Consumer-Brand Relationships

Theory and Practice

Susan Fournier, Michael Breazeale, Marc Fetscherin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136470974
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The creation and management of customer relationships is fundamental to the practice of marketing. Marketers have long maintained a keen interest in relationships: what they are, why they are formed, what effects they have on consumers and the marketplace, how they can be measured and when and how they evolve and decline.

While marketing research has a long tradition in the study of business relationships between manufacturers and suppliers and buyers and sellers, attention in the past decade has expanded to the relationships that form between consumers and their brands (such as products, stores, celebrities, companies or countries). The aim of this book is to advance knowledge about consumer-brand relationships by disseminating new research that pushes beyond theory, to applications and practical implications of brand relationships that businesses can apply to their own marketing strategies.

With contributions from an impressive array of scholars from around the world, this volume will provide students and researchers with a useful launch pad for further research in this blossoming area.

PART I

The “What” of Brand Relationships

Exploring relationship varieties and types

1

WHEN IS OUR CONNECTION TO BRANDS LIKE OUR CONNECTION TO PEOPLE?

Differentiating between consumer–brand relationships and interpersonal relationships

Vanitha Swaminathan and Sara Loughran Dommer

Introduction

While research on consumer–brand relationships has often used interpersonal relationships (e.g., attachment styles, relationship norms, etc.) as guides and metaphors for brand relationships, little time has been spent distinguishing between the interpersonal relationship and the brand relationship. In this chapter, we will: (1) review the use of interpersonal relationship theories in the consumer– brand relationship realm; (2) discuss some of the similarities between interpersonal relationships and brand relationships, and highlight some differences; and (3) outline topics in the consumer–brand relationship domain in need of future research based on our framework.

While early research in consumer behavior viewed consumers’ interactions with products and brands as a series of exchanges, this transactional view has been replaced by a relational view. However, key differences between interpersonal relationships (IRs) and consumer–brand relationships (CBRs) should be noted. Typically, CBR involves a monetary exchange (i.e., transfer of funds from consumers to brands) that is atypical in IR. Further, while most individuals enter into IR, it is not at all clear whether CBR is as ubiquitous a phenomenon. Certain individuals and certain product categories seem to lend themselves to greater levels of CBR, and there are certain “relationship averse” segments as well (Price and Arnould 1999). These differences indicate the limitations of the relationship metaphor in providing insights in the CBR context. We return to this point in the discussion, when we highlight potential areas for future research. In the next section, we provide a systematic overview of the IR and CBR research and highlight similarities and differences between the two streams. We begin with an assessment of relationship typologies across both these streams, since the development of relationship types has been a primary topic of research.

Relationship typologies in IR and CBR

Many relationship typologies have been proposed in the CBR literature, which are similar to relationship types in the IR literature. McCall (1970) sees a continuum ranging from the more formal interactions to the much more personal relationships which resemble what psychologists refer to as close relationships. Wish and colleagues (1976) conducted an analysis of dyadic relationships and found they can be summarized along the following dimensions: (1) cooperative versus competitive or hostile; (2) equal versus unequal partnerships; (3) intense versus superficial; and (4) formal versus informal.

Types of consumer brand relationships

Building on this, Fournier’s (1998) seminal work on consumer–brand relationships proposed a framework and identified various types of relationships ranging across arranged marriages, casual friends/buddies, marriages of convenience, committed partnerships, best friendships, compartmentalized friendships, kinships, rebounds/avoidance-driven relationships, childhood friendships, courtships, dependencies, flings, enmities, secret affairs, and enslavements. Using a combination of case histories and survey data, Fournier made an important contribution towards developing an understanding of CBR types. Further, Fournier (1998) proposed a brand relationship quality scale comprising six facets: behavioral interdependence, personal commitment, love/passion, attachment (encompassing self-concept and nostalgic connection), intimacy, and partner quality. Building on this work, Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel (2004) undertook a longitudinal examination of consumer–brand relationships and examined whether the role of brand relationships varies based on brand personalities. They argued that relationships with sincere brands displayed characteristics that are similar to friendship templates, whereas relationships with exciting brands resembled short-lived flings. Because of these differences in CBR, their research found that sincere brand relationships suffered more following a transgression whereas exciting brand relationships were energized in a similar situation. Recently, Fournier and Alvarez (in prep.) examined brand flings as a type of consumer–brand relationship, and demonstrated the transitional identity roles that these emotive and playful relationships engage.

Relationship norms (exchange versus communal relationships)

Further research within CBR developed some of the themes that were outlined in the work by Fournier (1998). Subsequent researchers have continued to borrow frameworks that were outlined in the IR literature, albeit providing new insights in the CBR context. In the IR context, Clark and Mills (1993) distinguish between communal and exchange relationships, where communal relationships are those in which partners are expected to provide benefits (e.g., social support) to each other in response to needs as they arise. Exchange relationships are those in which members benefit each other, whereas in communal relationships the basis of benefit is concern for the other’s welfare.

This research has also had an impact in the context of consumer–brand relationships. Aggarwal and Law (2005) suggested that when consumers form relationships with brands they use norms of interpersonal relationships as a guide in their brand assessments. Consistent with the interpersonal literature, Aggarwal and Law examined two types of relationships based on interdependence: exchange relationships in which benefits are given to others to get something back and communal relationships in which benefits are given to show concern for others’ needs. Their conceptual model proposed that an adherence to or a violation of these relationship norms influences the appraisal of the specific marketing action and also the overall brand evaluations. Specifically, Aggarwal and Law (2005) demonstrated that priming communal versus exchange norms can moderate various information processing strategies adopted by consumers.

Brand personality and consumer–brand relationships

In consumer behavior research, the construct brand personality, which refers to the set of human characteristics associated with a brand, has received much attention. The personality of a brand has been shown in the consumer behavior literature to be a vehicle of self-expression (e.g., Belk 1988; Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993; Malhotra 1988). Aaker (1997) developed a reliable, valid, and generalizable scale to measure the brand personality construct. Her research uncovered five brand personalities (i.e., sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness). Three of the brand personality dimensions relate to the Big Five human personality dimensions in the IR context (Norman 1963; Tupes and Christal 1958). For example, sincerity, excitement, and competence map on to agreeableness, extroversion, and conscientiousness respectively. Sophistication and ruggedness are two brand personality dimensions that are distinct to the CBR context.

More recently, there has been a shift towards understanding the emotional makeup of relationships, in both the IR and CBR literatures. For instance, Sternberg’s (1986) love triangle suggests that there are three factors underlying interpersonal relationships, namely intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy exists when thoughts and feelings are shared, passion is the physical desire for a person, and commitment is the value placed on the relationship. Borrowing from Sternberg’s (1986) triangular theory of love, Thomson, MacInnis, and Park’s (2005) three-factor model characterizes brand attachment in terms of three emotional components: (1) affection, which included emotions such as “affectionate,” “loved,” “friendly,” and “peaceful”; (2) passion, including emotions such as “passionate,” “delighted,” and “captivated”; and (3) connection, characterized by the items “connected,” “bonded,” and “attached.” There is a correspondence between the emotional attachment factors based on Sternberg’s (1986) theory of love and Thomson et al.’s (2005) three-factor model. Passion is identical in both typologies, and intimacy can be thought of as affection (friendship without passion or commitment), and connection and commitment are similar. However, Thomson and colleagues (2005) provide a valuable tool for measuring the extent of emotional brand attachment, and much can be gained from applying the emotional brand attachment construct to the CBR context.

Attachment styles and consumer–brand relationships

An important theoretical perspective from interpersonal relationships is attachment theory. Attachment theory has its roots in the work of Bowlby (1969, 1980), who suggested that interactions with caregivers in early childhood form the foundation for systematic differences in relationships formed in later life. Attachment theory has identified two dimensions of attachment style based on the individuals’ view of self and view of others, namely anxiety and avoidance, respectively, which are expected to influence the type of relationships they engage in and their potential for forming attachments in the interpersonal domain (Bartholomew and Horowitz 1991; Bartz and Lydon 2004; Collins and Read 1994; Pierce and Lydon 1998). Further, research by Hazan and Shaver (1987) suggested that the emotional bond that develops between romantic partners is based on the same motivational system that gives rise to the bond between infant and caregiver. Since Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) seminal work, further research has shown that other kinds of relationships including friendships and familial bonds are also governed by attachment theoretic principles (Ainsworth 1989; Trinke and Bartholomew 1997).

Following Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) development of the four attachment style model, recent research on attachment theory focuses on classifying individuals based on two dimensions: anxiety and avoidance (e.g., Brennan, Clark and Shaver 1998). The anxiety dimension refers to the extent a person’s view of self is positive or negative, whereas the avoidance dimension is based on the extent that one’s view of others is positive or negative. The anxiety dimension (self view) assesses the degree to which the self is perceived as being worthy or unworthy of love (or one’s lovability). Anxious individuals, who are perpetually preoccupied with their self-worth and self-esteem concerns, have a negative model of self (characterized by an individual’s belief that they are not worthy of love), have low self-esteem (Griffin and Bartholomew 1994), and are prone to self-criticism (Murphy and Bates 1997).

Recently, attachment theory has been applied to the context of consumer– brand relationships as well. Thomson (2006) examines why consumers develop strong attachments to “human brands,” a term that refers to any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communications efforts. Thomson suggests that when a human brand enhances a person’s feelings of autonomy and relatedness, the person is likely to become more strongly attached to it. Thomson and Johnson (2006) investigated the role of attachment dimensions in relationships with brands. They find that because anxious people perceive their relationships as bad, they also view their relationships as inconsistent. People who registered high levels of avoidance reported a diminished experience of reciprocity as well as lower levels of satisfaction, commitment, and involvement. Paulssen and Fournier (in prep.) have also looked at attachment in consumer–brand relationships. Specifically, they use attachment theory and longitudinal data regarding brand relationships with automotive service dealers empirically to derive consumer attachment. Their results regarding consumer attachment parallel those found in interpersonal relationship settings. In this way, the research by Paulssen and Fournier (in prep.), Thomson (2006), and Thomson and Johnson (2006) provides initial evidence that attachment theory can be applicable to a consumer–brand relationship context.

Attachment styles have also been shown to influence how consumers choose brands and how they react to transgressions involving brands (Dommer, Swaminathan, and Gürhan-Canli in prep.; Swaminathan, Stilley, and Ahluwalia 2009). Swaminathan and colleagues (2009) examine the manner in which brand personality and attachme...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of tables
• List of figures
• Foreword by Kevin Keller
• Acknowledgments
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction The why, how, and so what of consumers' relationships with their brands
• Part I The “What” of Brand Relationships Exploring relationship varieties and types
• Part II Understanding Consumer–Brand Relationship Bonds Brand love and other strength indicators
• Part III How Goals and Identity Drive Consumers' Relationships with their Brands
• Part IV Managerial Applications of Consumer–Brand Relationship Ideas
• Names Index
• Brands Index
• General Index