Brand relationships through brand reputation and ...

Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism Cleopatra Veloutsou ⁎, Luiz Moutinho University of Glasgow, Department of Management, The Gilbert Scott Building, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history: Received 1 December 2007 Received in revised form 1 March 2008 Accepted 1 May 2008 Keywords: Branding Brand relationships Brand communities Tribal brands Brand reputation

A B S T R A C T The academic research on branding of consumer products and services is increasingly considering the degree of connectedness between consumers and brands as a key issue of investigation. The literature in this area investigates the nature and the strength of the relationship that consumers develop with brands, as well as the trend of joining brand tribes or brand communities in order to demonstrate and share with others their feelings towards and preference to brands. However, the impact of the overall perceptions of the brands in the form of its reputation and brand tribalism on brand relationships is so far unexplored in the existing literature. Using data collected from 912 respondents, this paper explores the importance of the long term brand reputation and brand tribalism on the strength of brand relationships. The findings suggest that brand tribalism is a better predictor of the strength of brand relationships than the long term brand reputation itself. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction It is appreciated that the relational approach is a feasible strategy in mass consumer markets (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Christy et al., 1996; O'Malley and Tynan, 1999, 2000), that the marketing mix could be the base for relationship development with consumers (Coviello and Brondie, 1998; Coviello et al., 2002; Lye, 2002) and that mental images, “symbols and objects”, can be one of the many aspects that can be used as a basis of a relationship (Gummesson, 1994). Individuals may develop relationships with specific brands and to reduce their choice set is possible (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995) and consumers’ bonds with specific brands and services seem to be somewhat similar in nature (Johnston and Thomson, 2003). Consumers may form relationships with brands on the basis of several characteristics of these brands and their perceptions and behavior towards them. Having lost all faith in unity and totality of achievement, postmodernism has reinforced the importance of living and enjoying the fragmented moments of consumers’ life experiences (Firat and Schultz, 1997). Consumers no longer consume products for their utility, but because of their symbolic meaning, which represents images. Postmodern researchers believe that image is not a priority but a selling entity which the product tries to represent. The image does not represent the product; it’s the product that represents the image (Cova, 1999) and each consumer becomes an “illusion consumer” that buys images not products (Elliot, 1999). However, ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Veloutsou), [email protected] (L. Moutinho). 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.010

the existing research does not analyze the respective power of the views consumers have on brands through their reputation and the social influence they experience in terms of brand tribes when they are forming relationships with brands. Most research analyzing brand communities at present focuses on luxury brands and/or products that consumers are highly involved with, such as cars, motorbikes, jeeps, computers or personal digital assistants (i.e. Muninz and O'Guinn, 2001; McAlexander et al., 2002; Algesheimer et al., 2005; Muniz and Schau, 2005; Schouten and McAlexander, 2005), and there is a very limited attempt to analyze products that target the mass market, such as chocolate spread (i.e. Cova and Pace, 2006). Most published research focuses on consumers who recognize their connection with a group of consumers who are also interested in a brand and are members of the brand community. The purpose of this research is to investigate the relative influence of the brand reputation and the significant others in the formation of strong consumer–brand relationships, for a fast moving consumer goods product; soft drinks. The paper, first discusses the concept of brand reputation and the potential contribution of brands in the development of relationships. It then focuses on brand communities or tribes and their increasing role in the formulation of brand reputation, proposes the research questions and outlines the data collection methods. Finally, it offers discussion, conclusion and suggestions for managers and academia. 2. Brand reputation Both academics and practitioners believe that brand reputation is becoming increasingly important. To be successful and hence profitable, brands should have a positive reputation (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995).

C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322

The reputation is the aggregate perception of outsiders on the salient characteristics of companies (Fombrun and Rindova, 2000), or brands. The development of brand reputation means more than keeping consumers satisfied, it is something a company earns over time and refers to how various audiences evaluate the brand. Companies and brands with a good reputation are likely to attract more customers and a brand will lose its positive reputation—and eventually develop a negative reputation—if it repeatedly fails to fulfill its stated intentions or marketing signals (Milewicz and Herbig, 1994). The various audiences recognize brands as independent market organisms. Consumers perceive them as characters, while both managers and the environment sustain them (Jevons et al., 2005) and consumers can perceive brands as characters. For example, research indicates that consumers can think of brands as if they are celebrities (Rook, 1985), or as if they have a character of their own (Blackston, 1992, 1993). Brand reputation occurs primary through the signals that producers send to the market and the degree that the organizational tactics support the marketing signals establish it (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). In this respect, it is an output of the brand identity that the company proposes, the promises the company makes and the extent that consumers experience the offer that the company promises. The management of the brand reputation is continual. The brand’s concept and the brand image, and as a consequence its reputation will be managed over the brand’s life, via the selection of a brand expression, its introduction in the market and its further expansion, defense and enforcement over time (Park et al., 1986). Reputation is one of the primary contributors to perceived quality of the products carrying the brand name. Consumers expect that products manufactured today have a similar quality as products manufactured in the past, since the brand is adding credibility (Milewicz and Herbig, 1994). Individuals form positive views only for the brands they perceive credible. They assess the incomplete brand information collected over time and companies in order to secure the development of a sound reputation, have to try to project consistent messages. It is not easy to drastically alter a brand's reputation over a short period of time. People tend to classify brands in categories and have a specific opinion on these categories. In addition, there is always a time lag effect (Shapiro, 1983), which is expected to influence the future opinion that consumers form on the brand. The brand's current reputation will influence the prediction for its actions. Customers anticipate a brand will meet their expectations, formed by its existing reputation. In this respect, the market expects consistency from the brand, both in terms of its projected identity and the support of this identity. Mixed signaling (saying one thing and doing another) damages reputation. Customers will not perceive a brand as reliable and credible when it does not deliver what it promises (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995). 3. Brand relationships The early academic relationship marketing literature did not clearly recognize the role of brands as relationship builders, since it was arguing that brands are primarily transaction facilitators (Grönroos, 1996; Coviello and Brondie, 2001; Coviello et al., 2002). The literature at the time was suggesting that producers have to decide on the emphasis given to the brand element and the relationship element when positioning their offerings, choosing from a continuum of low-high emphasis for both elements (Palmer, 1996). However, popular press was the first to acknowledge the view that consumers develop relationships with brands and latter the dominant view in the academic literature accepted it. The researchers recognize that the brand relationship is some sort of bond (financial, physical or emotional) that brings the brand seller and buyer together (Schultz and Schultz, 2004) and that brands are entities having their own personality, which the customer can relate to (i.e. Blackston,1992, 1993; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Blackston, 2000; Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Buyers also develop

315

relationships with the product, the object (Saren and Tzokas, 1998; Lye, 2002) or with the service (Dall'Olmo Riley and de Chernatony, 2000) and their knowledge and feelings about the brand, influences their evaluation of the products carrying this brand (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Dacin and Smith,1994; Brawn and Dacin,1997). Other product or service attributes can make the brand–consumer relationship stronger or weaker, as—for example—the music played in a certain retail outlet (Beverland et al., 2006). It is now acknowledged that consumers create bonds with specific brands, objects or firms (Daskou and Hart, 2002; Thomson et al., 2005) to the extent that even store loyal consumers tend to switch stores as much as the non-store loyal (opportunist) consumers when they cannot find the product brand they require (Verbeke et al., 1998). Companies have realized the potential of relationships with consumers and often develop relevant customer relationship strategies in an attempt to develop an actively linked consumer base (Rowley and Haynes, 2005). Relationship marketing in the consumer product context consists of the management of a network of relationships between a brand and its customers (Ambler, 1997). Although some consumers might be unwilling to accept that they form a relationship with brands when it is described in these terms (Bengtsson, 2003), the literature suggests that a brand can be treated as “an active contributing partner in a dyadic relationship that exists between the person and the brand” (Fournier, 1995). Recent research findings support that the positive brand and personal interaction are central to the building of successful brand relationships (O'Loughlin et al., 2004). For the brand to transform to a legitimate relationship partner, it has to surpass the personification qualification stage and behave as an active contributing member of the dyad (Fournier, 1998; Berry, 2000). It is important for consumers to feel that brands have positive behavior and attitudes towards them (Blackston, 1992, 1993). People want to deal with companies they see as innovative, ambitious, ingenious and hardworking (Blackston, 1993) and they expect emotional benefits from the brands they are purchasing (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Research suggests that the perceived personality of brands can influence the strength of the relationship consumers form with these brands over time (Aaker et al., 2004). It is also been proven that when consumers feel a brand has the desired attitude towards the issues they perceive as important to their system of values, they tend to support and buy it (Kates, 2000). According to the literature, such relationships exist in various contexts. It is evident, especially in well-defined groups of consumers and sub-cultures. For example, gay men develop specific relationships with their brands. They identify with some local retail businesses (community members), they have positive emotions and reciprocity towards some brands (political allies), while they have a negative relationship with other brands (political enemies) (Kates, 2000). It has also been suggested that even children develop relationships with brands and the connections with brands are developing strong links between middle childhood and early adolescence (Chaplin and John, 2005) and that childhood memories influence the manner in which they relate to brands for life (Braun-La Tour et al., 2007). The brand–consumer relationship might take a number of forms, depending on the personality of consumers and the manner in which these individuals develop relationships (Fournier, 1998). They describe them as being in a point in a continuum, having as extremes the lowerorder relationships and in the other the higher-order (loyal) relationships. Researchers identify five potential stages in the friendship, from potential friends (brand trying), casual friends (brand liking), close friends (multi-brand resurgent loyalty), best friends (brand loyalty) and crucial friends (brand addiction) (Fajer and Schouten, 1995). A more detailed study of the consumer’s perspective identifies at least fifteen forms of relationship and their labels vary from an arranged marriage, many types of friendships to enslavement, resulting in relationships with different qualities (Fournier, 1998; Sweeney and Chew, 2002). The

316


association can be voluntary versus imposed, long term versus short term, public versus private, formal versus informal and symmetric versus asymmetric forming different types of relationships (Fournier, 1998). It can grow to a level where consumers may form a passionate emotional attachment to brands, that some characterize brand love (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Brands are lovemarks that consumers are; committed to, feel empathy and passion for as they love and respect them (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). As in every relationship, the relationship with brands can reach an end and its termination and the dissolution of the person–brand relationship is examined (Fajer and Schouten, 1995). Customers may form attachments with more than one brand in the same category (Fournier and Yao, 1997), as long as they are familiar with them. As in the case for human relationships, bonds exist only with known brands. Forward looking marketers and research agencies acknowledge the importance of this approach and incorporate relationship based ideas such as trust and bonds with brand management (Esch et al., 2006). 4. Brands and tribal behavior Clearly, there is an interrelationship between brands and consumers (Jevons et al., 2005). Symbols and signs are constantly changing in a bricolage-manner to fit each specific situation. Thus, in a sense, consumption becomes production (Christensen et al., 2005). Any admirer that has a relationship with other admirers of a specific brand is a member of a brand community. There are brand communities that are very formal and structured and others that are informal and loose, brand tribes. In certain occasions brand communities may take greater control over the association that characterizes the brand rather than the brand team (Muninz and O'Guinn, 2001), to the extent that some discuss brand hijack (Wathieu et al., 2002; Cova and Pace, 2006). For example, when loyal consumers of Crown Pilot crackers discovered that Nabisco had ceased production of their beloved product, citizen lobbying began to pressure the corporation to reverse its decision. This consumer grassroots campaign is an embodiment of a “new social movement”. While the passion of campaign organizers and consumers for the cracker was of paramount importance, the analysis also shed light on a complex interplay of factors that coalesced, saving this product from extinction (Hart et al., 2001). Consumers supporting the Apple Newton when it was discontinued (Muniz and Schau, 2005), as well as “Classic Coke” when Coca Cola attempted to introduce the New Coke in 1985 (Harley, 1998), to the extent that companies were forced to bring discontinued products back on the market, are other examples of the same behavior. The use of new communication technologies has helped create, sustain and enhance the lobby efforts. The recent academic literature theorizes consumer agency (Kozinets et al., 2004) discuss how consumers and producers negotiate consumption, when the exchange mutually serves their respective interests. Powerful agents determine who takes access and has considerable influence over what constitutes effective co-production. These are critical social spaces in which consumer tribes play an important role. Consumer desire is a passion, born within the consumption process. Consumers may develop imagination of and cravings for consumer goods and services not yet launched on the market. Some of these products may seem to promise a magical measuring of life. Belk et al., (2003) analyze the “Fire of Desire” through a multisited inquiry into consumer passion. The consumption and emotion in the light of new intersections with sociological issues of embodiment and study's emotions (Boden and Williams, 2002). A variety of themes and issues are raised: the persistence of mind/body, reason/emotion dualities in the consumption literature, the importance of ‘disappointment’ in consumer culture, external factors which mediate the consumption experience, and finally the interpretation of both Romanticism and romantic, interpersonal relationships. It analyzes a largely disembodied and socially disembedded account of consumption and emotion. In making these claims, they highlight the need for a ‘passionate’ sociology,

which would in turn integrate embodiment and emotions more fully into the consumption agenda. Speculation about the linkages between consumer products, consumption-related attitudes, and subjective well-being is prominent in the social sciences. Oropesa (1995) examines whether the accumulation and anticipated accumulation of different types of consumer goods foster subjective well-being, whether accumulation and anticipated accumulation explained the well-established relationship between income and subjective well-being and whether passions for the new were positively or negatively related to subjective well-being. Although some results indicate that the heavy theoretical emphasis on the importance of consumer markets for subjective well-being and the income–subjective well-being relationship was overdrawn, others provided weak support for a market-centric perspective that emphasizes the positive consequences of accumulating different types of consumer goods. Different types of consumer goods fill different niches in individuals’ lives as they age. Lastly, the passion for new experiences in the marketplace and subjective wellbeing have a positive link. It is in the context of a postmodern society—and by opposition to modern theories which conceived the society as joint social and professional groups, categories and classes—emerges a network of societal micro-groups (tribes) in which individuals share strong emotional links, a common sub-culture and a vision of life. The impulse to join others is universal and natural because we want to belong (McGeeCooper, 2005). The word “tribe” refers to the re-emergence of quasiarchaic values: a local sense of identification, religiousness, syncretism, group narcissism (Cova, 1997). Postmodern communities are inherently unstable, small-scale, and not fixed by any of the established parameters of modern society (Maffesoli, 1996). In contrast to a market segment, a tribe is a network of heterogeneous persons, in terms of gender, age, sex and income, who have a link because of a shared passion or emotion. Its members are not just consumers but also advocates. From a modernist mechanist perspective, neo-tribes no longer fit into predefined categories, which makes their behavior predictable (Cova, 1997). Tribes differ from psychographic segments in their short life span and diversity, diverging from reference groups because they do not focus on the normative influences of the group nor do individual group members focus on each other (Cova and Cova, 2002). Although conveying the same characteristics as an “ethnic group”, tribes are of a smaller scale; however, still greater than that of a clan. Postmodern consumers use products and brands for their own purposes as well as a medium to help them define themselves and express their identities within society (Lannon, 1995). They develop relationships between themselves, the brand, the firm, other consumers and the product in use (McAlexander et al., 2002). They seek satisfaction through emotions shared with others, through being with them, not through consuming with them (Cova, 1997). The groups of consumers created around one brand are the brand tribes or brand communities (Cova and Pace, 2006) but some others seem to call them sub-cultures of consumption (Fournier, 1998; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Schouten and McAlexander, 2005). The difference between the meaning of these terms as used in the literature is not is not always clear. A brand community is a community of individuals formed on the bases of emotional attachment to a product or a brand (Muninz and O'Guinn, 1995, 2001). There is a strong connection between brand, individual identity and culture. Therefore, and more precisely, a brand community is as an enduring, self selected group of consumers, sharing a system of values, standards and representations, who accept and recognize bonds of membership with each other and with the whole. The members of the community have some degree of awareness that they belong to the group and a sense of obligation towards to the brand community (Muninz and O'Guinn, 2001) and they influence each other (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Some suggest that sub-cultural groups based on ethnic origin can form brand communities (Quinn and Devasagayam, 2005). Brand communities are forming not only in the on line environment or for luxury brands but for all types of brand,


even for fast moving consumer good products (Cova and Pace, 2006). Because of the power brand communities have over the brand, managers often try to create brand communities or to influence their members (Cova and Cova, 2002). Today consumers base their choices more on symbolic attributes. The degree of trust the consumers feel towards the brand, rather than assessment of its features and benefits, will determine which brand they will select. Tribalism can also be focused on “making and living together” applied in a collaborative and participatory sense. We are witnessing an attempt to refuge the symbiosis of communities and commerce (Cova and Cova, 2001). Tribal brands evolve around products with similar values. They are the emotional result of personalization. The process of creating a tribal brand incorporates thousands of social interactions amongst customers with various facets of their preferred brand, taking an extended link of time to attain a socialized expression that constitutes a tribal brand (Moutinho et al., 2007). To succeed in the era of trust networks, consumers have to think differently about brand-voice expression. A tribal brand is a consequence of socialized expressions. Individuals can belong to more than one neo-tribe. During their existence tribes convey signs, visible and invisible, with which members identify: moments and locals where members come together for cult rituals that are part of that collective imagery. In a tribe totally devoted to its passion, members are ready to sacrifice time and money (Badot and Cova, 2003). 5. Hypotheses development The brand image plays a key role in the development of brand relationships (Esch et al., 2006). When the new active, knowledgeable and demanding consumer is analyzed, it has been proven that the product/service perceptions could influence the consumer relationship quality (Stuart-Menteth et al., 2006) The two constructs have been examined together in other studies, but their direct relationship has not always been investigated (i.e. Veloutsou, 2006). However, researchers recognize that consumers tend to be more loyal to brands they have a good attitude towards. Brand reputation seems to be one of the antecedents of brand loyalty (Chaudhuri, 1999; Gounaris and Stathakopoulos, 2004). Given these related findings and the lack of research in this area, the hypothesis is that: H1. The more positive the brand reputation, the stronger the relationship with the Brand. Consumers share stories about brands, as powerful word-of-mouth communications from influential or inspirational consumers passing virally around communities (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Even early research suggests that other members of the social network they belong to influences individuals. For example, an exploratory study on, if and how informal social groups influence the brand preferences of their members (Stafford, 1966) suggests that such groups and the informal leader, rather than to the cohesiveness of the group, influence consumers. The way reference groups may influence other consumers is not independent from to the profile of the individuals, such as housewives and students (Park et al., 1977). Other studies further supported these findings (i.e. Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Childers and Rao, 1992). For example, in an examination of differences in perceptions of reference group influence on 16 product and brand decisions, differences in reference group influence between publicly and privately consumed products and luxuries and necessities are evident (Bearden and Etzel, 1982). In a replication of this study in the US and Thailand, and after introducing the influence of the family and inter-generational influences across the two cultures, there is more evidence that differences exist is produced (Childers and Rao, 1992). Research also suggests that the preferences for Japanese-made cars are related to networks defined geographically and demographically (Yang and Allenby, 2003).

317

Recent somewhat more related research suggests that brand relationships may be the result of imagination or actual participation in brand communities (Fournier, 1998; Fournier and Yao, 1997) and that brands and their associated meanings emerge from the interactions brands have in consumers lives (Braun-La Tour et al., 2007). The degree to which a brand communicates reference group identity may influence the relationships individuals develop with this brand (Swaminathan et al., 2007). Consumers report higher brand connections for brands with images that are consistent with the image of ingroup and vice versa (Escalas and Bettman, 2005). However, past research does not investigate the effect of brand tribalism on the strength of the relationship. Therefore the hypothesis is: H2. The stronger the Brand Tribalism the stronger the Brand Relationship. Fig. 1 illustrates the research model. 6. Methodology The drafted questionnaire containing the developed statements was pilot tested with a convenience sample of twenty individuals, a mix of undergraduate and part-time MBA students in Scotland. The developed final instrument uses 5 point Likert type scales. More specifically, the final measures are as follows (see Appendix): • Long Term Brand Reputation. This study uses two constructs to measure the Long Term Brand Reputation. The first was Brand Reputation and consisted of 3 items and the second Sustainable Image and consisted of 2 items. • Brand Tribalism. There is very little, if any, research attempting to measure the strength of brand tribalism. Different studies are measuring the construct of tribal brands in different ways. Cova and Cova (2001) emphasize linking value, social interaction of the communal type and the relationships between tribal rites and capitalization of an offer at a brand image level. Other researchers, such as Moutinho et al. (2007), use a factor structure, such as brand liking, sponsor favorability, perception of fairness in sponsorship, positive convergence in sponsorship, external manifestations and accepted sponsorship. In this particular study, the features and traits that the literature suggests that describe the construct are those used to measure it. Several articles focusing on the brand tribes and tribal behavior were content analyzed. Two dimensions (research sub-constructs) are used, which comply with limited research standards of other existing studies (Reference group acceptance and Social visibility of brand with 5 and 3 items respectively). Three other dimensions were incorporated in the measurability of tribal brands. These are the Degree of fit with the individual consumer life style, the contribution that the brand makes to the emotional life of the consumer (Passion in Life) and another indirect measure of group bonding, Collective Memory, with 4, 2 and 2 items respectively. • Brand Relationship. Recently, some researchers attempted to measure brand relationships. The dimensions of the construct are under debate in the literature. Some suggest that brand relationships consist of brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand attachment

Fig. 1. The research model.

318


(Esch et al., 2006), while others from commitment, immediacy, satisfaction and self-commitment (Aaker et al., 2004), or an adapted instrument consisting only from commitment, immediacy and selfcommitment (Gaus et al., 2006). Some even attempt to measure brand relationships through the investigation of brand love (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Brand attachment is the long lasting bond between the brand and the consumer and it can be clearly distinguished from other concepts, such as brand attitudes, satisfaction and involvement (Thomson et al., 2005). The emotional dimension of the bond, including the self-connection and the immediacy, undoubtedly is a part of the relationship. However, issues such as satisfaction from, trust towards and commitment to the brand are constructs that research examined extensively in the past. It is questionable if they are components of the relationship. Some researchers, who excluded satisfaction from a previous instrument when attempting to measure the strength of brand relationships, seem to agree with this view (Gaus et al., 2006). All these constructs are either antecedents to, or the outcomes of the relationship. In most of the studies examining the strength of the relationship the dimension of communication is not integrated. However, if the approach is drawing from the paradigm of human relationships, then what is defined by social psychology as components of the relationship should be considered. Social psychology suggests that communication is an important element of the relationship (Hinde, 1979, 1981; Falk and Noonan-Warker, 1985; Hinde, 1995, 1997). Therefore, to measure the strength of the relationship this study uses two dimensions introduced by Veloutsou (2007). The first dimension is the Two-way communications and has 6 items, while the second Emotional exchange has 7 items. In the beginning of the final instrument, respondents had to opt for Coca Cola or Pepsi and then answered all questions having in mind the chosen brand. These brands were the most frequently mentioned brands during the pre-test of the instrument. The primary data collection, took place over a period of three months in Glasgow, Scotland. During the first two months, the research instrument was developed and pre-tested, while in the final month the quantitative data was collected, through a self-administrated survey. Student volunteers acted as field researchers to collect the data. They were asked to recruit non-student respondents, who would complete the questionnaire independently. This process produced completed questionnaires from 912 consumers. Given the nature of the product, there is a good mix of men and women and a reasonable representation of different age groups. The matching of the sampling descriptors in terms of age and gender with the population parameters reflects with a degree of acceptable standard deviation (approximately 2%), the demographic profile of the inhabitants of the city of Glasgow (2005 population records). This matching between achieved sample in the

Table 1 Characteristics of the sample

Gender

Age

Total

Male Female n/a −16 16–20 21–25 26–30 30–40 41–45 46–50 51–55 56–65 66+ n/a

No

%

410 503 8 36 210 378 96 39 27 60 42 18 9 6 921

44.52 54.61 0.87 3.91 22.80 41.04 10.42 4.23 2.93 6.51 4.56 1.95 0.98 0.65 100

Table 2 Accompanying reliability analysis No of items

Mean

SD

Reliability analysis

Long Term Brand Reputation Brand Reputation Sustainable Image

3 2

3.88 3.87

0.90 0.85

.84⁎ .44#

Brand tribalism Degree of fit with lifestyle Passion in Life Reference group acceptance Social visibility of brand Collective Memory

4 2 5 3 2

2.57 3.12 1.96 3.42 4.04

0.89 0.76 0.92 1.01 0.87

.83⁎ .37# .84⁎ .71⁎ .56#

Brand relationship Two-way communications Emotional exchange

6 7

2.48 2.42

0.91 0.92

.82⁎ .90⁎

⁎ Crombach Alpha. # Pearson correlation.

parent population is somewhat less effective in terms of the age brackets due to two main factors. The trained interviewers were relatively young and therefore more inclined to relate to rather young respondents, in particular because of the nature of the nonprobabilistic sampling procedure. Furthermore, the nature and subject of investigation was more prone to be readily accepted by younger people selected for the study, because the respondents chose either cars or soft drinks when completing the survey (Table 1). Prior to executing any statistical tests, certain computations were performed and the data was prepared for the rest of the analysis. All the variables of the study were essentially perceptual and therefore subject to a respondent's filtering process. Thus, Cronbach's Alpha was used to test for internal consistency. The average value reported for each of the variables was calculated and used for the various tests. In addition to the descriptive statistics, this study employs other statistical techniques. Due to the exploratory nature of this research, this study uses stepwise linear regression analysis to identify the variables predicting the dependent variables and calculates the variance inflation factor (VIF) to control the variables of multi-collinearity. 7. Results All the constructs of this study had Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients in excess of .70, or Pearson Correlations in excess of .37 (Table 2). They are internally consistent and indeed measure the same construct. To examine the interrelationships in the model, the average value of the items describing each one of the constructs under investigation is used. For most of the constructs under investigation, the correlation was significant in a .01 level (Table 3). All correlations are positive, as expected. The two constructs that are components of the Long Term Reputation have a significant correlation. All the constructs that describe the Brand Tribalism are significant correlation, with the Passion in Life

Table 3 Pearson inter-correlation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Brand Reputation Sustainable Image Degree of fit with lifestyle Passion in Life Reference group acceptance Social visibility of brand Collective Memory Two-way communications Emotional exchange ⁎ Not significant at .01 level.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.37 0.38 0.05⁎ 0.15 0.14 0.25 0.21 0.19

0.36 0.25 0.10 0.23 0.36 0.25 0.26

0.14 0.49 0.17 0.29 0.33 0.31

0.13 0.28 0.12 0.35 0.47

0.09 0.06 0.33 0.34

0.10 0.24 0.29

0.09⁎ 0.10

0.73


having the strongest link with the remaining constructs. More specifically, the Passion in Life has the strongest relationship with the Degree of fit with lifestyle, while its correlation with the Collective Memory and the Social Visibility of the Brand are also of interest. The two dimensions of Brand relationships, although they are also highly inter-correlated, although a principal component analysis with varimax rotation clearly separates them. The correlation of the two dimensions of Brand Relationship with most of the other variables is significant and between .19 and .47, with the exception of their correlation to Collective Memory, which is lower and for Two-Way Communication not significant at the .01 level. These findings indicate that there is a strong relationship between the dependant and the independent constructs. However, some of the independent variables where somewhat intercorrelated. However the degree of multi-collinearity is not problematic because all variance inflation factor (VIF) values are below 10, the benchmark suggested by Neter et al. (1990). In the regression analysis, only some of the proposed relationships were not statistically significant (Tables 4 and 5). Therefore, revised models were developed, where the links among variables not statistically significant at the .10 level were deleted using stepwise regression. Both regression analyses showed respectable explanatory power, since adjusted R2 was .25 and .33 respectively. Given that other constructs can also influence the relationships with brands, the exploratory power of the models cannot be undervalued. Tables 4 and 5 present the results of the regression analyses for Two-Way Communication and Emotional Exchange, reporting both the full and the revised model as extracted, using stepwise regression. For both dimensions of Brand Relationship, it is apparent that the best predictors are the Brand Tribalism variables, rather than the Long Term Reputation variables. The Passion in Life and the Reference Group Acceptance seem to be the most influential factors in the determination of Two-Way Communication and the Emotional Exchange, with Passion in Life having an even more significant role in the formation of Emotional Exchange. The Degree of Fit with Lifestyle, Social Visibility and Brand Reputation are also contributing to a certain extent in the formation of Brand Relationships. The Sustainable Image and the Collective Memory do not seem to have a statistically significant relationship with two dimensions of Brand Relationships at a .01 level. Even in the full model it is apparent that they do not contribute in a manner worth mentioning to the formation of Two-Way Communication or the Emotional Exchange. 8. General discussion Due to the changes in the manner companies market their brands and the tactics that actually can contribute to the long term prosperity of brands, the concept of Brand Relationship is increasingly receiving

Table 4 Two-way communication Full model st b Long Term Brand Reputation Brand Reputation 0.08 Sustainable Image 0.08

t

Revised model Tolerance VIF

2.47⁎ 0.78 2.26# 0.69

Brand tribalism Degree of fit with 0.11 2.98⁎ lifestyle Passion in Life 0.25 7.75⁎ Reference group 0.23 6.64⁎ acceptance Social visibility 0.10 3.25⁎ Collective Memory −0.06 − 1.76 Adjusted R2 .25 F 41.4⁎ ⁎ Significant at the .01 level. # Significant at the .05 level.

st b

t

Tolerance VIF

1.28 0.09 1.44

2.88⁎ 0.84

1.19

0.59

1.70 0.12

3.32⁎ 0.65

1.54

0.87 0.74

1.15 0.26 1.35 0.23

8.25⁎ 0.91 6.60⁎ 0.75

1.10 1.33

0.88 0.82

1.13 0.11 1.22

3.52⁎ 0.90

1.11

.25 56.4⁎

319

Table 5 Emotional exchange Full model st b Long Term Brand Reputation Brand Reputation 0.07 Sustainable Image 0.06

t

Revised model Tolerance VIF

2.11# 1.68

Brand Tribalism Degree of fit with 0.09 2.41# lifestyle Passion in Life 0.36 11.44⁎ Reference group 0.23 6.70⁎ acceptance Social Visibility 0.14 4.46⁎ Collective Memory − 0.03 − 0.98 Adjusted R2 F

st b

t

Tolerance VIF

0.78 0.69

1.29 0.08 1.46

2.52⁎ 0.84

1.19

0.58

1.72 0.10

2.69⁎ 0.65

1.55

0.85 0.73

1.17 0.37 12.05⁎ 0.90 1.38 0.22 6.72⁎ 0.74

1.11 1.35

4.69⁎ 0.88

1.13

0.87 0.80 .33 58.3⁎

1.15 0.14 1.25

.33 80.9⁎

⁎ Significant at the .01 level. # Significant at the .05 level.

the attention of academic researchers. On the surface brand communities resemble associations in their offers to members. Affiliations, access and forums for sharing experiences and other considered important trends. However, something else is taking place here, something that many organizations have to fully comprehend and successfully integrate in their business models. Consumers themselves, not by a centralized source generate the know-how and content in these groups. They play a new role as sources of knowledge and are potentially a new precursor of radically new ways in which they may conduct consumption and presumption exchanges in the future. Part of today’s brand success lays on the development of relationships between the brands and the consumers as well as the brand’s ownership and consumption experience in informal brand communities, or brand tribes. However the academic literature only recently examines these concepts the academic literature and the research attempting to link the two is extremely limited. This exploratory research investigates the role of long term brand reputation and brand tribalism in the development of relationships. The results of this analysis are somewhat surprising. The existing literature examining the development of relationships has established that the brand itself is important for the formation and the prosperity of relationships. However, these results suggest that brand tribalism is more important than brand reputation in the formation of relationships. This, on its own, is an interesting finding. Clearly there is an indication that the producers lose the control of the manner in which their customers see their brands. In the academic literature there was some discussion stating that brand communities are of importance and also of interest. Academics and practitioners agree that brand communities may have a very influential role in the development of the brand image. Therefore brand teams often try to find ways to influence brand communities, in an attempt to maintain the control of their brand in an indirect manner. However, the results of this research highlight the importance of customer groups and the interaction between brand fans. The foreseen trend could mean that in the future the producers will be facing a challenge, as they will be offering brands that will develop their own character, over which the actual producer will have limited control. Although one would expect that this trend will be more profound in products and brands that consumers will be more involved with, this could be a start of a new era for brand management. Given that the effectiveness of the traditional brand support methods, such as mass communication, constantly drops, brand teams might need to find new innovative ways to keep some control over the reputation of their brands, through brand communities. Even very creative brand identities could be negatively affected, since the relationship consumers build

320


with brands are far more influenced by other consumers, that consume the brand, rather than what producers actually propose as characteristics of their brand. This could be an indication of reduced confidence in producers from the part of consumers, or it may be a trend that today consuming and sharing the experience with others is becoming increasingly important. Practicing managers will benefit from some implied assumptions that this study offers. A certain antecedent, the Passion in Life attribute, triggers the degree of fit with specific consumers’ lifestyles and the brand itself. The same perceived brand features influence consumers; Collective Memory of consumers, which many reflect a reference group cohesion. Furthermore, the contribution of the brand to the improvement of consumers’ lives and their sense of emotional authenticity enhances the Social Visibility of the Brand name. It is clear that brand relationships can become more sustainable when they are “bottom-up” tribal brands. The perceived contribution of the brand to consumers, as well as their own acceptance of a particular reference group membership, will help in the development of true emotional exchange and true two-way communication between brands and consumers Although, as expected, factors such as the Degree of Fit with consumer lifestyles, the Social Visibility of the Brand and the Brand Reputation itself all have an impact on the formation of brand relationships, the effective contribution of the brand to ameliorate consumer lives (Passion in Life) has a dominant role in the formation of an Emotional Exchange with the brand. Passion in Life can greatly enhance the consumption experience and brand communities increasingly play a vital role in shaping the shift from “matter to mind” in consumption. It is evident from this study that Brand Tribalism is becoming a more prominent element to be taken into account in marketing decision making as compared to just brand reputation, especially when forming true and sustainable relationships with consumers. Consumers are showing reduced confidence in terms of trusting brands and wish to engage in co-creation of value. 9. Limitations and further research This study has certain shortcomings. Although the data was collected in a big city, the geographic area was limited. The sampling procedure was not probabilistic, with no quota. A great proportion of the respondents are younger consumers, who might have different behavior than older consumers. However, this is acceptable due to the type of product. The nature of the examined community is not formal. The degree of affiliation with the community was decided on the extent in which respondents identified with community features. It can also be argues that they were demonstrating some degree of tribal behavior. The respondents were forced to choose between two brands, as supposed to spontaneous choice of a brand to which they feel they are more affiliated. Furthermore, students collected the data and this could have influenced the results. This research identifies issues that merit further investigation. It would be valuable to additionally examine the role of brand tribalism in the development of brand relationships. The findings of this research could be context specific. Future research should also examine the role brand tribes play in the acceptance of brand decisions or on constructs like brand loyalty. Other studies could use other statistical analysis methods, possibly neural networks typology. Appendix A Long Term Brand Reputation

Sustainable Image • This brand has a long lasting nature • In the past, today and in the future, the values behind this brand will not change Brand Tribalism Degree of fit with lifestyle • • • •

This brand is right for me Using this brand does something good for me This brand fits my image This brand is related to the way I perceive life Passion in Life

• This brand makes a contribution in life • There is something about this brand that goes beyond its tangible characteristics Reference group acceptance • I would buy this brand because I am sure that my friends approve of it • I am very loyal to this brand because my friends also use it • My friends buy this brand and I buy it too just because I want to be like them • I achieve a sense of belonging by buying the same brand my friends buy • I often discuss with friends about this brand Social Visibility of Brand • Wherever I go, this brand is present • I know of many people who own/use this brand • I know that people feel good about this brand Collective Memory • When my friends buy this product they consider this purchase • When my friends buy this product they choose this brand Brand Relationship Two Way Communications • • • • • •

I want to be informed about this brand I am more willing to learn news about this brand than other brands I listen with interest to information about this brand If leaflets are sent to me from this brand, I get annoyed I will be willing to be informed about this brand in the future I am willing to give feedback to the manufacturer of this brand Emotional Exchange

• • • • • • •

This brand means more to me than other brands I care about the developments relevant to this brand This brand and I complement each other I feel comfortable with this brand This brand is like a person with whom I am close to Both this brand of cola and I benefit from our link Over time this brand becomes more important to me

Brand Reputation References • This brand is trustworthy • This brand is reputable • This brand makes honest claims

Aaker D, Keller KL. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. J Mark 1990;54:27–41 (January). Aaker J, Fournier S, Brasel A. When good brands do bad. J Consum Res 2004;31:1–16 (June).

C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322 Algesheimer R, Dholakia U, Herrmann A. The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs. J Mark 2005;69:19–34 (July). Ambler T. Building brand relationships. Financial Times Mastering Management. Pitman Publishing; 1997. p. 175–83. Badot O, Cova B. Néo-marketing. 10 ans après: pour une théorie critique de la consommation et du marketing réenchantés. Rev Franç Mark 2003;195(5/5):79–94. Bearden William O, Etzel Michael J. Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. J Consum Res 1982;9:183–94 (September). Belk Russell, Ger Guliz, Askegaard Sören. The fire of desire: a multisited inquiry into consumer passion. J Consum Res 2003;30(3):326–51. Bengtsson A. Towards a critique of brand relationships. Adv Consum Res 2003(30):54–158. Berry LL. Cultivating service brand equity. J Acad Mark Sci 2000;28(1):128–37 Winter. Beverland M, Lim EAC, Morrison M, Terziovski M. In-store music and consumer–brand relationships: rational transformation following experiences of (mis)fit. J Bus Res 2006;59:982–9. Blackston M. A brand with an attitude: a suitable case for treatment. J Mark Res Soc 1992;34(3):231–41. Blackston M. Beyond brand personality: building brand equity. In: Aaker D, editor. Brand equity and advertising. Lawrence Erlabaum Associates; 1993. p. 113–24. Blackston M. Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand's relationships. J Advert Res 2000:101–5 (November/December). Boden Sharon, Williams Simon J. Consumption and emotion: the romantic ethic revisited. Sociology 2002;36(3):493–512. Braun-La Tour KA, La Tour MS, Zinkhan GM. Using childhood memories to gain insight into brand meaning. J Mark 2007;71:45–60 (April). Brown T, Dacin P. The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. J Mark 1997;61:68–84 (January). Carroll B, Ahuvia A. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark Lett 2006;17:79–89. Chaplin LN, John DR. The development of self-brand connections in children and adolescents. J Consum Res 2005;32:119–29 (June). Chaudhuri A. The relationship of brand attitudes and brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. J Mark Manag 1999:1–9 (Winter). Childers Terry L, Rao Akshay R. The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. J Consum Res 1992;19(2):198–211 (September). Christensen L, Firat FA, Thoger TS. Integrated marketing communication and postmodernity: an odd couple? Corp Commun: An Int J 2005;10(2):156–67. Christy R, Oliver G, Penn J. Relationship marketing in consumer markets. J Mark Manag 1996;12:175–87. Cova B, Cova V. Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing. Euro J Mark 2002;36(5/6):595–620. Cova B, Cova V. Tribal aspects of postmodern consumption research: the case of French in-line roller skates. J Consum Behav 2001;1(1):67–76. Cova B, Pace S. Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowerment—the case ‘my Nutella is Community’. Euro J Mark 2006;40:1087–105. Cova B. Community and consumption. Towards a definition of the linking value of product and services. Euro J Mark 1997;31(3/4):297–316. Cova B. From marketing to societing: when the link is more important than the thing. In: Brownlie Douglas, et al, editor. Rethinking Marketing. London: Sage; 1999. p. 64–83. Coviello N, Brondie R. From transaction to relationship marketing: an investigation of managerial perceptions and practices. J Strat Mark 1998;6:176–86. Coviello N, Brondie R. Contemporary marketing practices of consumer and business-tobusiness firms: how different are they? J Bus Indus Mark 2001;16:382–400. Coviello N, Brondie R, Danaher P, Johnston W. How firms relate to their markets: an empirical investigation of contemporary marketing practices. J Mark 2002;66:33–46 (July). Dacin P, Smith D. The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. J Mark Res 1994;XXXI:229–42 (May). Dall'Olmo Riley F, de Chernatony L. The service brand as a relationship builder. Br J Manag 2000;11:137–50. Daskou S, Hart S. The essence of business to consumer relationships: a phenomenological approach. The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing; 2002. p. 499–515. Elliot R. Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. In: Brownlie Douglas, Saren Mike, Wensley Robin, Whittington Richard, editors. Rethinking marketing. London: Sage; 1999. p. 112–25. Escalas JE, Bettman J. Self-construal. reference groups and brand meaning. J Consum Res 2005;32:378–89 (December). Esch FR, Langner T, Schmitt B, Geus P. Are brands forever? How knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. J Prod Brand Manag 2006;15(2):98–105. Fajer M, Schouten J. Breakdown and dissolution of person–brand relationships. Adv Consum Res 1995;22:663–7. Falk D, Noonan-Warker P. Intimacy of self-disclosure and response processes as factors affecting the development of interpersonal relationships. J Soc Psychol 1985;125 (5):557–70. Firat FA, Schultz II CJ. From segmentation to fragmentation—markets and marketing strategy in the postmodern era. Euro J Mark 1997;31(3/4):183–207. Fombrun CJ, Rindova V. The road to transparency: reputation. Management at Royal Dutch/ Shell. In: Schultz M, Hatch MJ, Larsen MH, editors. The expressive organization, vol. 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 7–96. Fournier S, Yao J. Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the framework of consumer–brand relationships. Int J Res Mark 1997;14:451–72. Fournier S. The brand as relationship partner: an alternative view of brand personality. Adv Consum Res 1995;22:393. Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J Consum Res 1998;24:343–73 (March).

321

Gaus H, Weißgerber A, Zanger C. Brand relationships and consumer reaction to negative media information. 35th European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC); 2006. p. 23–6. May. Athens. Greece. Gounaris S, Stathakopoulos V. Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: an empirical study. J Brand Manag 2004;11(4):283–306. Grönroos C. Relationship marketing: strategic and tactical implications. Manag Decis 1996;34(3):5–14. Gummesson E. Making relationship marketing operational. Int J Ser Mark 1994;5 (5):5–20. Harley R. Coca-Cola's classic blunder: the failure of marketing research. Marketing Mistakes. 7th edition. Wiley; 1998. p. 160–76. Hart Joy L, Stuart Esrock, D’Silva Margaret U, Werking Kathy J. David and Goliath revisited: grassroots consumer campaign battles a corporate giant. Amer Commun J 2001;4(3):1–20 (Spring). Herbig P, Milewicz J. The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success. J Consum Mark 1995;12(4):4–10. Hinde RA. Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press; 1979. Hinde RA. The bases of a science on interpersonal relationships. In: Duck S, Gilmour R, editors. Personal relationships 1: studying personal relationships. Academic Press; 1981. p. 1–22. Hinde RA. A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Person Relat 1995;2:1–15 (March). Hinde RA. Relationships: a dialectical perspective. UK: Psychology Press; 1997. Jevons C, Cabbott M, de Chernatony L. Customer and brand managers perspectives on brand relationships: a conceptual framework. J Prod Brand Manag 2005;14(5):300–9. Johnston AR, Thomson M. Are consumer relationships different? Adv Consum Res 2003 (30):350–1. Kates S. Out of the closet and out on the street: gay men and their brand relationships. Psychol Mark 2000;17:493–513 (June). Kozinets RV, Sherry JF, Storm D, Duhachek A, Nuttavuthisit K, Deberry-Spence B. Ludic Agency and retail spectacle. J Consum Res 2004;31(3):658–72 December. Lannon J. Mosaics of meaning: anthropology and marketing. J Brand Manag 1995;2 (3):166–8. Lye A. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water: integrating relational and the 4P's concepts of marketing. The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing; 2002. p. 223–33. Maffesoli M. The time of the tribes. Thousands Oaks and New Delhi. London: Sage; 1996. McAlexander J, Schouten J, Koenig H. Building brand community. J Mark 2002;66:38–54 (January). McGee-Cooper A. Tribalism: culture wars at work. J Qual Partic Cinc 2005;28(1):12–5 (Spring). Milewicz J, Herbig P. Evaluating the brand extension decision using a model of reputation building. J Prod Brand Manag 1994;3(1):39–47. Moutinho L, Dionísio P, Leal C. Surf tribal behaviour: a sports marketing application. Mark Intell Plann 2007;25(7):668–90. Muninz A, O'Guinn T. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 2001;27:412–32 (March). Muninz A, O'Guinn T. Brand community and the sociology of brands. In: Corfman Kim P, Lynch John G, editors. Advances in consumer research, vol. 23. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research; 1995. p. 265–6. Muniz A, Schau HJ. Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand community. J Consum Res 2005;31:737–47 (March). Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner M. Applied linear statistical models. 3rd edition. Boston: Irwin; 1990. O'Laughlin D, Szmigin I, Turnbull P. From relationships to experiences in retail financial services. Int J Bank Mark 2004;22(7):522–40. O'Malley L, Tynan C. The utility of the relationship metaphor in consumer markets: a critical evaluation. Journal of Marketing Management 1999;15:587–602. O'Malley L, Tynan C. Relationship marketing in consumer markets: rhetoric or reality? Euro J Mark 2000;34(7):797–815. Oropesa RS. Consumer possessions, consumer passions, and subjective well-being. Sociol Forum 1995;10(2):215–44 (June). Palmer A. Integrating brand development and relationship marketing. J Retail Consum Ser 1996;3(4):251–7. Park C, Whan V, Lessig P. Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. J Consum Res 1977;4(2):102–10 (September). Park C, Jaworski B, MacInnis D. Strategic brand concept-image management. J Mark 1986;50:135–45 (October). Pawle J, Cooper P. Measuring emotion-lovemarks. the future beyond brands. J Advert 2006:38–48 (March). Quinn M, Devasagayam R. Building brand community among ethnic diaspora in the USA: strategic implications for marketers. Brand Manag 2005;13(2):101–14. Rook D. The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. J Consum Res 1985;12(3):251–64. Rowley J, Haynes L. Customer relationship management: the Matalan way. Mark Rev 2005;5:175–87. Saren M, Tzokas N. The nature of the product in market relationships: a plury-signified product concept. J Mark Manag 1998;14:445–64. Schouten J, McAlexander J. Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers. J Consum Res 2005;12:43–61 (June). Schultz D, Schultz H. Brand babble: sense and nonsense about branding. Thomson; 2004. Shapiro C. Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Quart J Econ 1983;98:659–79 (November). Sheth J, Parvatiyar A. The evolution of relationship marketing. Int Bus Rev 1995;4 (4):397–417. Stafford James E. Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences. J Mark Res 1966;3(1):68–75 (February).

322


Stuart-Menteth H, Wilson H, Baker S. Escaping the channel silo: researching the new consumer. Mark Res Soc 2006;48(4):415–97. Swaminathan V, Page KL, Gürgan-Canli Z. ‘My’ brand or ‘our’ brand: the effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. J Consum Res 2007;34:248–58 (August). Sweeney J, Chew M. Understanding consumer–service brand relationship: a case study approach. Austral Mark J 2002;10(2):26–43. Thomson M, MacInnis D, Park W. The ties that bind: measuring the strength of customers' attachment to brands. J Consum Psychol 2005;15(1):77–91. Veloutsou C. Identifying the dimensions of the product-brand and consumer relationship. J Mark Manag 2007;23(1/2):7–26.

Veloutsou C. The role of the overall evaluation of brands and brand relationship in the development of loyalty. 35th European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC). Greece: Athens; 2006. p. 23–6. May. Verbeke W, Farris P, Thurik R. Consumer response to the preferred brand out-of-stock situation. Euro J Mark 1998;32(10/11):1008–28. Wathieu L, Brenner L, Carmon Z, Chattopadhyay A, Wertenbroch K, Drolet A, et al. Consumer control and empowerment: a primer. Mark Lett 2002;13(3):297–305. Yang Sha, Allenby Greg M. Modeling interdependent consumer preferences. J Mark Res 2003;40(3):282–94 (August).