In the advent a new market that didn’t exist a few years ago, the total sales in wearable devices could top $32.2 billion by 2019, up from $18.9 billion last year (Kharif 2015). The most anticipated new device is the Apple Smart Watch which has a function to detect pulse rate and send messages using voice commands (There is a gold version for $10,000). Further, Tag Heuer recently announces a partnership with Intel and Google to produce the world's first luxury Android Wear Smartwatch. Given that the high potential to do some research in this area (i.e., luxury brand alliances), little research examines luxury brand strategy and especially luxury ingredient branding (IB) strategy. This study explores the evaluations of and attitudes to the host luxury brand after IB alliances. An ingredient branding (IB), the incorporation of parent brand with another brand as ingredient (Desai and Keller 2002), allows two brands to have better market competitiveness (Simonin and Ruth 1998). The IB parent brand is the “host,” the main product, and the “ingredient,” a component that is integrated into the host. For example, Dell computer (the host) has a co-branding relationship with Intel as the ingredient (Intel, 2006). Both brands enjoy the benefits of the relationship that include mutual cooperation and knowledge sharing. The IB strategy has valuable benefits for both brands. For example, the host (i.e., Dell) may enjoy an enhanced market reputation, while the ingredient brand (i.e., Intel) may benefit by reducing the probability of entry by competitors. Further, Dell receives a preferential price from Intel, while Intel enjoys a stable and long-term customer. Current research on ingredient branding examines the determinants of IB success (Desai and Keller 2002) as well as the feedback effect on a parent brand subsequent to an IB alliances (Rodrigue and Biswas 2004). IB feedback effect involves changes in consumer attitudes toward the original parent brand resulting from the IB alliances. Extant research in this topic shows positive effects of IB strategy for the host (e.g., Balachander and Ghose 2003). However, some other research also shows that negative effects for the host caused by an IB alliances (e.g., Votolato and Unnava 2006). This equivocal findings suggest that there are some other conditions generating positive and negative effects of IB strategy for the host. Thus, the purpose of our study is to examine the conditions under which IB strategy influences negatively or positively to the host. We will focus uncovering this research gap on finding the conditions that influence positively or negatively to the host. Using ingredient brand strategy in luxury brand, we will examine how the fit of the host (Tag Heuer) and the ingredients (Google and Intel) influences the host’s brand attitude. We assume that the product fit (i.e., the host current product category: Tag Heuer watch vs the final product after IB alliances: Tag Heuer Android Wear Smartwatch) may positively influence the host’s brand attitude while the brand fit (i.e., luxury brand: Tag Heuer vs non-luxury brand: Google and Intel) may negatively influence the host’s brand attitude. Further, we will examine the role of Brand Engagement in Self-Concept (BESC) as a moderator in this relationship (Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009).