JOURNAL OF

MARKETINGMANAGEMENT

Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand andConsumer Relationship

Cleopatra Veloutsou, University of Glasgow, UK*

Abstract The concept of relationship marketing emerged from services andbusiness-to-business marketing. Most of the research analysing the relationshipsthemselves focuses on the social links formed between people and the neededsupporting processes. However, companies can use their brands to developand maintain links with their customers. The research on the role of brands inthe development of bonds with the customers is still very limited, especiaUy forconsumer goods as opposed to consumer services. This paper reports the findingsof a study which aimed to unfold the dimensions of the consumer relationshipwith product brand. It identifies two separate dimensions, which may be used todescribe the consumer-brand relationship.

Keywords Brands, Brand relationships. Relationship marketing

INTRODUCTION

In an attempt to classify the various types of marketing as presented in the literature,two main distinct types were identified: the transactional and the relationshipmarketing (Coviello, Brondie and Murno 1997; Brondie, Coviello, Brooks and Little1997; Coviello and Brondie 1998; Pels et al. 2000; Coviello, Brondie, Danaher andJohnston 2002). It is vi ell recognised that one of the key recent developments relatedto marketing as a discipline at present, is that it has shifted from a transactional to arelationship focus, while there are attempts to identify specific relationship marketingschools of thought (see Palmer, Lindgreen and Vanhamme 2005).

Although it is acknowledged that these different types of marketing are notmutually excluded and companies practice more than one type simultaneously

'Correspondence details and biographies for the author are located at the end of the article, p. 26.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT. 2007, VoL 23, No. 1-2, pp.7-26ISSN0267-257X print /ISSNU72-1376 online © Westburn Publishers Ltd. DOl 10.1362/026725707X177892

Q^m Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

(Brondie, Coviello and Brodie 1997), it is suggested by some, that the well knownmarketing mix elements are particularly relevant for the transactional approach,while people and the development of personal contacts amongst individuals are thekey interest of the relational approach. This is in line with the initial relationshipmarketing viewpoint, where it has been argued that personnel, technology, knowledgeand time are the elements that have to keep the promises to the customers (Gronroos1996). This initial way of examining relationship marketing implies that there issome form of contact between the customers and the company and it is somewhatexpected and logical, since relationship marketing emerged from the services andbusiness-to-business marketing (Gronroos 1994; Gummesson 1996). Although itis appreciated that the relational approach is a feasible strategy in mass consumermarkets (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995; Christy, Oliver and Penn 1996, O'Malley andTynan 1999; 2000), when the relationship itself is investigated, even today, theresearch and the development of theory in the area mostly deals with the analysisof the social links formed between people, either in the business-to-business context(i.e. Evans and Laskin 1994; Williams 1998; Weitz and Brandford 1999; Hunt,Arnett and Madhavaram 2006), the services sector (i.e. Dall'Olmo Riley and deChernatony 2000), or both (i.e. Cann 1998; Durvasula, Lysonski and Mehta 2000).However what is the situation in industries where the contact between customers andemployees, is somewhat unclear.

It has been suggested that companies should increase their 'customer focus' interms of becoming more customer-oriented, increasing the contact with consumersand targeting specific consumers (Brondie et al. 1997). Firms producing consumerproducts and services need to find new ways to approach their customers. Howevermanagers recognise that it is not practical to market in an individual way (Coviello andBrondie 1998), especially when the firm has a large customer base. Therefore consumercompanies appear to rely more on the marketing mix than business-to-business firmsin their strategies (Coviello and Brondie 2001; Coviello et al. 2002). Although it issuggested that this finding indicates the use of higher levels of transactional marketing(Coviello and Brondie 2001; Coviello et al. 2002), it has also been acknowledgedthat there is a need for a marketing mix base for relationship development (Covielloand Brondie 1998; Coviello et al. 2002). It has been recognised that relationshipmarketing should be revisited to find the missed link to assist in the understandingof how relationships develop and to affirm that the 4P variables are fundamental tobusiness relationships (Lye 2002). After all, transactional marketing and relationshipmarketing are complementary (Baker, Buttery and Richtel-Buttery 1998), while anexchange in consumer markets is likely to be characterised by both transactional andrelational elements (O'Malley and Tynan 2000) and that the relational element in anexchange has implications for how appropriate money is to be saved or spent, and, ifspent, on which products and services (McGraw, Tetlock and Kristel 2003; McGrawand Tetlock 2005).

The relationship with mental images, 'symbols and objects', can be one of the manyaspects that can be used as a basis of a relationship (Gummesson 1994). It has beenappreciated that individuals develop relationships with brands in order to reducetheir choice set (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995), while consumers' bonds with specificbrands and services seem to be somewhat similar in nature (Johnston and Thomson2003). Therefore, one could argue that consumers may develop relationships withspecific brands.

This paper aims to investigate whether there is a relationship formed betweenconsumers and product brands, and whether there are specific dimensions in this

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand

relationship. Using a multidisciplinary approach, it first attempts to define whatis a relationship and summarises the literature proposing that consumers have thecapability to form relationships with the brands. It then outlines the aim and themethodology used for the collection of the primary data, and presents the resultswhere it is suggested that there are two main dimensions in the relationship thatconsumers form with brands. The concluding section addresses the study limitations,managerial implications and recommendations for further research.

TOWARDS THE DEFINITIDN OF THE RELATIONSHIPS

In the marketing literature there is no agreement on what the relationship reallyis. Marketing relationships are often seen just as the outcome of the relationshipmarketing activities (Eiriz and "Wilson; 2006). This is because relationship marketingis mainly concerned with the management of the relationship and not with the natureof the relationship itself. It is acknowledged that the term 'relationship' has not beendefined in the marketing and management literature and there is a need for definingand measuring relationships (Broom, Casey and Ritchley 1997; Egan 2001 (p.3O);Varey 2002 (p. 48)). Although thirty different types of relationships have beenidentified (Gummesson 1994), marketing theorists seem to emphasise the process ofestablishing, developing and maintaining successful rational relationships. Indeed ina content analysis of 26 definitions provided for relationship marketing by severalwell-established academics, seven conceptual categories of relationship marketingwere revealed. They were the creation, the development, the maintenance of therelationship as well as the interactive nature of the relationship, its long term nature,the emotional content and the expected output for one or both of the parties (seeHarker 1999). The most commonly mentioned categories in these definitions are thedevelopment, the interactivity and the maintenance, while the less mentioned are theemotional content, the output and the long-term nature of the bond (Harker 1999).Even when academics assess the future trends of relationship marketing, the factorsidentified as influential are associated with the scope and the process of relationshipmarketing and not with the characteristics of the relationship itself (Veioutsou, Sarenand Tzokas 2002). Even though it has been proposed that relationship marketing isa long-term process (Grossman 1998) and focuses of long-term transactions leadingto emotional or social bonds with consumers (O'Malley and Tynan 2000), the natureof these bonds has not yet been investigated.

Relationships have always been very important for humans. This was evident fromthe ancient times, where relationships were analysed by philosophers. Most of thefocus of this analysis was focused on friendships. In Nichomahean and EudemianEthics Aristotle develops a description and typology of friendship. He suggests thatfriendship is an action, activity or mode of life, directed towards happiness as agood, it is reciprocal, exists fully only between equals and in its higher form it isnot instrumental (Ruckh 2004). He views friendship as a tool motivating justiceand morality, since only virtuous persons can truly be friends in the highest senseand enjoy their friendship (Murphy 1997; White 1999; Jacuette 2001; Sokolowski2001). Similar views on the role of friendship in ethical development were expressedby Confucius, although he appreciates that friends could be unequal (Tan 2001).However, even philosophers admit that the attitude towards friendship has changedsince the time of Aristotle. Today it seems that we choose friends on the basis ofshared interests, mutual enjoyment and compatibility. We demonstrate with our

10 Q^m Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

behaviour a sort of commitment to the other person, at least an endorsement of thekind of person that he or she is and physical plus emotional support (White 1999).Generally there is goodwill and affection towards those one would call friends (Tan2001).

It has been appreciated by social psychologists that interpersonal relationshipsinvolve processes of incredible complexity, but that does not mean that understandingthem is impossible (Hinde 1995). There are definitely many types of relationships,ranging from work, love relationships, friendships to everyday coping, non-specificsocial contacts and negotiations with officials and others (McCarthy 1999). It hasbeen acknowledged that although the conditions under which an interpersonalrelationship moves from that of casual acquaintanceship to a close friendship is afundamental issue, it has been only indirectly addressed (Falk and Noonan-Warker1985). Social psychologists imply that a relationship occurs when two or more partiesinteract, and their interaction has certain qualities, including its intensity, the contentand presentation of the verbal material and the non-verbal communication signals(Hinde 1979; 1981; 1995; 1997; McCarthy 1999). However, a relationship existsover time (Hinde 1995) and may continue over periods in which the participants donot interact or communicate with each other (Hinde 1981). This is partly becausefor a relationship to truly exist, some short of interdependence between partnersmust be evident (Hinde 1979, Hinde 1995), as well as compromise and closeness(Hinde 1997). The participants in the relationship should demonstrate some sort ofintimacy and reveal themselves emotionally, cognitively and physically to each other(Monsour 1992; Hinde 1995). Some suggest that relationships involve some formof attachment, while attaining and maintaining proximity to and communicationswith some other preferred individual is attachment behaviour (Bowlby 1991). Forthe development of closer relationships, people are willing to provide personalinformation about their thoughts, needs or feelings to others, demonstrating somelevel of self-disclosure (Falk and Noonan-Warker 1985). Furthermore, individualsobtain satisfaction by interacting with other individuals they classify as friends. Theylike these individuals, they are interested in future interactions, they are willing tofurther develop the relationship over time and they are willing to confide personalinformation (Falk and Noonan-Warker 1985).

BRANDS AS RELATIONSHIP BUILDERS

Views on the Existence of Consumer-brand Relationships

Long before the development of strong national and international brands, customersused to develop relationships with the retailers on a personal level (Webster 2000).This can still be the case for some markets, especially in business-to-business marketsand for some consumer markets where the role of the personnel delivering theproduct is of outstanding importance, such as in some services, or when the productis of minor importance for the buyer. However, for most of the products markets,the situation is different. Products and brands create value for their customers. Thedominance of brands during the last century was obvious in all markets, principallyin the consumer market. Consumers may even switch stores, or postpone theirpurchase, when they cannot find their desired brand in the store were they normallyshop. The extent of this behaviour emerges depends on the product brand and thecustomers, but surprisingly even store loyal consumers tend to switch stores as much

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 11

as the not store loyal (opportunist) consumers when they cannot find the productbrand they require (Verbeke, Farris and Thurik 1998). This attitude indicates that abond with the brand exists, since these consumers are not willing to buy alternativebrands in the same product category available in the stores.

In the past, it has been suggested that producers have to decide the emphasisthat they will give to the brand element and the relationship element when theyposition their products, choosing from a continuum of low-high emphasis for bothelements (Palmer 1996). This is hardly the case for most of the branded productsnowadays, since customers buy products that they perceive as satisfying them moreeffectively and can relate to them. This trend has been so increasingly obvious thatit has been suggested that relationship marketing consists of the management of anetwork of relationships between a brand and its customers (Ambler 1997). In reality,the relationship concept connecting the customer and the brand is the interactionbetween the attitudes of the two parties, the customers and the brands (Blackston1992; 1993). Recent research findings support that the positive brand and personalinteraction are central to the building of successful brand relationships (O'Loughlin,Szmigin and Turnbull 2004).

Although some consumers might be unwilling to accept that they form arelationship with brands (Bengtsson 2003), past research supported that the brand-consumer relationship might take a number of forms, depending on the personahtyof customers and the manner they develop relationships in general (Fournier 1998).Their existence has been documented in various contexts. It is evident, especially inwell-defined groups of consumers and sub-cultures. For example, gay men developspecific relationships with their brands. They identify with some local retail businesses(community members), they have positive emotions and reciprocity towards somebrands (political allies), while they have a negative relationship with other brands(political enemies) (Kates 2000). Similarly, others tried to identify potential linkswith the brands. For example, Fajer and Schouten (1995), attempted to classify thepotential person-brand relationships in a continuum, having as extremes the lower-order relationships and in the other the higher-order (loyal) relationships. In theirconceptual work, they identify five potential stages in the friendship: potential friends(brand trying), casual friends (brand liking), close friends (multi-brand resurgentloyalty), best friends (brand loyalty) and crucial friends (brand addiction). In a moredetailed study of the consumer's perspective, at least fifteen forms of relationshiphave been identified and their labels vary from an arranged marriage and manytypes of friendships to enslavement, resulting in relationships with different quality(Fournier 1998, Sweeney and Chew 2002).

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 it is the case forhuman relationships, no bond can be created and further developed if the brand isunknown.

Elements of the Brand Expression that Could Contribute to the Developnnent ofRelationships

The question however remains. Although it has been supported that consumers mayrelate to a brand, an object or a firm (Daskou and Hart 2002), most of the analysisexamined the types of the relationship and not the specific brand dimensions whichcould be used in order to develop and maintain it over a long period of time. Tofully appreciate the contribution of a brand to the development of relationship, one

12 ^ ^ Q Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

should first understand what a brand really represents and then attempt to identifywhether the different components of the brand could work as relational builders.Although in principal it has been suggested that the Brand Identity consists of thebrand as a product, the brand as organisation, the brand as a person and the brand asa symbol (Aaker 1996), it can be argued that it has two main dimensions the brandorganisation and the brand expression. The brand expression consists of the brandas a symbol, the brand as a product and the brand as a person (Veioutsou 2001).The brand as a symbol serves as a recognition cue. However, the other two elementsof the brand expression are attempting to do much more than communicating abrand image to the market and are tools for developing connections with the targetmarket.

Most scholars who attempt to analyse the existence of a bond between customersand brands concentrate their efforts on the analysis of the contribution of brandpersonality. They claim that brand personality is the element that can relate thebrand with the customer and develop bonds with the consumer (Fournier and Yao1997, Blackston 2000), to the extent that some even examine the termination ofthe relationship and the dissolution of the person-brand relationship (Fajer andSchouten 1995). Brand is a perceptual entity rooted in reality, but it also reflects theperceptions and perhaps even the idiosyncrasies of consumers. The development ofa strong brand identity will naturally contribute to the development of customer-brand relationship (Blackston 1992; 1993, Aaker and Fournier 1995). In this respect,brands are perceived as having their own personality which the customer can relateto (Blackston 1992; 1993; Fournier 1998).

Following this school of thought, the brand can be treated as "an activecontributing partner in a dyadic relationship that exists between the person and thebrand" (Fournier 1995). Customers can perceive brands as characters. For example,research indicates that consumers can think of brands as if they are celebrities (Rook1985), or as if they have a character of their own (Blackston 1992; 1993). They tendto develop relationships with brands that have different dimensions. The associationcan be voluntary versus imposed, long term versus short term, public versus private,formal versus informal and symmetric versus asymmetric forming different types ofrelationships (Fournier 1998). However, again a lot of effort has been given to labellingthe relationships, while much less effort has been dedicated to the identification ofthe elements that will contribute to the development of a voluntary association withthe brand.

Nevertheless, the development of a relationship is a two way process and thebrand has an important role to play in the creation and the maintenance of therelationship. For the brand to transform to a legitimate relationship partner, it has tosurpass the personification qualification stage and behave as an active, contributingmember of the dyad (Fournier 1998; Berry 2000). It is important for the customersto feel that brands have positive behaviour and attitudes towards them (Blackston1992; 1993). This approach can be very complex, since brands do not think orbehave actively. Every single one of its actions derives from the decisions taken bythe people behind it, the brand team. It has been suggested that customers want todeal with companies that they see as innovative, ambitious to succeed, ingeniousand hardworking (Blackston 1993). This might be the case for some specific targetmarkets, but not for the totality of the potential customers, depending on theirpersonality. For example, research suggests that when consumers feel that the brandhas a desired attitude towards the issues that they perceive as important to theirsystem of values, they tend to support and buy the brand (Kates 2000). The brand

l/e/oufsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 13

team is the force that should support some sort of consistency in the behaviour andthe expression of the brand.

A stable brand personality will reduce the emotional risk that the buyers experienceevery time they purchase a brand and will increase its credibility. This process canresult in the development of trust and satisfaction, especially when customers believethat the brand supports their needs, and eventually to the creation of a bond betweenthe buyer and the brand (Blackston 1993).

The views on whether or not the brand as a product contributes to the developmentof relationships are contradicting. Some argue that the product, even the augmentedproduct, is a pre-fabricated package of resources and features that is ready to beexchanged (Gronroos 1996; 1997). However others imply that it can aid in thedevelopment of relationships. Buyers develop relationships with the product, theobject (Saren and Tzokas 1998). They are looking for brands that they perceiveas carrying specific features and quality, undoubtedly elements of the object theypurchase. The strength of the bond depends on the degree to which customers canidentify themselves in respect to the physical characteristics of the brand. Consumers'knowledge and feeling about the brand influences their evaluation of the productscarrying this brand (Aaker and Keller 1990; Dacin and Smith 1994; Brawn andDacin 1997). These views have been supported by some recent research finding,where the product has been identified as fundamental in the development of businessrelationships (Lye 2002).

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Both academics and practitioners outhne the importance of a brand as a contributorin the development of relationships (Schlueter 1992; Aaker and Fournier 1995;Fournier 1995; Palmer 1996; Duncan and Moriarty 1997). Although it has beenlong appreciated that studies on relationship marketing in the consumer markets,especially for consumer products as opposed to consumer services industries areparticularly lacking (Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995), the situation has not changed a lotsince. The emphasis on the examination of brand relationships in services contextscould be partly due to the fact that services have traditionally focused on relationshipdevelopment, while manufactured goods on brand development (Palmer 1996).However this divide is narrowing, as producers of manufactured products need toimprove their approach to the final customers. They are increasingly forced to usetheir brands to achieve this goal since they have very little other contact with theconsumers.

When examining the literature on brand customer-brand, it is surprising to seethat a number of researchers acknowledge that it is extremely limited and call forfurther research in this area (Blackston 1992; 1993; Fournier 1998; Blackston 2000;Kates 2000; Dall'Olmo Riley and de Chernatony 2000). Most of the publicationsdiscussing brand relationships are fully conceptual and do not present empiricalfindings. Even in the limited number of studies presenting empirical results the focusis on the services brands (Blackston 1992; 1993; Dall'Olmo Riley and de Chernatony2000, Sweeney and Chew 2002,0'Laughlin, Szmigin and Turnbull 2004), rather thanon branded products. Research attempting to examine relationships with productbrands, investigated the relationship from the product rather than the consumer sideof the dyad (Martin 1998). Therefore, there is clearly a need to further explore theconcept of consumer branded product relationships. This paper explores whether or

^ ^ Q Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23

not consumers form relationships with brands.Furthermore, in the marketing literature the relationship analogies have been

questioned and it has been suggested that what marketers call intimacy is whatsome customers see as interaction (Smith and Higgins 2000). However, there is noquantitative instrument in the literature to assess the strength of the relationship,which could vary for different individuals and different product categories. Usingknowledge originating on the definition of the term "relationship", this paperinvestigates whether or not there are specific dimensions in the relationship thatconsumers form with the brand and to develop a scale to measure this construct.

METHODOLOGY

Development of the Data CoUection Instrument

There was no available instrument in the literature to measure the relationship withthe brand. Therefore, all items used in a quantitative data collection instrument(questionnaire) had to be identified and developed for this study.

Researchers have been concerned with the reliability and validity of multi-itemscales used for more than two decades (Churchill 1979; Peter 1979), and thediscussion on what are the best practices for developing reliable and valid measures isstill ongoing (Hinkin 1995). A rehable measure is free from errors and therefore yieldsconsistent results. This when both the views of the same respondents are investigatedover time, or, when the views of respondents with comparable characteristics areexamined (Peter 1979). A valid measure is free of errors and measures exactly whatit is supposed to measure in a conceptual level (Peter 1981). The unidimensionalityof a measure has been another concern for numerous researchers (Anderson andGerbing 1982; Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Therefore, when a multi-item measureis not reliable or valid, or it does not measure one construct, it has very limited value.It is clear that the development of a reliable, valid and unidimensional measures tocapture the different dimensions of the relationship with the brands requires theunderstanding of the construct itself. Therefore, a number of steps were employed tosecure that the developed measure will be appropriate. Figure 1 provides an overviewof the steps employed for the scale development, which followed to a great extendthe advice given in the past for scale development (Churchill 1979; Hinkin 1995).

Since there was no clear definition of the term, initially researchers had tounderstand what the construct is (step 1). The manner in which the term relationshipis used by the marketing academics has been considered. It appears that, althoughthere is not enough evidence from the existing marketing literature, the interpersonalrelationship metaphor might be an agreeable approach to analyse marketingrelationships (Grossman 1998; O'Malley and Tynan 1999, 2000). Similaritiesbetween social and marketing relationships have been identified (Daskou and Hart2000; Daskou and Hart 2002; Jancic and Zabkar 2002; Johnston and Thomson2003; McGraw et al. 2003). Therefore, the relevant hterature was reviewed. Itbecame apparent that even in social psychology there is no ubiquitously useful meansfor describing relationships (Hinde 1995). Further, different methods to access thestrength of a relationship might be needed when different groups of individualsare studied with different purposes (i.e. Falk and Noonan-Warker 1985; Pulakos1989; Bell and Calkins 2000). Some require the detailed description of behaviourfor a long time (i.e Hill, Harrington, Fudge, Ruttel and Pickles 1989; McCarthy

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 15

1999). It seemed that relationships could be described by two broad dimensions, thecommunication and the emotional content.

There was very limited evidence that consumers form any form of relationshipswith branded goods and services in that form. Therefore, 10 interviews with studentswere performed to investigate whether these relationships exist and how they aredescribed by the subjects (step 2). The informants were encouraged to describetheir feelings towards brands that they had either a very positive or a very negativeview about. When the transcripts of these interviews were content analysed it wassupported that the subjects really did form relationships with brands, and thereforeit was decided to proceed with the development of the scale.

After the conclusion of this process and based on a collection of relationshipmarketing definitions provided by (Harker 1999), the views on what a relationshipis today expressed by philosophers (White 1999) the views on the content andingredients of relationships expressed by social psychologists (Hinde 1979, 1981;Falk and Noonan-Warker 1985; Hinde 1995, 1997) and a content analysis of the10 interviews, a list with views and items forming several relevant describers weredeveloped (step 3). These describers formed the initial list of statements, which wereconsidered for inclusion in the research instrument.

The content validity of the views needed to be further investigated (step 4).Therefore, three focus groups with five participants possessing different profiles (agegroups) were performed. This qualitative phase of the project was aiming to supportthe existence of the two dimensions suggested by the analysis of the relationshipmarketing theory in various contexts, the social psychology and philosophy andthe initial interviews for the description of the relationship for branded products.

FIGURE 1 Steps Employed in Developing the Brand Relationship Scales

D

C0)

coU

STEPl

Literature review to identify thedimensions of the term

'relationship'

STEP 2

Interviews to investigate theexistence and dimensions ofbrand/consumer relationship

STEP 3

Literature review and contentanalysis of the interviews tosepcify relevant constructs

STEP4

Focus groups to evaluate theconstructs and redefine the

scale

STEP 5

Pilot testing and refiningthe questionnaire

STEP 6

Collect data

STEP 7

Assess reliability

STEP 8

Assess discriminant andconvergent validity

16 Q^m Journal of Marketing Managennent, Volunne 23

Furthermore, the participants were asked to score the generated items in termsof their relevance for describing the specific dimension in a 5 point scale (l=notrelevant, 5= very relevant).

It became apparent that it was important to have a specific focus on the discussion.Furthermore, in order to successfully test the concept, it was decided to use aspecific product category, which potentially could be important for consumers. Itwas also clear that, due to the fact that the researcher was a female, it would beeasier to contact female respondents rather than men. It has been appreciated that"relationship-friendhness" depends on certain characteristics of both market segmentsand products features (Christy, Oliver and Penn 1996), while others suggest that thedevelopment of a relationship is feasible for high involvement products characterisedby inelastic demand, where regular interaction with consumers occurs (O'Malley andTynan 2000). Thus, it was decided to use a product category which is perceived asan important purchase and is targeting this population. From three broad productcategories (clothes, personal care products and cosmetics), one of the products thatthe informants in the focus groups seemed to use and have a relevant preferencewas lipstick. In the final instrument, the respondents were asked to respond to thequestionnaire having in mind their favourite brand of lipstick. After content analysingthe transcripts a list of eighteen items describing the two parties' relationship wasdeveloped. Each item within the questionnaire was drawn either from the literatureor from expressions employed by the informants during the course of the qualitativestudy.

The drafted questionnaire containing the developed statements was pilot testedwith a convenience sample of twenty female students in a Scottish university (step 5).This led to the development of the final instrument, which included thirteen of theoriginal items. They were all measured in a seven point Likert scale with end-anchors(1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree).

Data CoUection Procedures

The primary data collection for this study (step 6) was conducted over a periodof six months in Glasgow. During the first five months, the research instrumentwas developed and pre-tested, while in the final month the quantitative data wascollected. The respondents were randomly selected from marketplaces and near auniversity campus.

In total, there were 277 usable responses (Table 1). The sample size is sufficient toperform this analysis, since it is higher than the adequate 15:1 ratio of respondentsto items (Hulin, Cudeck, Netemeyer, Dillon and McDonald 2001, p. 58) or even thevery strict 20:1 ratio of respondents to items suggested by some as needed for theadequate usage of exploratory factor analysis (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black,1998, p. 99). In addition, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of samphng adequacy(KMO) was applied. The KMO is an index for comparing the magnitude of theobserved correlation coefficients to the size of the partial correlation coefficients.When the KMO approaches 1.0 there are likely to be patterns of correlation inthe data indicating that factor analysis might be an appropriate technique to use(Hutcheson and Sofroniou 1999; Bloch, Brunei and Arnold 2003).

Data Analysis

Factor analysis was initially used to test if there are specific dimensions of brandrelationships. This is a widely accepted approach for assuring unidimensionality of a

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 17

construct (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). This approach provides the factorial validity,which can assess both convergent and discriminant validity (Straub, Boudreau andGefen 2004) (step 8). In each factor analysis application undertaken in this study,an approximate initial solution was obtained using Principal Components Analysis.This solution was then rotated using the orthogonal rotation algorithm Varimax,the most frequently reported in the management literature for scale construction(Hinkin 1995).

All factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 are reported. Items with a factorloading of at least .65, and that were not split loaded on another factor above .50were perceived as components of one factor. This decision rule meets the suggestedminimum standard of .30 for factor loadings (Gorsuch 1974, Leary 1995).

To examine the reliability (internal consistency) of the measures (step 7), for itemsloading on the same extracted factors Cronbach's Alpha was calculated. In addition,to further test the internal consistency of the measure (Gerbing and Anderson 1988),the inter-correlations of the items loading in the same factor and the item-to-totalcorrelations are reported.

The validity of the measures was further examined (step 8). It has been arguedthat the inter-correlations of the items could be a good indication of the discriminantvahdity of a measure (Straub et al. 2004). To assess the convergent validity of themeasure, the dimensions revealed were inter-correlated. This method is very similarto the approach used by various researchers conducting management research toassess the validity of a measure (Hinkin 1995; Straub et al. 2004).

RESULTS

During the focus groups, it became apparent that consumers form some sort ofinteraction with their brands. Some expressed feelings towards branded products,

TABLE 1 Steps Employed in Developing the Brand Relationship Scales

No %Age

Education

-2021-2526-3031-3536-AG41-4546-5051-55

56+

High schoolHND/HNC

UndergraduateGraduate

PostgraduateN/a

3664223124372029U6338617737

1

13.0023.10

7.9411.198.66

13.367.22

10.475.05

link

\znil l . Q l27.8013.360.36

Total 277 100.00

18 g^m Journalof Marketing Management, Volume 23

very similar to those that one expects when describing interactions with otherhumans. Although they did not necessarily accept that they have a relationship withbrands, they acknowledged that brands were very important for them and that theyactively looked for specific brands when they were shopping. That was even moreevident when the discussion was about product categories that the consumers havehad high involvement with. Therefore, there was scope to further investigate thenature of the relationship and attempt to unfold specific dimensions. Table 2 providesthe descriptive statistics of the data used for the analysis.

The first task when the quantitative data was collected was to determine whetherthe sample is suitable for the performance of the appropriate tests. The data set hada KMO value of .92, which is characterised as "marvellous" (Kaiser 1974). Thus thedata set is considered suitable for the performance of factor analysis and it is expectedthat the items will form specific factors (Hutcheson and Sofroniou 1999).

To begin, all the factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted (Table 3).The two factors extracted by the principal components analysis explains 65.75% oftheoverall variance. Each one of these factors clearly represents a conceptual dimensionof a relationship as it is suggested by social psychologists. More specifically:

• The first factor explains 56.5% of the overall variance and has an eigenalue of 7.44.It consists of six items with loadings .66 or above. They are expressing variouscommunicational issues. Five of the items loading on this factor are describing thecommunication originating from the brand and having as receivers, consumers.However, the last item is describing a communication v/here the source is theconsumer and the receiver the brand owners. This indicates that the communicationbetween consumers and their brand is not necessarily a one-way process as somehave suggested. Therefore, the factor was labelled "Two way communication".

TABLE 2 Descriptive Satiatics of the Study's Items

Mean sd

I want to be informed about my preferred lipstick brand

[ am more willing to learn news about my preferred brand of lipsticl< thanfor other brandsI listen with interest to info about my favourite lipstick brandIf leaflets are sent to me from my preferred lipstick brand, I get annoyedI will be willing to be informed about my preferred brand of lipstick in thefutureI am willing to give feedback to the manufacturer of my preferred lipstick 4.85 1.68brand

My preferred brand of lipstick means more to me than other brands

I care about the developments relevant to my preferred brand of lipstick

My preferred brand of lipstick and I complement each other

I feel comfortable with my preferred brand of lipstick

My preferred brand of lipstick is like a person with whom I am close to

Both my preferred brand of lipstick and I benefit from our link

Over time my preferred brand of lipstick becomes more important to me

1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree

5.004.70

4.803.094.97

1.54

1.61

1.721.641.57

4.794.90

4.70

5.70

3.95

4.19

4.29

1.561.52

1.50

1.07

1.86

1.88

1.85

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 19

• In the second factor a total af five items were loading with a value of .70 ar abave.

It explains 9.3% af the overall variance and has an eigenalue of 1.21. The items

loading are describing some sort af closeness between consumers and their

brands, as expressed by the consumer. They portray some sort af psychological link

between consumers and their brands as well as comfort end enjoyment, which is

due to this interaction between the twa parties. This factor was labelled "Emotional

exchange".

Although the relationship of consumers with the brands cannot be characterised asstrong, the average value for Two Way Communication and the Emotional Exchangeis higher than 4, which is the median for the Likert scale used to measure the various

items.Both measures appear to have very high internal consistency (reliability). The

Cronbach's Alpha for the first factor was .8969 and for the second .8961. Thesevalues are higher than the anticipated acceptable level of at least .70 (Hinkin 1995).All items are contributing in the scales, since the value of the Cronbach's Alpha willnot increase if they are deleted (Tables 4 and 5). Therefore, all items were includedin the two scales developed. The reliability of the scales is confirmed by the Pearsoninter-correlation of the items included in each scale. They are all positive with valueshigher than .40 and all significant at a .001 level. The item-to-total correlation for

TABLE 3 Factor Analysis Results

I want to be informed about my preferred lipstick brand

I am more willing to learn news about my preferred brand of lipstick thanfor other brands

I listen with interest to info about my favourite lipstick brand

If leaflets are sent to me from my preferred lipstick brand, I get annoyed*

I will be willing to be informed about my preferred brand of lipstick in thefuture

I am willing to give feedback to the manufacturer of my preferred lipstick 0.66 0.23

brand

My preferred brand of lipstick means more to me than other brands

I care about the developments relevant to my preferred brand of lipstick

My preferred brand of lipstick and I complement each other

I feel comfortable with my preferred brand of lipstick

My preferred brand of lipstick is like a person with whom I am close to

Both my preferred brand of lipstick and I benefit from our link

Over time my preferred brand of lipstick becomes more important to me

Eigenvalue

% of variance explained

Mean

Sd

1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree * reverse soore

0.73

0.67

0.73

0.77

0.82

0.43

0.45

0.49

0.14

0.25

0.48

0.52

0.43

0.53

0.12

0.25

0.32

7.34

56.47

4.87

1.32

0.63

0.70

0.71

0.20

0.86

0.83

0.76

1.21

9.28

4.41

1.46

20 Journal of Marketing Management, VoLunne 23

all items is higher than the suggested and widely used benchmark of .50 used inthe past (see Bearden and Netemeyer 1999, p. 4), for all items in both scales underinvestigation. Although the inter-correlations and the item-to-total correlation of thefinal item of Two Way Communication (table 4) is not as high as the correlations ofthe rest of the items included in any of the two scales, this item was not removedfrom the scale, since it's inclusion does not affect negatively the Cronbach's Alphavalue and it is adding value to the scale because of the two way communication itimplies that exists.

TABLE 6 Evaluation of the Two Way Communication Scale

I. . . . . Alpha if- _ _ , _ Item to total1 2 3 A 5 , . Item

correlation , ,. deleted

1.00

0.73 0.67 1.00

1.1 want to be informed about mypreferred lipstick brand

2.1 am more willing to learn news aboutmy preferred brand of lipstick than for 0.68 1.00other brands

3.1 listen with interest to info about myfavourite lipstick brand

4. If leaflets are sent to me frommy preferred lipstick brand, I get 0.59 0.51 0.60 1.00annoyed*

5.1 will be willing to be informed aboutmy preferred brand of lipstick in the 0.70 0.62 0.70 0.65 1.00future

6.1 am willing to give feedback to themanufacturer of my preferred lipstick 0.49 0.50 0.58 0.40 0.49brand

0.78

0.78

0.58

0.87

0.72

0.81

0.66

0.88

0.86

0.89

0.87

0.90

* reverse score

TABLE 5 Evaluation of the Emotional Exchange Scale

1Item to totalcorrelation

Alpha ifitem

deleted1. I care about the developments

relevant to my preferred brand of 1.00 0.75 0.87lipstick

2. My preferred brand of lipstick and I. complement each other

3. My preferred brand of lipstick is likea person with whom I am close to

it. Both my preferred brand of lipstickand I benefit from our link

5. Over time my preferred brand oflipstick becomes more important to 0.59 0.55 0.72 0.69 0.75 0.87me

0.78 1.00

0.59 0.55 1.00

0.64 0.63 0.67 1.00

0.72

0.75

0.78

0.88

0.87

0.87

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 21

The convergent validity of the Two Way Communication and the Emotional Exchangeis somewhat supported by the inter-correlation of the two scales. The Pearsoncorrelation of the scales in .71, significant at the .001 level, indicates convergentvalidity.

CONCLUSION

The traditional approach focusing on the marketing mix elements alone, is believedas giving less and less value to a company. An increasing number of companies aredeveloping tools that can contribute to relationship development, aiming at increasedcommitment and loyalty from the customer's side. This is probably the mainreason why companies are increasingly employing a relational approach. Althoughrelationship marketing was at first reported and analysed mainly for organisationalmarkets and the service industry, it is clear that it is expanding to consumer marketsand products.

Whatever approach a company employs, even today it should supply products andservices to the very same customers that they are aiming to develop relationships with.This is a fact that is not going to change. Consumers will buy brands and services andalthough they might not admit it as such and might not be aware in their consciousmind about its existence, they often build bonds with companies. The bonds betweenconsumers and the producers are really the secondary result of an original need thatindividuals have to make transactions to satisfy their needs and desires and to reducerisk when buying a certain product. The addition of the relationship is due to theincreased sophistication of the exchange process and in some occasions satisfies asecondary need for interaction.

In the marketing literature the term "relationship" has been widely used but notsufficiently explained. Most research analysing the relationships between consumersand organisations focuses on the links between individuals working in theseorganisations and the consumers. However, consumers may form links with mentalimages, including brands.

The brand relationships are expected to vary in strength, from distant to close, butexist. This variation though can be observed in any relationship. The characteristicsof the person and the brand in the relationship will influence the way that the bondwill form and the requirements of each side. For some product categories customersare expected to form stronger relationships than for others. For example, fortechnically complex products, when customers do not have the required knowledgeand proficiency but are highly involved, they will trust brands more than they willdo in a less complex or a low involvement product. However, the existing researchdoes not provide any guidelines on the way that the strength of the relationship witha brand can be measured.

In this paper a measurement instrument of Brand Relationships has been developedand empirically tested. The results clearly indicated that Brand Relationships is amultidimensional concept, since there are two different dimensions in the relationshipthat consumers form with branded products. They both demonstrate high internalconsistency (validity). The first dimension is the Two Way Communication. Consumersseem to be willing not only to hear news about the brands of their choice, but also toprovide feedback to the brand team if required. This two-way process suggests thatthere is some interaction between consumers and the brands, at least in their ownperception. The second dimension is the Emotional Exchange. Consumers appear

22 ^ ^ Q Journalof Marketing Managennent, Volume 23

to develop feelings towards the brands. They value the brands of their choice. Theysense a closeness to them and feel that they benefit from this interaction. Both scalesexhibit strong internal consistency and a reasonable degree of validity and couldbe used in the future to assess the strength of relationships between consumers andbrands.

Companies however, should be very careful when attempting to enhance theselong-term relationships between consumers and their brands. The brand attributesthat should be communicated must be relevant to the customer. An unsuitable brandidentity could harm a very good and high quality (in technical terms) offering. Theyshould attempt to develop brands that consumers will want to interact with both interms of communication and feeling. This could have an implication on the way thatcompanies and the brand team supporting each brand really perceive and support thebrand expression. The scales developed in this paper could be used by companies toassess the strength of the relationship that their customer base is forming with theirbrands. It can be argued that the strength of the relationship that consumers' formwith a specific brand could be used as an indicator of the consumer based brandequity.

This study is somewhat exploratory in nature. The scale was developed havingin mind only one product category. Therefore, there is a need for replication usingother product categories and different contexts. Products could include fast movingconsumer good products or various durable products. One could also try to explorewhether the scale could be used for some services products where the interactionwith the staff is not perceived as being the key feature of the service provided.Furthermore, confirmatory factor analysis could be performed in larger sample sizesto back up the validity of the scale. Researchers in the future might want to usethis instrument in order to investigate what could drive consumers to form strongrelationships with various branded offers.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. and Keller, K.L. (1990), "Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions", Journal ofMarketing, 54 Qanuary), pp. 27-41.

Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press.Aaker, J. and Fournier, S. (1995), "A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three

Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality". Advances in Consumer Research, 22,pp. 391-392.

Ambler, T. (1997), "Building Brand Relationships", Financial Times Mastering Management,Pitman Publishing, pp. 175-183.

Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1982), "Some Methods for Respecifying Measurement Modelsto Obtain Unidimensional Construct Measurement",/oMrwa/ of Marketing Research, XIX(November), pp. 453-446.

Baker, M., Buttery, E. and Richtel-Buttery, E. (1998), "Relationship Marketing in ThreeDimensions", Journal of Interactive Marketing, 12 (4), pp. 47-62.

Bearden, W and Netemeyer, R. (1999), Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item Measuresfor Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Research, Second Edition, Sage Publications incooperation with the Association for Consumer Research, USA.

Bell, K.L. and Calkins, S.D. (2000), "Relationships as Inputs and Outputs of EmotionRegulations", Psychological Inquiry, 11 (3), pp. 160-209.

Bengtsson, A. (2003), "Towards a Critique of Brand Relationships", Advances in ConsumerResearch, 30, pp. 154-158.

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand 23

Berry, L.L. (2000), "Cultivating service brand equity". Journal of Academy of MarketingScience, Winter, 28 (1), pp. 128-137.

Blackston, M. (1992), "A Brand with an Attitude: A suitable case for treatment". Journal ofMarketing Research Society, 34 (3), pp. 231-241.

Blackston, M. (1993), "Beyond Brand Personality: Building Brand Equity". In: Aaker, D. (ed.).Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 113-124.

Blackston, M. (2000), "Observations: Building Brand equity by managing the brand'srelationships". Journal of Advertising Research, November/December, pp. 101-105.

Bloch, P, Brunei, F. and Arnold. D. (2003), "Individual Differences in the Centrality ofVisual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement",/o«r«a/ of Consumer Research, 29(March), pp. 551-565.

Bowiby, J. (1991), "Ethnologican light on attachment problems". In: Bateson, P. (ed.). TheDevelopment and Integration of Behaviour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.301-314.

Brondie, R., Coviello, N., Brooks, W. and Little, V (1997), "Towards a Paradigm Shift inMarketing? An Examination of Current Marketing Practices", Journal of MarketingManagement, 13, pp. 383-406.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S. and Ritchley, J., (1997), "Concepts and theory of organization-publicrelationships",/oMr«a/ of Public Relations Research, Vol. 9, No 2, pp. 83-98.

Brown, T. and Dacin, P. (1997), "The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations andConsumer Product Responses", Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), pp. 68-84.

Cann, C. (1998), "Eight Steps to building a business-to-business relationship". Journal ofBusiness and Industrial Marketing, 13 (4/5), pp. 393-405.

Christy, R., Oliver, G. and Penn J. (1996), "Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets",Journal of Marketing Management, 12, pp. 175-187.

Coviello, N. and Brondie, R. (1998), "From transaction to relationship marketing: aninvestigation of managerial perceptions and practices". Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6,pp. 176-186.

Coviello, N. and Brondie, R. (2001), "Contemporary marketing practices of consumer andbusiness-to-business firms: How different are they?". Journal of Business and IndustrialMarketing, 16, pp. 382-400.

Coviello, N., Brondie, R. and Murno, H. (1997), "Understanding Contemporary Marketing:Developing a Classification Scheme",/owrna/ of Marketing Management, 13, pp. 501-522.

Coviello, N., Brondie, R., Danaher, P and Johnston, W (2002), "How Eirms Relate to TheirMarkets: An Empirical investigation of Contemporary Marketing Practices", Journal ofMarketing, 66 Quly), pp. 33-46.

Dacin, P. and Smith, D. (1994), "The Effect of Brand Portfolio Characteristics on ConsumerEvaluations of Brand Extensions",/o«r«(j/ of Marketing Research, XXXI (May), pp. 229-242.

Dall'Olmo Riley, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2000). "The Service Brand as Relationship Builder",British Journal of Management, 11, pp. 137-150.

Daskou, S. and Hart, S. (2000), "Exchange Relationships: Customers' Ways, Reasons andPleasure", Rotterdam (The Netherlands), 29''' European Academy of Marketing Conference(EMAC), 23-26 May 2000.

Daskou, S. and Hart, S. (2002), "The Essence of Business to Consumer Relationships: Aphenomenological approach". The 10'* International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing,pp. 499-515.

Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1997), Driving Brand Value, New York: McGraw Hill.Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. and Mehta, S. (2000), "Business-to-business marketing: Service

recovery and customer satisfaction issues with ocean shipping lines", European Journal ofMarketing, 34 (3-4), pp. 433-452.

Egan, J., (2001), Relationship Marketing: Exploring rational strategies in marketing, England:Pearson Education.

Eiraz, V and Wilson, D. (2006), "Research in relationship marketing: antecedents, traditionsand integration", European Journal of Marketing, 40, (3-4), pp. 275-291.

24 ^ ^ Q Journal of Marketing Managennent, Volume 23

Evans, J. and Laskin, R. (1994), "The Relationship Marketing Process: A Conceptualizationand Application", Industrial Marketing Management, 23, pp. 439-452.

Fajer, M. and Schouten, J. (1995), "Breakdown and Dissolution of Person-Brand Relationships",Advances in Consumer Research, 22, pp. 663-667.

Ealk, D. and Noonan-Warker, P (1985), "Intimacy of Self-Disclosure and Response Processesas Factors Affecting the Development of Interpersonal Relationships", The Journal of SocialPsychology, 125 (5), pp. 557-570.

Eournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997), "Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within theframework of consumer-brand relationships". International Journal of Research inMarketing, 14, pp. 451-472.

Fournier, S. (1995), "The Brand as Relationship Partner: An alternative view of brandpersonality", A(ifa«ces in Consumer Research, 22, pp.393.

Fournier, S. (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory inConsumer Research", Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), pp. 343-373.

Gerbing, D. and Anderson, J. (1988), "An Updated Paradigm for Scale DevelopmentIncorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment",/owrwa/ of Marketing Research, XXV(May), pp. 186-192.

Churchill, G., (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs",Journal of Marketing Research, VoL XVI, February, pp. 64-73.

Gorsuch, R. (1974), Factor Analysis, Philadelphia: WB. Saunders Company, pp. 102.Gronroos, C. (1994), "From Marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing: Towards a Paradigm

Shift in Marketing", Management Decisions, 32 (2), pp. 4-20.Gronroos, C. (1996), "Relationship Marketing: strategic and tactical implications".

Management Decisions, 34 (3), pp. 5-14.Gronroos, C. (1997), "Value-driven Relational Marketing: from Products to Resources and

Competencies", Journal of Marketing Management, 13, pp. 407-419.Grossman, R.P. (1998), "Developing and Managing Effective Consumer Relationships",

Joumal of Product and Brand management, 7 (1), pp. 27-40.Gummesson, E. (1994), "Making Relationship Marketing Operational", International Journal

of Service Marketing, 5 (5), pp. 5-20.Gummesson, E. (1996), "Relationship Marketing and Imaginary Organisations: A Synthesis",

European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), pp. 31-35.Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black WC. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,

5* edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Harker, M.J. (1999), "Relationship marketing defined? An examination of current relationship

marketing definitions". Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17 (1), pp. 13-20.Hill, J., Harrington, R., Fudge, H., Ruttel, M. and Pickles, A. (1989). "Adult Personahty

Functioning Assessment (APFA): An investigator-based standardised interview", BritishJournal of Psychiatry, 155, pp. 24-35.

Hinde, R.A. (1979),Towards Understanding Relationships, London: Academic Press.Hinde, R.A. (1981), "The Bases of a science on interpersonal relationships". In Duck, S. and

Gilmour, R., (eds.). Personal Relationships 1: Studying personal relationships. AcademicPress, pp. 1-22

Hinde, R.A. (1995), "A suggested structure for a science of relationships", Per5O«i3/Reto/o«s/;!p5,2 (March), pp. 1-15

Hinde, R.A. (1997), Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective, UK: Psychology Press.Hinkin, T, (1995), "A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organisations",

Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 967-988.Hulin, C, Cudeck, R., Netemeyer, R., Dillon, W and McDonald, R. (2001), "Measurement",

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (1/2), pp. 55-69.Hunt, S., Arnett, D. and Madhavaram, S. (2006), "The explanatory foundations of relationship

marketing theory". Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21, 2, pp. 72-87.Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999), The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory

Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Veioutsou Identifying the Dimensions ot the Product-Brand 25

Jacuette, D. (2001), "Aristotle on the Value of Friendship as a Motivation for Morality", TheJournal of Value Inquiry, 35, pp. 371-389.

Jancic, Z. and Zabkar, V (2002), "Impersonal vs. Personal Exchanges in MarketingRehtionships", Journal of Marketing Management, 18, pp. 657-671.

Johnston, A.R. and Thomson, M. (2003). "Are Consumer Relationships Diiieienti", Advancesin Consumer Research, 30, pp. 350-351.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974), "An index of factorial simplicity", Psychometrika , 39, pp. 31-36.Kates, S. (2000), "Out of the Closet and out on the Street!: Cay Men and Their Brand

Relationships", Psychology and Marketing, 17 (June), pp. 493-513.Leary, M. (1995), Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods, 2"'' Ed., Pacific Grove: Brooks/

Cole Publishing Company.Lye, A. (2002), "Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bath Water: Integrating Relational

and the 4P's concepts of marketing". The W' International Colloquium in RelationshipMarketing, pp. 223-233.

Martin, C. (1998), "Relationship Marketing: a high-involvement product attribute approach",Journalof Product and Brand Management, 7 (1), pp. 6-26.

McCarthy, G. (1999), "Attachment style and adult love relationships and friendships: A studyof a group of women at risk of experiencing relationship difficulties", British Journal ofMedical Psychology, 72, pp. 305-312.

McGraw, P A., Tetlock, P. E. and Kristel, O. V (2003), "The Limits of Fugibility: RelationalSchemata and the Value of Things", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, September, pp.219-229.

McGraw, P. A., and Tetlock, P. E. (2005), "Taboo trade-offs, relational framing and theacceptability of exchanges",/owrwd/ of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 2-15.

Monsour, M. (1992), "Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same- sex relationships",/owrwa/ ofPersonal Relationships", 9, pp. 277-295.

Murphy, J.B. (1997), "Virtue and the Good of Friendship", American Catholic PhilosophicalQuarterly, 71, pp. 189-201.

O'Laughlin, D., Szmigin, I. and Turnbull, P. (2004), "From relationships to experiences inretail financial services". International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22 (7), pp. 522-540.

O'Malley, L. and Tynan, C. (1999), "The Utility of the Relationship Metaphor in ConsumerMarkets: A Critical Evaluation",/o«r«a/ of Marketing Management, 15, pp. 587-602.

O'Malley, L. and Tynan, C. (2000), "Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Rhetoricor reality?", European Journal of Marketing, 34 (7), pp. 797-815.

Palmer, A. (1996), "Integrating Brand Development and Relationship Marketing, Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services, 3 (4), pp. 251-257.

Palmer, R., Lindgreen, A. and Vanhamme, J. (2005), "Relationship marketing: schools ofthought and future research directions". Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 23, 3, pp.313-330.

Pels, J., Coviello, N. and Brodie, R. (2000), "Integrating transactional and relational marketingexchange: A pluralistic perspective",/o«r«a/ of Marketing Theory and Practice, Summer,pp. 11-20.

Peter, R (1979), "Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices",Journal of Marketing Research, XVI (February), pp. 6-17.

Peter, P (1981), "Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices",Journal of Marketing Research, XVII (May), pp. 133-145.

Pulakos, J. (1989), "Young Adult Relationships: Siblings and Friends", The Journal ofPsychology, 231 (3), pp. 237-244.

Rook, D. (1985), "The ritual dimension of consumer hehzv\ot", Journal of Consumer Research,12 (3), pp. 251-264.

Ruckh, E.W. (2004), "The Labyrinth of Friendship: Rupture, Space and the Political Unconsciousof Hesse's Narcissus and Goldmund", in Pappas, N. (ed.) Antiquity and Modernity: ACelebration of European History and Heritage in the Olympic Year 2004: Essays from the1st International Conference on European History, ATINER, Athens, pp. 189-206.

26 ^ ^ y Journalof Marketing Management, Volume 23

Saren, M. and Tzokas, N. (1998), The Nature ofthe Product in Market Relationships: A Plury-Signified Product Concept", Journal of Marketing Management, 14, pp. 445-464.

Schlueter, S. (1992). "Get to the 'essence' of a brand relationship". Marketing News, January20, p. 4.

Smith, W. and Higgins, M. (2000), "Reconsidering the Relationship Marketing Analogy", Joumalof Marketing Management, 16, pp. 81-94.

Sokolowski, R. (2001), "Friendship and Moral Action in Aristotle", The Journal of Value Inquiry,35, pp. 355-369.

Straub, D., Boudreau M.C. and Gefen D., 2004, "Validation Guidelines for is positivisticresearch". Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13, pp. 380-427.

Sweeney, J. and Chew, M. (2002), "Understanding Consumer-Service Brand Relationship: ACase Study Approach", Australasian Marketing Journal, 10 (2), pp. 26-43.

Tan, S.H. (2001), "Mentor or Friend? Confucius and Aristotle on Equality and EthicalDevelopment in Friendship", International Studies in Philosophy, 33 (4), pp. 99-121.

Varey, R. (2002), Relationship Marketing: Dialogue and Networks in the E-Commerce Era,England: Wiley.

Veioutsou, C. (2001), "Developing Brand Relationships", Competitive Paper, Cardiff, Academyof Marketing Annual Conference, July.

Veioutsou, C , Saren, M. and Tzokas, N. (2002), "Relationship Marketing: What if...?",European Journal of Marketing, 36 (4), pp. 433-449.

Verbeke, W, Farris, P. and Thurik, R. (1998). "Consumer response to the preferred brand out-of-stock situation", European Journal of Marketing, 32 (10/11), pp. 1008-1028.

Webster, F. (2000), "Understanding the Relationships among Brands, Consumers and Resellers",Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 17-23.

Weitz, B. and Brandford, K. (1999), "Personal Selling and Sales Management: A RelationshipMarketing Perspective",/o«r«a/ ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), pp. 241-254.

White, R. (1999), "Friendship and Commitment", The Journal of Value Inquiry, 33, pp. 79-88.Williams, M. (1998), "The influence of salespersons' customer orientation on buyer-seller

relationship development",/owwa/ of Business and Industrial Marketing, 13 (3), pp. 271-287.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND CORRESPONDENCE

Cleopatra Veioutsou is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing in the School of Business andManagement of the University of Glasgow. She holds an MBA and was awarded aPhD from the Athens University of Economics and Business in Greece. Her primaryresearch interest is on Brand Management and Marketing Organisation, focusingmostly on the Brand Management structure and the hrand support in general. Shehas also worked in Relationship Marketing and Marketing Gommunications. She haspuhlished in these areas and her papers have appeared in various academic journals,including the European Journal of Marketing, the International Journal of Advertising,the Joumal of Business and Industrial Marketing, the Journal of Marketing Management,the Journal of Product and Brand Management and the Journal of Services Marketing.Dr. Veioutsou is also on the editorial board of the European Journal of Marketing,Management Decisions and the Global Business and Economic Review, while she hasbeen awarded the Highly Gommended Award for her paper published in the EuropeanJournal of Marketing in 2005.

Dr. Gleopatra Veioutsou, Department of Management, University of Glasgow, TheGilbert Scott Building, West Quadrangle, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.

T -f 44 141 330 4055F -f-44 141 330 5669E G.Veloutsou@mgt.gla.ac.uk