A Comparative Investigation of

Popular Brand Relationship Types

Felicia M. Miller, Marquette UniversitySusan Fournier, Boston University

Chris T. Allen, University of Cincinnati

Presentation Agenda

1. Research Overview

2. Type Validation

3. Results Communal vs. Exchange vs. Committed Brand Exemplars Abusive vs. Adversarial

4. Conclusions and Implications5. Questions

Research Overview

The Consumer-Brand Relationship Metaphor1. Do resonant analogues to interpersonal

relationships exist in the brand space?

2. Do the characteristic attributes that define and distinguish human relationships also differentiate relationships with brands?

Research Overview

We conducted two distinct sets of survey-based data collection.

1. Operationalized and validated nine popular brand relationship types (abused, adversary, committed, communal, dependency, exchange, fling, secret affair and master slave).

2. Identified unique characteristics that distinguished the types.

Type Validation

Communal ExchangeBrands that you go out of your way to support. These are brands that you really care about. You have a strong desire to help these brands succeed in the marketplace.

Brands that you buy and use regularly and that meet the following characteristics: These brands provide a straightforward benefit for a reasonable cost. These brands simply “do their job” … nothing less, nothing more.

CommittedBrands that you are committed to in some significant and lasting way.  These are brands that you expect to be using for years to come. Although your brand has competitors, you stick only with "your brand.“

Type Validation

Abusive AdversarialBrands that you use or have used which meet the following characteristics:

The brand just doesn’t treat you right.

No matter what you do to change or ignore the situation, the wrongful treatment continues just the same.

Brands that you adamantly refuse to buy, support, or use. These are brands that you are actively “against” in some way.

Type Validation

Relationship TypeScale Items

(significantly higher than 5.00) Item mean Scale MeanScale

ReliabilityCommunal

SupporterEager to help brandTell others about brandFanWant brand to be successful

6.285.535.956.386.25

6.08 0.84

Exchange

Good valuePracticalSatisfactoryBrand meets expectationsSensible choice

5.936.145.786.105.87

5.97 0.77

Committed

CommittedIndifferent (r)DedicatedLoyalFaithful

6.005.875.495.735.42

5.70 0.81

Abusive

Appreciated (r)Taken care of (r)My preferred option (r)

5.425.425.36

5.40 0.68

Adversarial

Brand I actively rejectBrand I openly criticizeFriend (r)Brand I would never use

5.785.636.325.86

5.89 0.81

Type Validation

Relationship Type Best StoriesCommunal

Boston Red Sox: I have grown up in Boston all my life and watched the game since I was a little kid. I grew up as a Red Sox fan and wanted them to win so they can break the curse. Now they have won it all twice in this decade, I want them to be the team to beat in the 21st century so in the next 20-40 years when people look back they will be known as the greatest in that decade. I want them to have the glory they should rightfully have.

Exchange

Colgate Toothpaste: Toothpaste cleans my teeth and freshens my breath. It is usually only a few dollars and does not give me any extra benefits.

Committed

General Motors: I am from Detroit, so my life has revolved around American car companies. Also, my father does a lot of business with General Motors. Due to this I feel loyal to their products. Besides those reasons I think they make quality products that interest me.

Abusive

Bank of America: Bank of America has always provided one with poor service over the phone and in banking centers. Their personnel are typically not helpful and I am always facing unwarranted charges and balances on my accounts. No matter how many complaints I make they don’t change their service. I tried depositing a check once and I had to call the hotline 20 times before getting a representative. It seems that when their policies fail to deliver, they avoid helping you at all costs.

Adversarial

Abercrombie and Fitch: I find this brand’s method of marketing to be overtly sexual. In recognizing that the target consumer for their products is probably pre-teens to teenagers, I find this method of marketing to be inappropriate and toxic to the youth of our country.

Results: Communal vs. Exchange

Newly Created-Long Standing No Control-In Control4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Attributes Unique to Exchange

Exchange

Communal

Negative-Positive

Weak-Strong

Imposed-Voluntary

Hostile-Friendly

Destructive-Productive

Not Important-Important

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Attributes Common to Communal and Exchange

CommunalExchange

Unfair-Fair Cold-Warm Short Term-Enduring4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Attributes Unique to Communal

Communal

Exchange

Results: Communal vs. Exchange

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Emotions Unique to Exchange

Joy Excitement Interested Impressed2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Emotions Unique to Communal

CommunalExchange

Happiness Appreciation Pleased Fulfilled3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50Emotions Common to Communal and Exchange

CommunalExchange

Results: Committed

Newly Created-Long Standing No Control-In Control4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Attributes Unique to Committed vs. Communal

CommittedCommunal

Unfair-Fair Cold-Warm Short Term-Enduring4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Attributes Unique to Committed vs. Exchange

Committed Exchange

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50Committed Relationship Attributes

Results: Committed

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Emotions Unique to Committed vs. Communal

Joy3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Emotions Unique to Committed vs. Exchange

CommittedExchange

Happiness Joy Pleased Fulfilled4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50Committed Relationship Emotions

Results: Brand Exemplars

CommunalNominated Brand

ExchangeNominated Brand

CommittedNominated Brand

Apple Bic Air JordanAxe Colgate Toothpaste AppleBoston Red Sox Crest Toothpaste CokeBoston University Dell Colgate ToothpasteBudweiser Domino's Pizza Crest ToothpasteBurt's Bees Dove Dell ComputersCoke Kleenex General MotorsCrest Toothpaste Old Spice Deodorant HondaDove Orbit gum Microsoft WindowsGap Paper Mate NikeGoogle Poland Spring PoloMarquette University Tide RevlonMicrosoft Singapore AirlinesMiller Beer Skippy Peanut ButterNew York Yankees SonyNike Victoria's SecretRalph LaurenSonyStarbucksVerizon

Results: Brand Exemplars

AbusedNominated Brands

AdversaryNominated Brands

Bank of America Abercrombie & FitchApple AppleVerizon McDonald'sMcDonald's Wal-MartCVS MicrosoftHollister MarlboroBlackberry NikeBoston University CITGODell CrocsDominos Pizza FordGeorge Bush GatewayIKEA HollisterMBTA Mel GibsonMicrosoft New York YankeesSony PepsiStarbucks Starbucks

T MobileTaco Bell

Results: Negative Relationships

Strangers-Intimate Unequal-Equal Unfair-Fair2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Attributes Unique to Abused

Adversary

Abused

Newly Created-Long Standing Hostile-Friendly2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Attributes Unique to Adversary

Adversary

Abused

Results: Negative Relationships

Anger Unhappiness Frustration3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Emotions Unique to Abused

Abused

Adversary

Irritation Disgust Disapproval3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

Emotions Unique to Adversary

AdversaryAbused

Conclusions and Implications

1. Do resonant analogues to interpersonal relationships exist in the brand space?

2. Do the characteristic attributes that define and distinguish human relationships also differentiate relationships with brands?

Questions?