Consumer Brand Relationships - Literature review Example

?Consumer Brand Relationships Research Question Do s actually have the same kind of close associations with their favourite brands as they would with family members? In addition, do they display the same commitment processes they would if they were in a human relationship? Abstract Most brands today have a number of qualities connected with them that appear to give them human personalities that are likely to be viewed as being attractive by consumers. Successful brands always give more than the guarantee of providing valuable goods and services. They also proffer companionship to their consumers. In return, their devoted consumers frequently view their brands as being fun, stirring, inspirational, intelligent, consistent, caring, innovative, and confident. Such human characteristics generate feelings of sympathy as well as long standing relationships with the brand. Brands that appear to contain positive human characteristics constantly win over other brands that are depicted as merely being products and not anything more. Introduction The characterisation of a brand as having human qualities was started in the eighties. It can be viewed from two different perspectives. The first approach involves portraying the manufactured good as if it were a person, signifying that the brand has a distinctive persona of its own. Examples of brands that have been created to appeal to the public through this approach include Betty Crocker and ‘the Kodak Kolorkins’ (Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence, 2008). The second approach has to do with linking the customer’s character with the brand’s image. This is well demonstrated by Calvin Klein jeans’ logo "express your individuality" or the use of fantasies, fulfilled dreams, and aspirations to advertise perfumes. Fig. 1 - The Basic consumer–brand relationship model (Huber, Vollhardt, Matthes and Vogel, 2010) Connecting brand image to human character is basically the act of instinctively engaging potential consumers on many grounds. Both approaches to creating brand image described above are multidimensional; seem to function on the level of abstraction. A lot of consumer theorists are of the opinion that buyers’ behaviours are reliant on the relations between a commodity’s personality and the buyer's self concept (Bell, 2005). In this framework the definitional association is also pertinent. Linking human personality with brand image is not, though, an easy undertaking. The difficulty that psychologists face in determining and assessing personality equally becomes an issue for people who study the art of brand imaging (Bradley, 2010). It is not unusual, therefore, that those who identify brand image by alluding to human personality do not try to identify the latter concept in any more comprehensive way. They just suggest that goods possess behavioural images, or they centre in on some markedly human factor like age, gender or social caste (Batra, Ahuvia and Bagozzi, 2008). Fig. 2 - The determinants of customer-brand relationships (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2010) Brand Relationships Brand relationship, an alleged interpersonal connection in a branding framework, assumes that brands and customers are able to have a special connection through a shared communication system. Still, some critics have stated that a brand relationship cannot really be said to reflect an interpersonal association because of the fact that the key components in interpersonal relationships like interdependence and intimacy are lacking. Even though research has in the past revealed that consciousness actually decides how people perform their daily duties, evidence shows that behaviour can actually be in accordance with the pursuit of individual objectives where cognisance is induced (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). However, the function of human consciousness is not always obvious a consumer and brand relationship situation. This suggests that the lack of consciousness can actually stop people from value their relations in a suitable manner. For example, the related members of a nuclear family typically take their relationships with each other for granted. Owing to this “taken-for-granted-ness”, the tie between brothers and sisters may not be noticeable (Chang and Chieng, 2006). Brand relationships actually demonstrate characteristics that are identical to the interpersonal relationships in such nuclear families when the brand relations are in a passive pose. Most customers take brand relationships for granted in this manner without even being aware that they are doing this. Thus, most customers are incapable of perceiving the significance that their favourite brands in their lives. Alternatively, if the level of relationship-consciousness can be augmented, the effect of taking the value of brands for granted can be diluted. When customers, as a part of the two-way relationship, no longer ignore the importance of brands, their responsiveness to the value of brand relationship quality will get better. Past studies that focused on interpersonal relationships tried to categorise the key determinants of the permanence of close human associations and their underlying processes (Churchill and Brown, 2010). Interpersonal relationships once initiated, tend to stabilise when the two parties become extremely intimate. According to the investment model of personal relationships (Cooper, 2010), when people become deeply dependent on their relationships, they usually experience a deep level of satisfaction, stop looking for other relationships of an intimate nature, and invest ever more deeply in their present relationship. In consumer and brand relationships, commitment stands for a long-term orientation towards the future use of the product and denotes the presence of a psychological attachment to the product. In consumer-brand relationships, commitment is s fundamental determinant of the stability of the relationship. In addition, the investment model asserts that, when a relationship attains the satisfaction level, it will probably be sustained at that level. Commitment consistently endorses persistence in such a relationship. There is considerable statistical evidence of this fact that was established in previous researches that had to do with interpersonal relationships. Besides, commitment also supports the purported pro-relationship behaviours. Where brands are concerned, commitment on the part of consumers supports their readiness to sacrifice their tastes for other brands so that they can sustain the relationship with their favourite brand (Fullerton, 2005). Additionally, commitment encourages the creation of accommodative characteristics to remain contained instead of retaliating when a partner exhibits destructive behaviours. Thus, even though a partner’s behaviour may grow harmful and is uncalled-for, the individual who is part of a satisfying relationship will show a high level of submission, and respond by being constructive. For example, a research study detailed by (Johnson, Herrmann and Huber, 2006) established that students who were more contented with their relationships were more likely to show attributes such as loyalty when their relationship experienced hard times than those in relationships that were less satisfying. The commitment processes that take place between most brands and their consumers are for the most part motivational. However, commitment also shapes cognitive processes thereby generating biases like positive illusion or propensities toward extremely favourable estimations of the relationship with the brand or the brand itself. This cognitive outlook seeks to affirm that on-going and interpersonal relationships come from cognitive processes that take place around self-partner systems. In particular, relational schemas frequently result in top-down systems in new instances thereby forming interpretation biases, as well as credits that cast the brand’s behaviour in a negative or positive light depending on the value of the relationship. For example, a research detailed by (Malhotra, 2010) showed that people’s impressions of their romantic partners were more a reflection of their self-images and standards than an indication of the actual attributes of their partners. These impressions were for the most part more affirmative than the impressions that their partners had about themselves. This is an example of positive illusion. Recent research has shown that most individuals alter their objectives when different ‘priming’ occurs. This can take place even when a person is not consciously aware of it (Martensen and Gronholdt, 2010). Evidence shows that personal choices are influenced, 5% of the time, by a person’s consciousness (Peter and Olson, 2008). This means that even without being fully consciousness, people can still perform productively realise complex goals, like those that are connected to self-identity (Power, Whelan and Davies, 2008). However, where consciousness is called to mind, individual behaviour becomes more in accordance with the pursuit of the person’s objectives; hence increasing the chances of attaining success in accomplishing these goals (Proctor, 2005). The ‘taken-for-grantedness’ effect that exists in brand-consumer relationships show that most people hardly ever realise how significant the relationship is until something takes place to remind them of the significance of the relationship importance. For example, in relationships between members of a nuclear family, the strength of relationships will not be realised until there is some kind of crisis such as an illness. In times of crisis, the relationships in family units are intensified, actualised, strengthened, and enriched (Fournier, 1998). In the same way, a brand relationship is usually taken for granted. Brands support customers in their life in an understated way particularly where low involvement brands like kitchen appliances are concerned (Solomon, Bamossy, Askegaard and Hogg, 2010; Schiffman and Kanuk 2010). Owing to the existence of consumers’ loss of sight of their brand’s values in their lives, past researches have established a steadily low average score on the consumers’ perception of the quality of their relationships with their favoured brands (Thomson, 2006). Still, if the brand relationship is similar to an interpersonal relationship, its quality would be improved in the eyes of its consumers when they are reminded of the brand relationship consciousness. In brand communities, consumers are mainly concerned with having a strong connection with their favourite brand (Thomson, MacInnis and Park, 2005). Brand communities make sure that consumers make lasting investments to their favourite brands. Brand communities are formed by positive communication through word-of-mouth among the users of a brand about the products they use (Patterson and O’Malley, 2006). It can be assumed that brand community is basically a type of sub-culture made up of customers. Consumption subcultures are basically social groups in which particular products or purchasing habits are spoken about and shared. The existence of a collective sense of “we” instead of the singular “me” contributes towards consumers wanting to be part of consumer sub cultures. This is because there is a feeling of trust and comfort that consumers experience when they are part of a collective that shares the same values. Hedonic values, in such cases, stand for the identity of the consumers; with the brand community sometimes being of more worth to consumers than even the products that spur the commitment in the first place. In essence, the connection value which is symbolic of what the manufactured commodities mean becomes more prominent than the value of the product. Connection value is descriptive of the value that is generated by the customer along with the brand and the environment in which the consumer is communicating with other consumers of like mind. This value may come from the brand itself (Fournier, 1998). In addition, the areas in which the brand sells well actually contribute towards the development of brand community consciousness that is centred on shared stories about the brand. Brand community membership comes as a result of mutually shared experiences with the brand and constitutes of much more than just the following of a particular fashion trend. The collective consciousness of a brand is mainly about the strong feelings of connection that exist between community members. In all groups of factions, members like to feel that they know each other well even though they might not even have physically met each other (Yuksel, Yuksel and Bilim, 2010). This is what makes ideas such as ‘Face Book’ so successful. In the case of brand communities, ideas such as authenticity and brand loyalty are viewed as being very important in the collective consciousness. In many cases, customs and rituals are also among the important aspects surrounding brand communities. These are usually generated by events that commemorate the brand’s history or even stories contributed by different consumers that centre on the brand. While modern label or logo may have commercial value, an older logo usually holds nostalgic value for consumers. This, most of the time, is more effective in holding customers and attracting others who wish to be counted as part of this collective than any modern logos. Conclusion In the present extremely competitive business field, singular images or one-way messages are no longer relevant in capturing and holding consumer interest. A brand’s value is connected to the relationships it creates and the social connections it inspires among consumers who purchase the service or product. The task of managing such extensive relationships that seem to cover every aspect from the production of a product to its consumption is what most marketers are occupied with. If its creators and marketers have taken care to ensure the existence of such relationships, a brand can actually stop being seen as a mere product to become a platform for the shared experiences of its consumers, thus generating more revenue. Defining a brand’s social nature means considering what consumer’s expectations about a certain brand are and how to encourage the consumers to have even loftier expectations in future. Marketers such as eBay and IKEA, for example, are some of those that are at the forefront in intentionally inducing a desire for less acquirement of phenomenal experiences with goods or even the products themselves, for more lasting and consequential varieties of fulfilment. References Albert, N., Merunka, D. & Valette-Florence, P. (2008) ‘When consumers love their brands: exploring the concept and its dimensions’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1062 – 1075. Batra, R., Ahuvia, A.C. & Bagozzi, R. (2008) Brand love: its nature and consequences., Dear-born University, Ann Arbor.  Bell, J. (2005) Doing your research project, Open University Press, Buckingham. Bradley, N. (2010) Marketing research: tools and techniques, Oxford University, Oxford. Carroll, B.A. & Ahuvia, A.C. (2006) ‘Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love’, Marketing Letters, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 79 – 89. Chang, P.L. & Chieng, M.H. (2006) ‘Building consumer-brand relationship: a cross-cultural experiential view’, Psychology and Marketing , vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 927 – 959 Churchill, G.A. & Brown, T.J. (2010) Basic marketing research: International Edition 7th edn, Cengage Learning London. Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-Analysis: a step-by-step approach, Sage, Los Angeles. Fournier, S. (1998) ‘Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24, p. 345. Fullerton, G. (2005) ‘The impact of brand loyalty commitment on loyalty to retail service brands’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 97 – 110 Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I. & Vogel, J. (2010) ‘Brand misconduct: consequences on consumer–brand relationships’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 1113–1120, Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. & Huber , F. (2006) ‘The evolution of loyalty intentions’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 122 – 132 Malhotra, N. (2010) Marketing research: an applied orientation: Global Edition, Pearson Higher Education, New York. Martensen, A. & Gronholdt, L. (2010) ‘Measuring and managing brand equity: a study with focus on product and service quality in banking’, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 300 – 316. Patterson, M. & O’Malley, L. (2006) ‘Brands, consumers, and relationships: a review’, Irish Marketing Review, vol. 18, no. 1&2, p. 15. Peter, J. & Olson, J. (2008) Consumer behaviour and marketing strategy, McGraw-Hill, New York. Power , J., Whelan, S. & Davies, G. (2008) ‘The attractiveness and connectedness of ruthless brands: the role of trust’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 42, no. 5/6, pp. 586 – 602 Proctor, T. (2005) Essentials of marketing research, Financial Times Press, London. Schiffman, L. & Kanuk, L. (2010) Consumer behavior, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. (2010) Consumer behaviour: a European perspective, Prentice Hall, Harlow. Thomson, M. (2006) ‘Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 104 – 119 Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. & Park, C.W. (2005) ‘The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachment to brands’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 77 – 91 Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F. & Bilim, Y. (2010) ‘Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty’, TourismManagement, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 274 – 284. Read More