«Jill Cooke, Jennifer Harris, University of New South Wales Abstract Interpersonal relationship theory has been used to classify types of ...»
Equality was viewed in terms of “…a good tie relationship. One that when it occurs it is a good time, but there is a commitment to make it occur regularly…” However it was also viewed in terms of the concept of exchange, referring to equality in the relationship if money is paid for the brand which may or may not exceed expectations.
Discussion and Implications This research explored Fournier’s conceptualisation when applied to exchanges in consumer markets when there is limited opportunity for interaction and there is a prevalence of low value and low involvement. Though based upon a small, reasonably homogenous sample, some insights can be gained into the relevance of the conceptualisation in this domain that merit further attention. Firstly, though the majority of respondents could classify certain relationships they had with recalled FMCG’s brands within Fournier’s framework, the majority of their brand relationships were classified using multiple brand descriptions. Thus respondents indicated that they did not perceive the relationship types to be mutually exclusive. This “blurring” of relationship types may be partly explained by a lack of understanding of the relationship types on behalf on the respondents. However, it also raises the question as to whether the framework classifies the relationships too finely (as per Sweeney and Chew, 2002).
Secondly, some respondents indicated a level of indifference to brands, being expressed as little emotional attachment and holding passive or neutral perceptions of these brands as relationship partners. These findings suggest that the idea of a brand acting as a passive or neutral relationship partner needs to be considered in the context of consumer-brand interactions at the product and brand level. Alternatively, the findings may again be explained by respondents’ failure to fully comprehend the real meaning of Fournier’s descriptors.
However given their agreement with previous research (e.g., Coupland, 2005; O’Malley and Tynan, 2000; Bengtsson, 2003), and the consequences for marketers assuming all consumers desire a relationship with brands, it would be rash to disregard these results without further investigation.
Thirdly, difficulties also arose with the dichotomous nature of the dimensions suggesting that it may be more appropriate to view each relationship dimension as a continuum rather than two extreme points. Additionally, there were indications that certain dimensions may not be appropriate in this context (FMCG). This may be a problem with the application of the typology in this domain given that consumers may be first of all reluctant to use the term ‘relationship’ to describe this interaction (Barnes, 1997). It is also possible that the homogeneity of the sample may be exacerbating this result, thus further research with a broader sample would be recommended.
This study adds to the growing amount of research that acknowledges the need for marketing practitioners to be more understanding of the different ways in which a consumer wants to engage with a brand. As previously mentioned, further research is warranted to investigate the relational dimensions as findings indicate that some of Fournier’s dimensions may be inappropriate in classifying these bonds. As interpersonal relationships have a temporal element (Hinde, 1979; Wish, Deutsch and Kaplan, 1976), a longitudinal research design to explore relationships changing over time could be a possible avenue to further extend current research in the area.
Aaker, J., 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 347-57.
Ahuvia, A., 1993. Love as a General Construct: Understanding People’s Love of Products.
unpublished dissertation, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.
Barnes, J.G., 1997. Exploring the Importance of Closeness in Customer Relationships.
American Marketing Association Conference, Dublin June, 227-38, in Egan, J, 2001.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water? Marketing intelligence & Planning 19 (6), 375Belk, R. W., 1988. Possession of the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 139Bengtsson, A., 2003. Towards a Critique of Brand Relationships. Advances in Consumer Research 30, 154-8.
Berry, L. L., 1995. Relationship Marketing of Services - Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4), 236-45.
Blackston, M., 1992. Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing the Brand’s Relationships. Journal of Advertising Research 32 (3), 79-83.
Coupland, J. C., 2005. Invisible Brands: An Ethnography of Households and Their Brands in Their Kitchen Pantries. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 32 (1), 106-19.
Dall’Olmo Riley, F., de Chernatony, L., 2000. The Service Brand as Relationship Builder.
British Journal of Management 11, 137-50.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., 2000. Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 35 (11/12), 1238-58.
Ebenkamp, B., 1994. Tipping the Balance, Brandweek May 10 (4). In: Bakewell, C. and Mitchell V.W., Generation Y Female Consumer Decision Making Styles. International Journal of Retail Distribution Management 31 (2), 95-106.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March), 343.
Gilmore, G.W., 1919. Animism, Boston: Marshall Jones. In: Consumers and Their Brands:
Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Fournier, S. 1998. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, March, 343.
Guest, L.P., 1964. Brand Loyalty Revisited: A Twenty Year Report. Journal of Applied Psychology. 48, 93-7.
Hall, A. L., Rist, R.C., 1999. Integrating Multiple Qualitative Research Methods (or Avoiding the Precariousness of a One-Legged Stool). Psychology and Marketing 16 (4), 291-304.
Hess, J., Story J., 2005. Trust-Based Commitment: Multidimensional Consumer-Brand Relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22 (6), 313-22.
Hinde, R., 1979. Towards Understanding Relationships, London: Academic.
Holt, D., 2004. How Brands Become Icons. The Principles of Cultural Branding, ed. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom A., 1996. Commercial and Interpersonal Relationships: Using The Structure Of Interpersonal Relationships to Understand Individual-To-Individual, IndividualTo-Firm and Firm-To-Firm Relationships in Commerce. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13, 53-72.
Ji, Mindy F., 2002. Children’s Relationships with Brands: ‘True love’ or ‘one-night stand’?.
Psychology and Marketing 19 (4) 369.
Kates, S.M., 2000. Out of the Closet and Out on the Street! Gay Men and their Brand Relationships. Psychology and Marketing 17 (6), 493.
Kates, S.M., 2004. The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay Men’s Community. Journal of Consumer Research 31, 455-64.
Levy, S.J., 1985. Dreams, Fairy Tales, Animals and Cars. Psychology and Marketing 2 (2), 67-81.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis- An Expanded Sourcebook.
Vol. 2, ed. Sage Publications, London.
O’Malley, L., Tynan, C., 1999. The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in Consumer Markets: A Critical Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Management 15, 797.
Ostergaard, P., 2002. Reflections on Relationship Theory in Consumer Research: Towards a Cultural Foundation. In: Perspectives on Marketing Relationships, ed.
Otnes, C., Lowrey, T.M., Shrum, L.J., 1997. Towards an Understanding of Consumer Ambivalence. Journal of Consumer Research 24, 80-93.
Rowley, J., Dawes, J. 2000. Disloyalty: A Closer Look at Non-Loyals. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (6), 538-49.
Schouten, J.W. McAlexander, J.H., 1995. Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1), 43-61.
Shimp, T.A., Madden, T.J., 1988. Consumer-object Relations: A Conceptual Framework Based Analogously on Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. In: Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, ed. Houston M.J., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 163–8.
Sweeney, J.C., Chew, M., 2002. Understanding Consumer-service Brand Relationships: A Case Study Approach. Australasian Marketing Journal, 10 (2), 26-43.
Uncles, M.D., Dowling, G.R., Hammond, K., 2003. Customer Loyalty and Customer Loyalty Programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing 20 (4), 294-346.
Wish, M., Deutsch, M., Kaplan, S.J., 1976. Perceived Dimensions of Interpersonal Relations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (4), 409-20.
Yavas, U., 1994. Research Note: Students as Subjects in Advertising and Marketing