=6.91),whereas those exposed to XL500 Hyundai car showed a weaker association with Hyundai car(M=3.94,p<0.05).Similarly,subjects exposed to Jaguar XL500car associated it strongly with Jaguar car (M=7.60),whereas those exposed to XL500Jaguar car showed a weaker association with Jaguar car(M=5.34,p< 0.05).The findings that the composite brands were more significantly associated with the first brand than with the second strongly support the definition of the header and modifier sub-brands,namely,that a brand proceeding is a header sub-brand and a brand following is a modifier sub-brand(Park et al.1996).Subjects and procedure Study1employed a2(brand)×3 (alpha-numeric sub-brand)between-subjects design.On the basis of the pretest findings of quality reputations, Hyundai car was employed as the weak parent brand, and Jaguar car was the strong parent brand.The alpha-numeric sub-brand manipulation included three conditions: no sub-brands(Hyundai/Jaguar car),modifier sub-brands (Hyundai/Jaguar XL500car),and header sub-brands(XL500 Hyundai/Jaguar car).Each subject was given a product description that included the brand name and product attribute information.The same five-item product attribute information“new bolder styling,”“speed sensitive power steering,”“anti-lock disc brakes,”“dynamic stability control,”and“dynamic brake control”was provided for all six conditions to avoid possible confounding effects in the manipulations of the brand and alpha-numeric sub-brand.A total of141subjects from the same Canadian university was recruited for the survey.Subjects were told that the survey aimed to find out their evaluations of a product description and asked to provide their true opinions.Each subject was randomly assigned to one of the six different conditions and asked to assess the given car description on a nine-point scale.Subjects were asked to evaluate the difficulty of the composite concept formation,semantic attributes of the alpha-numeric name,and perceived quality of the car description.The quality items included absolute as well as relative quality measures(see Appendix A for the items used).Relative quality measures,which compared the given car description with top auto brands such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz,were employed in addition to the absolute quality measures to check for possible ceiling effects(especially for strong brands).ResultsManipulation checks The item“This is a Hyundai(or Jaguar)car”was measured on a nine-point scale to verify that the parent brand dominance was successfully manip-ulated.Both header and modifier sub-brands of the strong parent brand composite showed much higher associations with their parent brand(M=7.6and M=6.7)than did the header and modifier sub-brands of the weak parent composite(M=6.8and M=5.4;F(1,91)=4.1,p<0.05),in support of the significant differences in the dominance of the parent brands.Another item,“This would be quite different from the existing Hyundai[Jaguar]car”was used to check whether the differences between the header and modifier sub-brands were successfully manipulated.Header sub-brands of both composites showed much greater differences from their respective existing parent brands (XL500Hyundai car=6.0;XL500Jaguar car=4.9)than did modifier sub-brands(Hyundai XL500car=4.9;Jaguar XL500car=4.1),which indicates significant differences between the header and modifier sub-brands(F(1,91)=5.4, p<0.05).These findings demonstrate that the manipulations of the strong and weak parent brands and the header and modifier sub-brands worked as intended.Dependent variables Three items(“the evaluation was difficult,”“look like containing two separate brands,”and “processing the brand names for the evaluation was rather automatic[reversed score]”)measured the difficulty of the composite concept formation.This difficulty indicates the degree of the impact the sub-brand has on the composite concept(i.e.,the easier the composite concept formation, the less the impact the sub-brand has).The three items showed strong reliability(alpha=0.81),with all item-to-total correlations above0.51.The semantic attribute,which indicates the degree of created inferential quality beliefs,was measured by the three items of“high tech,”“luxury,”and“sophisticated,”which should be activated through semantic associations with the alpha-numeric name(Pavia and Costa1993;see Appendix A for the measures used).The three items showed strong reliability(alpha=0.81),with all item-to-total correlations above0.61.The semantic attribute, especially for the luxury image,also was tested using the price measure“how much do you think it would be sold?”The quality measure included both absolute and relative quality measures.Five absolute quality items(“excellent quality,”“reliable and durable,”“fewer problems,”“excel-lent quality features,”and“excellent driving experience”) showed strong reliability(alpha=0.90),with all item-to-total correlations above0.69.Three relative quality items(“as good as BMW,”“as good as Mercedes-Benz,”and“as good as other top luxury cars”)showed strong reliability(alpha=0.96),with all item-to-total correlations above0.89.These items were averaged to measure the difficulty of the concept formation,semantic attributes, and absolute and relative perceived quality,respectively. The composite concept formation H1hypothesizes that a quality sub-brand,as either a header or a modifier,results in higher semantic attributes for both weak and strong parent brand composites than for the brands without a sub-brand, which reflects the maximum union rule.Header sub-brands showed higher semantic attributes than did their corresponding weak and strong parent brands without sub-brands(XL500 Hyundai car:M=6.1,Hyundai car:M=4.6,p<0.05;XL500 Jaguar car:M=6.5,Jaguar car:M=5.6,p<0.05).Similarly, modifier sub-brands showed higher semantic attributes than did their corresponding weak and strong parent brands without sub-brands(Hyundai XL500car:M=5.3,Hyundai car:M=4.6,p<0.05;Jaguar XL500car:M=6.3,Jaguar car: M=5.6,p<0.05),in support of H1.The price measure,which could indicate a luxury image for the semantic attribute,as well as perceived quality (Monroe and Krishnan1985),strongly supported H1.The header sub-brands showed much higher prices than did their corresponding parent brands without sub-brands (XL500Hyundai car:C$38,086,Hyundai car:C$21,931, p<0.05;XL500Jaguar car:C$64,152,Jaguar car: C$57,863,p<0.05).Similarly,the modifier sub-brands showed higher prices than their corresponding parent brands without the sub-brands(Hyundai XL500car: C$29,326,Hyundai car:C$21,931,p<0.05;Jaguar XL500 car:C$70,550,Jaguar car:C$57,864,p<0.05;see Table2). These supportive findings also suggest the asymmetry of the effects,which indicates greater benefits for the weak parent composites than for the strong parent composites. Noncommutativity effects As hypothesized in H2a,the subjects had greater difficulty with their composite forma-tion for the header sub-brands than for the modifier sub-brands(F(1,91)=6.23,p<0.05),which explains why header sub-brands produce greater semantic attributes than do modifier sub-brands.As hypothesized in H2b,the header sub-brands created greater semantic attributes pertaining to the alpha-numeric name than did the modifier sub-brands(F(1,90)=6.84,p<0.05;see Table2).H2c hypothesized that header sub-brands would lead to higher perceived quality than would modifier sub-brands. The header sub-brand resulted in higher absolute and relative perceived quality and a higher selling price than did the modifier sub-brand for the weak parent composites (absolute perceived quality:p<0.05;relative perceived quality:p<0.05;selling price:p<0.05;see Table2). However,the strong parent composites showed insignifi-cant differences in absolute perceived quality between the。
![[外语学习]奔驰汽车英文介绍1](https://img.taocdn.com/s1/m/7fc80aeef46527d3240ce0ba.png)
![[Brand] [Model] Controller Instruction Manual](https://img.taocdn.com/s1/m/dd164527cbaedd3383c4bb4cf7ec4afe04a1b187.png)
