The effect of firm’s severity of unethicality on brand trust: the role of ethical self-identity and brand relationship quality

Nobi, Benjamin,Kyung-Min Kim 한국마케팅관리학회 2019 한국마케팅관리학회 학술대회 Vol.2019 No.10

In recent times consumers are becoming more conscious of how companies’ actions affect society and consumers’ interests in corporate social responsibility cannot be overemphasized. Previous research provides empirical evidence on the relationship between a firm’s unethical behavior and brand trust. Specifically, it is known that high levels of consumer perceived unethicality reduce the level of trust consumers have for the brand in question. Consumer interests and awareness of ethical issues relating to brands is fast growing which presupposes that, companies must seek to integrate ethical behaviour into their business model (Singh, J. 2016). Extant research shows that empathy is evident with consumers’ identification with ethical issues which consequently impacts their attitudes (Shaw & Shiu, 2002; Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006). Also, when consumers are committed or attached to a brand, this in turn influences their attitude or judgements towards the unethical actions of firms (Schmalz & Orth, 2012; Ingram, Skinner & Taylor, V. A, 2005). When consumers have a strong relationship with a brand and feel attached, they are keener to sustain that relationship because that relationship is regarded as an investment. In their study, Tsarenko & Tojib (2012) show that, after a transgression of a firm, consumers’ decision to switch service provider was attenuated by forgiveness. Due to forgiveness, Consumers are willing to continue purchasing the firms’ products even after a transgression (Tsarenko & Tojib, 2015). Thus, the present study therefore examines how other boundary conditions - brand relationship quality and ethical self-identity affect the relationship between the severity of a firm’s unethical behavior and brand trust. A theoretical framework with hypothesized relationships is developed and tested in order to answer the research questions. We predict the following based on previous studies: H1: Brand relationship quality moderates the effects of severity of unethicality on brand trust such that, when severity of unethicality is high and brand relationship quality is high, brand trust is higher than when brand relationship quality is low. H2: Ethical Self-identity moderates the relationship between severity of unethicality on brand trust such that, when severity of unethicality is high and ethical self-identity is high, brand trust is lower than when ethical self-identity is low. Data is collected from structured questionnaires resulting in 81 valid responses. Employing Analysis of variance (ANOVA), data was analysed. The results, consistent with the hypotheses, provide evidence that, ethical self-identity interact with severity of firm’s unethicality on brand trust. More to that, band relationship quality also moderated the relationship between severity of firm’s ethicality on brand trust. The study makes appropriate contribution in the domain of business ethics. From the findings of this study, important implications for managers are drawn as well as future research directions. For instance, a closer look at the interaction effects shows that, ethical self-identity represents an important consumer trait that managers must consider when they want to gain the consumers’ trust of their brand. Also, brand relationship building provides a buffer for firms in the event of an unfortunate circumstance on the part of firms.

소비자-브랜드 관계 품질 측정에 관한 연구

강명수(Kang Myung Soo),김병재(Byoung Jai Kim),신종칠(Jong Chil Shin) 한국마케팅과학회 2007 마케팅과학연구 Vol.17 No.2

  브랜드의 중요성이 증대됨에 따라 다양한 브랜드 관련 연구가 이루어지고 있는데, 최근 들어서는 소비자-브랜드 관계가 브랜드 연구의 중심이 되어가고 있다.<BR>  본 논문은 이러한 소비자-브랜드 관계에 있어서 높은 품질과 지속적인 연대를 가능하게 하는 브랜드 관계 품질의 측정을 다루고 있다. 소비자-브랜드 관계에 대한 대부분의 기존 연구들은 Fournier(1994, 1998)가 제시한 6개 구성요소 또는 하위 차원을 바탕으로 하고 있다. 그러나 많은 연구들에서 소비자-브랜드 관계를 구성하는 6가지의 요소 또는 하위차원들이 소비자-브랜드 관계 품질이라는 하나의 단일차원을 이루고 있는지 확인하지 못한 채 소비자-브랜드 관계를 측정하기 위해 이들 하위차원들을 결합하여 점수를 계산하고서 연구를 진행하고 있다.<BR>  이러한 문제와 관련하여 본 연구에서는 소비자-브랜드 관계 품질을 구성하고 있는 상호의존, 몰입, 사랑/정열, 자아연관, 친밀감, 브랜드 파트너 품질 등의 6개의 차원들이 단일차원의 개념인가를 검토하였고, 이를 실증적으로 검토하였다. 구체적으로 본 연구에서는 구성개념들의 하위차원들이 단일차원의 구성개념인가를 검토한 선행연구들(Naver & Slater, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Chang & Chen, 1998)에서 사용한 방법론을 활용하여 소비자-브랜드 관계를 구성하는 하위차원들이 단일차원을 이루고 있는가를 살펴보았다.<BR>  이러한 실증연구를 통해 소비자-브랜드 관계를 구성하고 있는 6개 차원들의 신뢰성, 수렴타당성, 판별 타당성을 확인할 수 있었고, 소비자-브랜드관계를 구성하는 6개의 하위차원들이 단일차원을 이루고 있다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 연구결과는 소비자-브랜드 관계를 구성하는 6개의 하위차원을 결합하여 소비자-브랜드 관계를 연구하였던 기존 연구들, 소비자-브랜드관계를 구성하는 하위차원을 통합하여 소비자-브랜드 관계를 종합적으로 살펴보려는 여러 연구들에 있어서 방법론상의 실증적 근거를 제시하고 있다.   As a brand becomes a core asset in creating a corporation"s value, brand marketing has become one of core strategies that corporations pursue. Recently, for customer relationship management, possession and consumption of goods were centered on brand for the management. Thus, management related to this matter was developed. The main reason of the increased interest on the relationship between the brand and the consumer is due to acquisition of individual consumers and development of relationship with those consumers. Along with the development of relationship, a corporation is able to establish long-term relationships. This has become a competitive advantage for the corporation.<BR>  All of these processes became the strategic assets of corporations.<BR>  The importance and the increase of interest of a brand have also become a big issue academically.<BR>  Brand equity, brand extension, brand identity, brand relationship, and brand community are the results derived from the interest of a brand. More specifically, in marketing, the study of brands has been led to the study of factors related to building of powerful brands and the process of building the brand.<BR>  Recently, studies concentrated primarily on the consumer-brand relationship. The reason is that brand loyalty can not explain the dynamic quality aspects of loyalty, the consumer-brand relationship building process, and especially interactions between the brands and the consumers.<BR>  In the studies of consumer-brand relationship, a brand is not just limited to possession or consumption objectives, but rather conceptualized as partners. Most of the studies from the past concentrated on the results of qualitative analysis of consumer-brand relationship to show the depth and width of the performance of consumer-brand relationship. Studies in Korea have been the same.<BR>  Recently, studies of consumer-brand relationship started to concentrate on quantitative analysis rather than qualitative analysis or even go further with quantitative analysis to show effecting factors of consumer-brand relationship.<BR>  Studies of new quantitative approaches show the possibilities of using the results as a new concept of viewing consumer-brand relationship and possibilities of applying these new concepts on marketing.<BR>  Studies of consumer-brand relationship with quantitative approach already exist, but none of them include sub-dimensions of consumer-brand relationship, which presents theoretical proofs for measurement. In other words, most studies add up or average out the sub-dimensions of consumer-brand relationship. However, to do these kind of studies, precondition of sub-dimensions being in identical constructs is necessary. Therefore, most of the studies from the past do not meet conditions of sub-dimensions being as one dimension construct. From this, we question the validity of past studies and their limits.<BR>  The main purpose of this paper is to overcome the limits shown from the past studies by practical use of previous studies on sub-dimensions in a one-dimensional construct (Naver & Slater, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Chang & Chen, 1998).<BR>  In this study, two arbitrary groups were classified to evaluate reliability of the measurements and reliability analyses were pursued on each group. For convergent validity, correlations, Cronbach"s , one-factor solution exploratory analysis were used.<BR>  For discriminant validity correlation of consumer-brand relationship was compared with that of an involvement, which is a similar concept with consumer-based relationship. It also indicated dependent correlations by Cohen and Cohen (1975, p.35) and results showed that it was different constructs from 6 sub-dimensions of consumer-brand relationship.<BR>  Through the results of studies mentioned above, we were a

Brand Relationship Quality After a Transgression : The Role of Brand Forgiveness and Brand Evangelism

Kyung-Min Kim,Benjamin Nobi 한국마케팅관리학회 2019 한국마케팅관리학회 학술대회 Vol.2019 No.04

At the corporate level, brands are increasing efforts to shape their ethical image given the rise of ethical consumerism in the past few decades. Naturally, brands serve as vehicles to develop meaningful relationships with consumers which might explain why brands have the propensity to influence consumer actions. In view of this, if firms want to survive in the competitive market place, then the importance of developing and maintaining strong customer-brand relationships must be at the core of brand management decisions. In many interpersonal relationships, the likelihood of mishaps and conflicts cannot be ruled out. One study, thus, suggests that, in romantic relationships, being hurt or wronged as a result of betrayal and disagreements is inevitable (Rye & Pargament, 2002). Firms and their brands are no different from this sort of relationship, given that, some consumers develop a great deal of affinity for some brands. However, brand-related crises or transgressions could act as recipes for damaging the image of the brand in question. After a brand transgression, response from consumers may take different forms. The consumer’s response or the relationship with the brand may be affected by whether the consumer forgives the brand or evangelizes about the brand. Research shows that, in the event of a service failure, the degree of service failure will also impact consumers’ coping response (Tsarenko & Tojib, 2012). In their study they also prove that, following a transgression of a firm, consumers’ decision to change or switch service provider was attenuated by forgiveness. Ysseldyk & Wohl, 2012, also discover that, forgiveness acts as an investment to a relationship, such that, in the aftermath of a firm’s transgression, forgiveness acted as a preservation for commitment. Due to forgiveness, Consumers are willing to continue purchasing the firms’ products even after a transgression (Tsarenko & Tojib, 2015). These streams of research demonstrate the relevance of forgiveness after service failures. However, studies have only concentrated on one type of coping response – forgiveness. In this study we examine another coping response – brand evangelism in addition to brand forgiveness in a bid to understand how these affect the brand relationship quality. “Brand evangelism is another emotion-focused coping strategy that is similar to word-ofmouth. This strategy refers to the proselytizing behavior of the consumer in trying to convert others to become brand users” (Schnebelen & Bruhn, 2018). The authors also define brand forgiveness as another emotion-focused coping strategy that acts as tempting justice with mercy. The primary focus of this article is to examine these mechanisms- brand forgiveness and brand evangelism in explaining the relationship between a brand’s unethical act and the relationship quality. Extant research has examined consumer responses to brand transgressions. However, most of these studies use scenario-based experiments which limits the generalization of research findings. In this study we examine a real-world service failure - Facebook’s breach of data which appeared in the Irish times, Wednesday the 14th of April, 2018. Recent news in the media suggests that younger people are using popular social media such as Facebook more often which means that understanding how consumers respond to a transgression by an oftenused SNS like Facebook will provide an important addition of knowledge in the literature. Thus, we take particular interest in understanding the role of brand forgiveness and brand evangelism in the relationship between the firm’s severity of ethicality and the brand relationship quality. A theoretical framework with hypothesized relationships is developed and tested in order to answer the research questions. We propose the following based on previous studies: Adopting a survey method of data collection, 226 students from Silla Universitywere randomly selected to constitute the sample. The questionnaire consisted of a caption of the news item on Facebooks’ breach of data. Subjects were asked to read the news item and thereafter complete other questions regarding their opinions on the news item. Resorting to the procedure suggested by Hayes (2018, model 4) a test of significance for both mediators to calculate the indirect effects for 5,000 resamples was done. Generally, the results of the mediation imply that, forgiveness and brand evangelism act as important mechanisms in understanding consumer-brand relationships after brands act unacceptably. We advance the knowledge in consumer behavior by showing how consumers offer to deal with their relationships with brands through brand evangelism and forgiveness. This provides relevant information to managers to seek strategies in order to obtain forgiveness from consumers in case the unfortunate happens. Not only must they seek to obtain forgiveness but also seek ways to ensure brand evangelism of their brands. These acts as buffers for the brands in case a transgression happens.

브랜드경험, 브랜드지식, 브랜드관계품질 및 브랜드관계지속성 간의 관계

이승재(Seung Jae Lee) 영남대학교 산경연구소 2013 영상저널 Vol.6 No.1

소비자들은 다양한 브랜드 접점을 통해 브랜드를 경험하게 되며, 기업의 마케팅과 커뮤니케이션 활동에 의해 브랜드와 관계를 형성하게 된다. 기업은 브랜드와의 관계 형성을 통해 브랜드충성도를 높임으로서 강력한 브랜드 자산을 구축하게 된다. 소비자-브랜드관계의 형성에 관한 대부분의 연구들이 소비자-브랜드관계의 형성에 영향을 미치는 영향요인들이나 성과간의 단편적인 영향관계만을 살펴보았고, 포괄적인 관점에서 소비자-브랜드관계의 형성과정에 대해서 실증적으로 검정한 연구는 거의 찾아볼 수 없다. 본 연구는 소비자-브랜드관계품질의 선행요인인 브랜드경험과 브랜드지식이 소비자-브랜드관계품질에 미치는 영향과 소비자-브랜드관계품질이 소비자-브랜드관계지속성에 미치는 영향을 통합된 모형으로 살펴봄으로써 일련의 소비자-브랜드관계품질 형성과정을 확인하였다. 그 결과 브랜드경험은 브랜드지식과 소비자-브랜드관계품질에 긍정적인 영향을 미치고, 브랜드지식 역시 소비자-브랜드관계품질에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 소비자-브랜드관계품질은 소비자-브랜드관계지속성에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. Companies can improve customers" loyalty and build strong brand equity through development of the relationship with the brand. Most of the studies on consumer-brand relationship have examined the relationship between consumer-brand relationship and the variables affecting the development of consumer-brand relationship or between consumer-brand relationship and the performance of consumer-brand relationship in fragments. So, few studies have empirically investigated the development process of consumer-brand relationship. Although consumers" brand experience and brand knowledge are considerably important, most of research has not considered theses factors as the predisposing factors of customer-brand relationship. This study develops a integrative model to test whether brand experience and brand knowledge affect consumer-brand relationship quality and whether the consumer-brand relationship quality affects consumer-brand relationship stability, and examines a development process of consumer-brand relationships. The results of the study are as follows. First, brand experience positively affects both brand knowledge and consumer-brand relationship quality, and brand knowledge also positively influences consumer-brand relationship quality. Therefore, these results show that positive brand experience and brand knowledge of consumers improve the level of consumer-brand relationship quality. Second, consumer-brand relationship quality positively affects consumer-brand relationship stability. Particularly among consumer-brand relationship quality constructs which have a significant positive relationship with consumer-brand relationship stability, the influence power of love is the highest, followed partner quality, nostalgic connection, personal commitment, interdependence. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this study and its limitations, along with future research interest.

Understanding the Consumer-Brand Relationship Quality : Its Relationship with Perceived Involvement and Restaurant Brand Choice

윤태환,윤유식 한국자료분석학회 2008 Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society Vol.10 No.4

Although the importance of the relationship between consumers and brands has been recognized by a wider community, relatively little academic interests have been shown regarding the quality of the consumer-brand relationship and thus there remains a lack of consensus amongst researchers as to what the concept really is and how it works. The aim of this study was to provide better and richer understandings of the roles of a consumer-brand relationship on the perceptions of service customers by empirically examining the construct of the consumer-brand relationship quality, and the relationships among consumer-brand relationship, choice behaviour, and involvement level in the context of hospitality industry. The findings suggested the consumer-brand relationship quality concept is valid in the context of restaurant brands. The consumer-brand relationship quality was found to have a significant influence on restaurant brand choice. However, the moderating effect of perceived involvement was not confirmed in this study. Although the importance of the relationship between consumers and brands has been recognized by a wider community, relatively little academic interests have been shown regarding the quality of the consumer-brand relationship and thus there remains a lack of consensus amongst researchers as to what the concept really is and how it works. The aim of this study was to provide better and richer understandings of the roles of a consumer-brand relationship on the perceptions of service customers by empirically examining the construct of the consumer-brand relationship quality, and the relationships among consumer-brand relationship, choice behaviour, and involvement level in the context of hospitality industry. The findings suggested the consumer-brand relationship quality concept is valid in the context of restaurant brands. The consumer-brand relationship quality was found to have a significant influence on restaurant brand choice. However, the moderating effect of perceived involvement was not confirmed in this study.

THE ROLE OF LUXURY BRAND ATTACHMENT ON CONSUMER BRAND RELATIONSHIP

Anwar Sadat Shimul,Michael Lwin,Ian Phau 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2017 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2017 No.07

This study aims to investigate the role of luxury brand attachment on consumer brand relationship by examining the relationship with trust, commitment, satisfaction and loyalty. This also examines the interrelationships among trust, commitment, satisfaction and loyalty from luxury branding context which provides a good number of theoretical and practical implications. Introduction The global luxury market exceeded $1 trillion in the year 2015 with a 5% annual growth (Bain & Co., 2015). However, industry experts predict that the luxury industry will face challenges in upcoming year primarily due to the economic instability and turmoil in the global foreign exchange market (Robert, 2015). Therefore, the luxury brand executives should carefully target their future consumer segment to sustain the current growth (Luxury Society, 2015). Earlier studies demonstrate that consumers seek various types of emotional benefits from luxury brands such as status seeking (Nelissen & Meijers, 2011), hedonic pleasure (Tsai, 2005), feeling good (Aaker, 1999), pleasurable experience (Atwal & Williams, 2009), mental peace (Silverstein & Fiske, 2003), and impressing others (Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009). Moreover, these emotional benefits create a comprehensive and memorable experience in terms of ownership and consumption of luxury brands (Choo et al., 2012). Therefore, luxury brand marketers should emphasize more on emotional attachment for building a long term and sustainable customer relationship (Orth et al., 2010). Research Gap Existing literature on consumer-brand relationship mostly considers cross-cultural issues (Chang & Chieng, 2006), reviving brand loyalty (Fournier, 1997), consumer attitude (Aggarwal, 2004), satisfaction (Sung & Choi, 2006), self-brand connection (Cheng et al., 2012), trust-based commitment (Hess & Story, 1995) and such other dimensions on brand evaluation (e.g. Swaminathan et al., 2007). Few studies have considered luxury products (Hodge et al., 2015) and the role of emotional aspects (Hwang & Kandampully, 2012) in the consumer-brand relationship. Still, there is a lack of empirical support for understanding the role of luxury brand attachment into the construct. This research will attempt to fulfil these research gaps. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Psychological theories explain attachment as the tie between a person and an object or any other components (Bowlby, 1979; Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Brand attachment is defined as a long-term and commitment oriented tie between the consumer and the brand (Esch et al., 2006). The conceptualization of luxury brand demonstrates that the inherent traits of luxury brands are distinctiveness, high transaction value, superior quality, inimitability, and craftsmanship; and luxury brand consumption is mostly emotion laden (Nueno & Quelch, 1998). Based on the existing attachment concepts and theories, we define luxury brand attachment as the emotional bond that connects a consumer with a specific brand and develops deep feelings toward the brand. Several past studies have found that brand attachment reinforces brand trust and there is a positive relationship between brand attachment and trust (e.g. Belaid & Behi, 2011). In addition, Esch et al. (2006) argue that brand satisfaction and brand attachment are interrelated and satisfaction results long-term consumer-brand relationships (Gladstein, 1984). Moreover, strong commitment from the consumers has been identified as a critical factor of long lasting brand relationship (Li et al., 2014; Sung and Choi, 2010). Further, Thomson et al. (2005) find that brand attachment creates behavioural loyalty for which consumers are also willing to pay higher prices. Expecting similar relationship from luxury branding context, we propose that H1: The higher the luxury brand attachment, the greater the consumers trust in that brand. H2: The higher the luxury brand attachment, the greater the consumer satisfaction for that brand. H3: The higher the luxury brand attachment, the greater the consumer commitment to that brand. H4: Higher luxury brand attachment leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. Scholars explain that satisfaction is an essential element of brand loyalty and both the constructs are positively related (e.g. Agustin and Singh, 2005). Past researches find that highly satisfied consumers demonstrate repeat purchases (e.g. Bennett et al, 2005). Past studies also show that trust toward the brand results brand loyalty and strengthen the relationship (Bansal et al., 2014; Belaid & Behi, 2011). Fournier (1997) identify brand trust as the key determinant of brand loyalty. Thus, we propose that H5: Higher satisfaction to the luxury brand leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. H6: Higher trust to the luxury brand leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. Ganesan (1994) argue that a satisfied customer develop trust toward a specific brand. In support of this, Belaid & Behi (2011) state that if a brand becomes successful in fulfilling the promise with consistence performance, the consumer will have satisfaction and positive feeling about the brand. In addition, the authors find a positive relationship between brand commitment and behavioural loyalty. Expecting similar relationship from luxury branding context, we propose that H7: The higher the trust in luxury brand, the more customer satisfaction in that brand. H8: Higher commitment to the luxury brand leads to higher behavioural loyalty to that brand. Summary of the hypothesised relationships are illustrated in Figure 1. Methodology The simple random sampling will ensure proper representation of the target population and eliminate the sampling bias (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Zikmund, 2002). The sample population will be 300 young Australian consumers aged between 20-30 years. Previous studies have found that there is a growth in luxury brand purchase by individuals in younger age groups e.g. 20 – 30 (Hung et al., 2011). Therefore, this is representative of the possible drift in the ages of consumers in the market for luxury brand purchase (Han et al., 2010). A consumer panel from Qualtrics database will be used and the sample frame consists of consumers who have higher brand likeability (Martin & Stewart, 2001). Established scales will be used to measure the constructs. All items will be measured on a seven-point Likert scale with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”. Research Significance This would be the very first study to investigate the role of luxury brand attachment in consumer brand relationship. This research will provide meaningful insights for the brand managers, brand strategists and advertising managers. This research will assist luxury brand managers in allocation of resources for the action plans that will ensure a stronger tie with the consumers in a cost efficient way. For brand managers luxury brand attachment may help them with segmentation process and well as providing direction on improving attachment to the consumers to influence trust, commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty.

고객자산 구성요소가 고객충성도에 미치는 상대적 효과에 관한 연구

안광호(Kwang Ho Ahn),김모란(Mo Ran Kim),김성환(Sung Hwan Kim) 한국마케팅학회 2011 마케팅연구 Vol.26 No.1

최근 신규고객의 획득보다는 기존고객의 유지 및 관계강화가 기업수익성을 창출하는데 주요원천이 됨에 따라 고객관계관리(CRM)의 중요성이 부각되었다. 이에 따라 고객관계에 기반을 두어 형성된 고객자산 (customer equity)에 관한 연구가 활발하게 이루어지고 있다. 고객자산의 구성요소는 가치자산(value equity), 브랜드자산(brand equity), 관계자산(relationship equity)로 구성되며, 이를 측정하기 위해 고객생애가치 (Customer Lifetime Value: CLV)를 사용하였다. 하지만 고객자산을 측정하기 위해 사용된 고객생애가치는 기업의 재무적 성과를 측정하는데 유용한 개념이지만, 기업들이 이를 정확히 측정하는데 어려움이 있다. 고객생애가치에 기반한 고객자산 측정은 고객의 누적 구매량과 구매액에 초점을 맞추고 있기 때문에 고객자산을 정의하는데 핵심요소인 장기적 고객관계 구축이라는 개념을 반영하지 못하는 한계점을 갖는다. 이에 따라 본 연구는 고객과의 장기적 관계형성이라는 고객자산의 핵심개념을 반영하기 위해 고객생애가치대신 고객충성도를 사용해 고객자산을 측정했다. 본 연구는 Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemom(2000)이 제안한 고객자산모델을 확장시킨 Vogel, Evanschitzky, and Ramaseshan(2008)의 연구를 바탕으로 고객자산의 구성요소들이 고객충성도에 미치는 효과를 살펴보았다. 또한 상황에 따라 고객자산 구성요소의 상대적 중요도가 달라질 수 있으므로, 고객자산의 구성요소와 충성도간의 관계에서 제품유형이 갖는 조절효과를 살펴보았다. 실증분석 결과 고객자산의 구성요소인 가치자산, 브랜드자산, 관계자산은 고객충성도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 가치자산과 관계자산에 비해 브랜드자산이 고객의 기업/브랜드 충성도에 상대적으로 더 많은 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 고객자산의 구성요소들과 고객충성도간의 관계에서 제품유형이 갖는 조절효과를 살펴본 결과, 고관여/이성제품의 경우 가치자산과 브랜드 자산이 고객충성도에 유의하게 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 고관여/감성제품의 경우에는 가치자산, 브랜드자산, 관계자산 모두 고객충성도에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 저관여 이성/감성제품의 경우 가치자산, 브랜드자산, 관계자산 모두 고객충성도에 유의하게 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 연구결과를 요약하면, 고객들은 가치자산, 브랜드자산, 관계자산 모두를 고려해 기업 또는 제품에 대해 평가하고, 이를 기반으로 충성적 행동을 결정하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 제품유형에 따라 고객자산의 구성요소의 상대적 영향력이 다르게 나타났는데, 이는 제한된 마케팅자원을 가진 기업들이 제품유형에 따라 고객자산 구성요소에 대한 마케팅투자의 비중을 차별화시켜야 함을 시사한다. As maintaining and growing existing customers become more profitable source than the acquisition of new customers, many firms recognize the strategic importance of CRM(Customer Relationship Management). The key of successful CRM is to measure, build, and strengthen the customer equity. The concept of customer equity is important in combining customer relationship/ retention management with brand management. In the saturated product market, customer equity as a measure of the future purchase behavior of a firm`s customers is a strategic intangible asset to be monitored and strengthened to maximize long-term marketing performance. With the growing recognition that customer equity is a key strategic asset, researches on linking marketing actions to the return on investment for marketing mix programs and customer equity have been gaining significance and several conceptual/quantitative models have been proposed. Our study consists of the qualitative and quantitative approach. The purpose of qualitative research is to examine whether three customer equity drivers(value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity) are useful and valid constructs in predicting the loyal customer behavior and how they have differential impact on the customer behavior according to product types. For this purpose we use ethnographic interview. Four informants are interviewed to implement the domain analysis, taxonomy analysis, componential analysis and draw the theme and meanings. We find that value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity are useful constructs in explaining the customer loyalty and have differential impact on the customer behavior according to different product types. Quantitative approach empirically investigates the effect of customer equity drivers on customer loyalty based on the study of Vogel, Evanschitzky, and Ramaseshan(2008) which had expanded the Rust, Zeithaml, and Lemon`s study(2000) on customers equity. Specifically we empirically examine whether the value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity that are customer equity drivers have differential impact on customer loyalty And this study hypothesizes that the relative impact of customer equity drivers would be different depending on product types and examines the moderating effect of product types in the causal relationship between the drivers of customer equity and customer loyalty as well. The products are categorized as four types that are high involvement-think product(notebook), low involvement-think product(apparels), high involvement-feel product(coffee store), low involvement-feel product(shampoo). we use stepwise multiple regression analysis to empirically test the causal relationship between value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity and customer loyalty. The empirical results support that value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity all have a positive impact on customer loyalty. Especially brand equity affects more strongly on company/brand loyalties than the other two drivers( value equity, and relationship equity) do. We examine the moderating effect of product type in the relationship between customer equity drivers and loyalty, In the case of high involvement-think product, only brand equity and value equity affect customer loyalty significantly. For high involvement-feel product, all of value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity affect customer loyalty positively and brand equity is especially crucial in building customer equity. In the case of low involvement think/feel product, all of value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity affect customer loyalty significantly. The customers seem to build loyalty based on the careful assessment of all drivers of customer equity such as value equity, brand equity, and relationship equity. In addition, their relative impact is different depending on the product types. Since a company can not maintain all customer equity drivers at high level with its limited marketing resou

소비자-브랜드 감성적 관계에 대한 사랑의 삼각이론적 접근

최원주(Won-Joo Choi) 한국언론정보학회 2008 한국언론정보학보 Vol.44 No.4

본 연구는 소비자-브랜드의 감성적 관계를 형성하는 데 있어 가장 강력하며 전략적인 브랜드 시랑을 사랑의 심리학적 측면에서 계량적으로 접근함으로써 소비자-브랜드 관계의 새로운 방향을 찾고자 하였다. 소비자-브랜드 관계에서 브랜드 사랑은 어떠한 의미인가? 브랜드 사랑은 소비자-브랜드의 감성적 관계에서 가장 근본적인 것이다. 소비자들은 브랜드 소유를 통해 그들의 삶에 의미를 더하며 자신을 표현함으로써 브랜드를 사랑한다. 사랑이야 말로 소비자-브랜드 관계를 가장 대인관계 차원에서 이해하는 척도이며, 감정 이입적 파트너십에서 가장 핵심적인 요소라고 할 수 있다. 소비자의 브랜드 사랑은 브랜드 이미지, 신뢰를 좌우할 뿐만 아니라, 브랜드 충성도를 통해 시장에서의 경쟁우위까지 영향을 미친다. 또한 브랜드의 위기 시, 위기를 극복할 수 있는 매개체로서, 오히려 관계의 전환점으로 작용하여 소비자의 브랜드 사랑 강도를 더욱 상승시키기도 한다. 이러한 시대적, 이론적 배경에서 본 연구는 소비자-브랜드의 감성적 관계로서의 사랑에 대한 심리학적 접근을 하였다. 사랑 이론과 분류 가운데 대표적인 Sternberg의 삼각이론을 중심으로 브랜드 사랑의 유형을 발견하였다. 이동통신서비스와 단말기 브랜드를 대상으로 서베이를 통해 552개의 설문지를 회수하고 요인분석을 하였다. 그 결과, 본 연구에서 발견된 브랜드 사랑 유형은 Sternberg의 사랑 유형과 매우 유사한 형태로 나타났으며, 제품 유형에 따라 브랜드 사랑유형이 존재함을 알 수 있었다. 브랜드 커뮤니케이션에서 브랜드 사랑이라는 개념은 중요한 전략적 아이디어로 활용할 수 있을 것이다. This study aims to identify a new direction in the consumer-brand relationship by quantitatively approaching from the psychological aspect consumers' brand love, which is the most powerful strategic element in forming an emotional consumer-brand relationship. What significance does brand love have in a consumer-brand relationship? Brand love is the most fundamental in the emotional consumer-brand relationship. Through brand ownership, consumers add meaning to their lives, and love brands by expressing themselves. Love is a scale that understands consumer-brand relationship from the most interpersonal aspect and can be considered as the most essential element in an empathetic relationship. Consumers' brand love not only determines brand image and reliability but through brand loyalty, it also influences market competitiveness. In addition, as a medium that can overcome brand crisis, it serves as a turning point of the relationship and can enhance the strength of consumers' brand love. Under such generational and theoretical background, this study took a psychological approach on love in emotional consumer-brand relationship. Focusing on the most representative theory and classification of love, Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love, types of brand love were examined. 552 questionnaires were distributed through a survey with mobile phone service and product brands, and a factor analysis was conducted. Types of brand love revealed through the results of this study were very similar to Sternberg's types of love, and it was found that the types of brand love varied based on product category. It can be suggested that the concept of brand love is an important strategic idea in brand communication.

소비자-브랜드 관계형성에 있어 브랜드의인화의 역할

김문태 대한경영정보학회 2014 경영과 정보연구 Vol.33 No.4

본 연구는 소비자-브랜드 관계와 제품관계 형성에 있어 의인화의 역할에 대해 검토 하였다. 실제 Blackston(1993)이 제안한 ‘사람-사람’의 파트너 관계로 설명하기 위해서는 우선적으로 브랜드 자체를 무생물적 대상(inanimate object)이 아닌 파트너로서 정의해야 한다. 이를 위해서는 브랜드의 의인화가 먼저 이루어져야 한다는 점에서 과연 소비자가 과연 브랜드를 관계를 맺을 수 있는 대상으로 여기는지에 대한 검증이 필요하다는 것이다. 연구결과, 브랜드 의인화는 브랜드 관계 형성에 상대적으로 중요한 역할을 하지 못하는 것으로 나타났다. 브랜드 체험에 비해 그 역할의 중요도가 훨씬 낮았다. 과거연구에서는 브랜드 의인화, 브랜드 개성, 브랜드 동일시 등등이 브랜드 관계의 중요한 선행변수였지만 이러한 브랜드 의인화의 측정항목은 실제 인간의 여러 가지 특성을 나타내는 것이었지 한 사람의 인간을 나타낸 것은 아니었다. 결국, 부분적 인간의 특성을 브랜드가 가지게 되는 것은 사실이지만 한 사람의 인간으로 브랜드를 생각하는 것의 빈도는 그렇게 높지 않을 수 있다. 둘째, 브랜드 관계와 제품관계의 차이점에 대해 논의하였는데 실제 많은 소비자들이 브랜드에 상관없는 내가 오래 운행하여 정든 차, 나와 친구 같은 핸드폰 단말기를 의인화하는 것을 보여주었기에 이에 대한 개념구분의 필요성이 있다고 생각되었다. 그리하여 브랜드 관계로 해석한 집단들과 제품관계로 해석한 집단들 간의 브랜드 관계형성에 관한 모형의 차이를 통해 좀 더 심층적인 브랜드 관계전략을 제시하고자 하였다. 검증결과 본 연구의 조사결과, 브랜드를 의인화한 소비자는 10%도 되지 않았으며 그 역할도 대부분은 친구 등에 국한되었으며 내가 가진 제품을 많이 의인화하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 점에서 브랜드관계에서 특정한 브랜드에 대한 애착과 내가 쓰고 있는 제품(브랜드 명에 상관없이)에 대한 애착은 구분되어 다루어진다면 좀 더 차별화된 마케팅전략을 수립하는데 도움이 될 수 있다고 생각된다. The concept that human and brand can related to each other is referred to as ‘brand relationship’ or ‘consumer-brand relationship’. By arguing that the concept of brand relationship is a readily understandable analogue, it appears that relationship thinking in the context of consumers and brands sometimes is taken for granted without thoroughly discussing its applicability. This study tried to investigated the role of brand personification in building consumer-brand relationship. In order to explain the consumer-brand relationship as a kind of partner relationship among human beings, we need to define brand as human not inanimate object. Research findings show that personification is not a important factor that affects consumer-brand relationship. And this study shows brand experience is much more important factor than brand personification in building consumer-brand relationship. In the past researches, brand personality and brand congruity were major variables that effect consumer-brand relationship, but they did not mean consumers think their brands as human whenever they contact them. As a result, this study conclude that the frequency of personification is not that high compared to past studies suggested before, even if it is possible to find partial characteristics of human from brands.

RESPONSIBLE VS. ACTIVE BRANDS? A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BRAND PERSONALITY ON CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS

Sebastian Molinillo,Arnold Japutra 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2016 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2016 No.7

Increasingly, there is a rise of interests from practitioners and academics on the topic of consumer-brand relationships (CBR). It has been argued that consumer build relationship with a brand in consonance with its personalities. Thus, this study investigates the role of brand personality in predicting prominent CBR constructs, such as brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Researchers consider brand personality as one of the prominent constructs in predicting consumer preferences and choices (e.g. Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Gordon, Zainuddin, & Magee, 2016; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013). It has been established that brands are capable to have personalities (Aaker, 1997; Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009). The study of brand personality flourished since Aaker (1997) created a brand personality scale (BPS). According to her, brand personality reflects five main dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Out of these dimensions, many studies mainly focus on two dimensions, sincerity and excitement respectively (e.g. Aaker, Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001; Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006; Ivens & Valta, 2012; Sung, Choi, Ahn, & Song, 2015). These studies consider these two dimensions to be of important since these dimensions appear to capture much of the variance in personality ratings of brands (Aaker, 1997) and are considered prominent to the marketing landscape (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013; Toldos-Romero & Orozco-Gómez, 2015). Although Aaker's BPS represents the most prominent operationalization of brand personality (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013; Matzler, Strobl, Stokburger-Sauer, Bobovnicky, & Bauer, 2016; Freling, Crosno, & Henard, 2011), her model has been the subject of several critiques. Researchers argue that the scale measures brand identity rather than brand personality (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003), the scale is too general and simplistic (Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila, 2003), the scale does not include negative factors (Bosnjak, Bochmann, & Hufschmidt, 2007), and the scale is non-generalizable and non-replicable cross culturally (Arora & Stoner, 2009; Geuens et al., 2009). These shortcomings led researchers to construct an alternative to Aaker’s BPS. Geuens et al. (2009) develop a new measure of brand personality, which includes five dimensions: responsibility, activity, aggressiveness, simplicity, and emotionality. Although many studies scrutinize on Aaker’s brand personality scale, only limited studies apply Geuens et al.’s BPS (e.g. Garsvaite & Caruana, 2014; Goldsmith & Goldsmith, 2012; Gordon et al., 2016; Matzler et al., 2016). Thus, the present study investigates the relationships between brand personality, using Geuens et al.’s (2009) scale, and three important consumer-brand relationships (CBR) constructs. These three constructs are brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty. Aaker (1991) conceptualize brand equity to include five important constructs, which includes brand awareness and brand loyalty. Meanwhile, Keller (1993) notes that brand knowledge is an important component of brand equity, consists of brand awareness and brand image. In addition, brand trust has been considered to be essential in influencing brand performance (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Hence, the focus of the present study lies on these three variables. As it has been discussed above, researchers consider sincerity and excitement to be essential in investigating consumer behavior. In light of a shortage of studies in applying Geuens et al.’s (2009) BPS, the present study examines two personality dimensions, which are conceptually similar to Aaker’s (1997) BPS: responsibility to replace sincerity and activity to replace excitement (see Table 1). To the best of our knowledge, no research has investigated the relationships between these three consumer-brand relationships constructs (i.e. brand awareness, brand trust and brand loyalty) and the two most relevant brand personality dimensions (i.e. responsibility and activity). The present study contributes to the marketing literature in three different ways. First, this study adds to the body of knowledge on the relationship between brand personality and CBR constructs using the new measure of BPS. Second, this study assesses the individual level of the new BPS, particularly responsibility and activity, on the three CBR constructs. In doing so, this study responds Keller and Lehmann’s (2006) and Geuens et al.’s (2009) call to assess the individual capacity of the brand personality dimensions to get consumer preference or loyalty. Third, this study displays which out of the two dimensions of the new BPS (i.e. responsible and active) are more important to predict the three CBR constructs. In this research, data were collected from Spanish respondents using online survey with snowballing technique. In total, 347 respondents participated in the survey. After checking for incomplete questionnaires and missing values, 8 questionnaires were dropped. Hence, 339 questionnaires were used for the analysis. Before conducting multivariate analysis, normality tests were conducted. The measurement and structural models was tested using AMOS 18, employing the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method. We find that brand personality predicts these three CBR constructs. Brand personality explains 56%, 58%, and 45% of the variance in brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty, respectively. The results show that the strongest link is between brand personality and brand trust. Su and Tong (2015) find that there is no relationship between exciting personality and brand awareness. On the contrary, this study displays that being an active brand leads to higher brand awareness. Even the results show that active brands are more likely to build brand awareness compared to responsible brands. However, in order to build brand trust and brand loyalty, responsible brands are more preferred compared to active brands. These results are in line with Eisend and Stokburger-Sauer (2013) that reveal weak relationships between excitement on brand attitude and brand commitment. These days, consumers prefer the brands to be more responsible or sincere. As Kotler (2011) argues that there is a shift in marketing that consumers pay more attention toward social responsibilities. Interestingly, the results show that being too active could negatively affect brand trust and brand loyalty. Although the association is not statistically significant, Banerjee (2016) finds that excitement brand personality has a negative association with brand preference. A study also finds that excitement does not predict employer brand trust (Rampl & Kenning, 2014). One explanation could be that the brands would like to be something that is an opposite of what they are claiming. Guèvremont and Grohmann (2013) argue that when a sincere brand attempts to flatter the consumers, it decreases brand attitude and increases disappointment. However, this does not occur when flattery comes from exciting brands. Brand managers should be very careful in communicating their brands personalities. Communicating to the consumers that their brands are responsible as well as active is good. However, brand managers should understand the interplay between these two opposing personalities. Consumers may believe that the brand is a responsible brand but also a little bit active. However, communicating two different opposing personalities at the same time may confuse the consumers. This is due to consumers’ disconfirmation of expectations (Guèvremont & Grohmann, 2013). Although this study enlightens the literature of brand management, it is not without its limitations. This study collects data from a cross-sectional study in Spain. In order to generalize the results of this study, future studies should replicate the conceptual framework cross culturally. Particularly on the negative effects of active personality toward the three CBR constructs. Furthermore, Spanish has been regarded as individuals with high uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001). Uncertainty avoidance increases the reliability of the brand personality dimensions, namely sincerity and excitement (Eisend & Stokburger-Sauer, 2013). Thus, it would be interesting to know whether differences occur between high and low uncertainty avoidance respondents. In addition, future studies should also account for other individual differences, such as attachment style. Japutra, Ekinci, Simkin, and Nguyen (2014) note that attachment style plays a prominent role in predicting consumer behaviors.