The brand, me, and the other the influence of
-
Upload
cbr-conference -
Category
Marketing
-
view
38 -
download
1
Transcript of The brand, me, and the other the influence of
Introduction
Current ResearchDo social, external (to consumer-brand) relationships
impact consumer brand relationships? What are the mechanisms underlying these effects?
Current research
Social External Relationships
Consumer-Brand Relationships
(e.g., Fournier 1998; Johnson, Matear, Thompson 2011)
(e.g., Sherry 1983; Ruthet al. 1999)
Theoretical Model
Self-Brand Connection
c
Study 1Study 2
External Relationship
Episode
Affect towards the external party
Brand-related Behaviors
Study 1: Method Three sessions, 3 weeks apart
Pretest: brand stimulus selection
Part 1: prior SBC
Part II: Relationship episode (Reinforcement vs. Dissolution)
N=39• Relationship story development; manipulation• Affect towards the external party • Filler tasks• Dependent Variable (SBC)• Manipulation checks
Study 1- Results Affect towards the external partyNegative
(F (1, 38) = 41.12; p < .001)
***
Positive
(F (1, 38) = 137.9; p < .001)
***
Participants in the dissolution (reinforcement) condition experienced significantly higher levels of negative (positive) affect towards the external party
Study 1-Results•Participants in the dissolution (reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower (higher) levels of SBC (F (1, 37) = 5.25; p <.05)
•Bootstrapping method, cross sectional mediation (Preacher and
Hayes 2004, 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010): •Negative affect mediates the effects of relationship episode on SBC (a x b = -.80; CI: -1.89 to -.01 ) while positive affect does not (CI: -1.73 to 2.11)•Stronger impact of negative (vs. positive) information on consumer’s evaluations (e.g., Ito, Larsen, Smith, and Cacioppo 1998) -> significant difference of SBC largely explained by negative affect in the dissolution condition
Self-Brand Connection
External Relationship
Episode
Study 2- MethodObjectiveReplicate and build on study 1 (brand-related behaviors)
Design • Relationship episode (Reinforcement vs. Dissolution)
Procedure (study 1-part II)• N= 117• Manipulation: same as study 1, except for pdt category
(cell phone) and brand (fictitious)• Process measures (affect towards external party,
association with the external party and pdt/brand)• DVs (SBC, Attitude, PI, Avoidance pdt/brand)
Study 2- ResultsDesire of avoidance: significantly higher (lower) for
those in the dissolution (reinforcement) conditionProduct (MD = 4.11 vs. MR = 2.04; F (1, 113) =99.94; p < .001)Brand (MD = 3.52 vs. MR = 1.95; F (1, 113) =23.97; p < .001) Changes in external relationships go beyond those on the gifted product; rather, they spill over to the brand
Participants in the dissolution (vs. reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower:Self-Brand Connections (MD = 3.51 vs. MR = 5.00)
Attitude towards the Brand (MD = 3.98 vs. MR = 5.25)
(All Fs (1,116) > 10, p ≤ .001)
Study 2- Results Purchase Intentions
(F (1, 116) = 14. 68; p < .001)
•Participants in the dissolution (vs. reinforcement) condition displayed significantly lower (higher) purchase intentions •However, this only happened for relatively more fitting product categories
***
(F (1, 116) =.02; p > .1)
High Fit Low Fit
Study 2- ResultsProcess measuresAs in study 1, participants in the dissolution (vs.
reinforcement) condition experienced significantly higher levels of negative affect (F (1, 115) = 347.48; p < .001 ) and
lower levels of positive affect towards the external party (F (1, 116) = 588.84; p < .001)
Associations of the external party with both the product and the brand did not vary significantly across conditions (p>. 10)
-> High association of the external party with the product/brand, regardless of relationship episode
Study 2- Mediation Analysis
Self-Brand Connection
cExternal Relationship
Episode
Affect towards the external party
a x b = -1.59; CI: -2.99 to -.04
Bootstrapping method; 5,000 bootstrap resamples, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated CI (Preacher and Hayes 2004, 2008; Zhao et al. 2010)
a x b = -1.59; CI: -2.99 to -.04
a x b = -0.07; CI: -.17 to -.01
All a x bs >o and significant
DiscussionStudy 1 and 2
Changes in an external relationship impact feelings of SBC, because of the negative affect associated with the external party
Study 2Lower (higher) SBC that follow explain less (more)
favorable brand-related behaviors, such as attitude towards the brand, purchase intentions (PI), desires of product and brand avoidance
The effects of relationship episode on PI are limited to product categories more strictly related to the product that symbolizes the external relationship
ContributionSocial, external relationships impact consumer-brand RelationshipsThe effects go beyond those on the gifted product; rather, they spill over
to the brand and to brand-related responses
Relationship Theory: not only consumer-brand relationships mirror interpersonal ones; they also are affected by them
Consumer-brand relationships-> new avenue for future research
New perspectives on gift experience
Influence of SBC
Practical implications: brands as means to reinforce desirable external social relationships (communication/brand positioning)
Future ResearchShort-term plan: Enhance external validity
“Non-student” participantsField experiment
Rule out incidental mood as an alternative explanation
Other future research: Persistence of the effects across timeExplore different types of relationships and of
reinforcements/dissolution