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 CONSUMER BRAND FORGIVENESS

Nikoletta-Theofania Siamagka,George Christodoulides 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2016 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2016 No.7

Introduction The concept of forgiveness has been in the centre of research within the psychology domain for a number of years (e.g., Burnette, McCullough, Van Tongeren, & Davis, 2012; Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010; Mauger, Perry, Freeman, & Grove, 1992). It is surprising, however, that despite the relevance of forgiveness in marketing, the concept has failed to attract much attention and research in this area remains scarce. Few studies have looked into the importance of forgiveness in the context of marketing transgressions (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Chung & Beverland, 2006; Mattila, 2001; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998) and have largely focused on the services sector (e.g., Gudlaugsson & Eysteinsson, 2013; Zourrig, Chebat, & Toffoli, 2009). This study takes a broader perspective and addresses forgiveness at the brand level. Looking into consumer brand forgiveness is critical in that consumers often tend to evaluate and build relationships at the brand level rather than the firm level (Fournier, 1998). This research adopts a multi-method, multi-stage approach to conceptualise and operationalise brand forgiveness. Literature Review Forgiveness in the psychology literature has been defined as ‘the willful giving up of resentment in the face of another’s (or others’) considerable injustice and responding with beneficence to the offender even though that offender has no right to the forgiver’s moral goodness’ (Baskin & Enright, 2004, p. 80). Most of the literature on interpersonal forgiveness supports a multi-dimensional structure, consisting of affective, cognitive and behavioural components (e.g., McCullough, Worthington Jr, & Rachal, 1997). Interestingly, forgiveness in psychology has been seen as a relationship-constructive mechanism, similar to accommodation (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991) and willingness to sacrifice (Van Lange et al., 1997). It can also be understood as a psychological factor that is associated with restored relational closeness following an interpersonal transgression, in that it leads to the inhibition of avoidant behaviors and the facilitation of conciliatory behaviors (McCullough et al., 1997), as well as cooperation (Komorita, Hilty, & Parks, 1991) following interpersonal offenses. Despite the fact that most of the literature examines forgiveness following a specific offense, the concept has also a dispositional character, which very few studies addressed (e.g., Berry, Worthington, Parrott, O’Connor, & Wade, 2001).Forgiveness in the marketing domain has mostly been investigated in the context of services failures (e.g., Tsarenko & Tojib, 2011; Zourrig et al., 2009). Most of the research in this area relates to the concept of consumer forgiveness, which is defined as ‘consumers’ willingness to give up retaliation, alienation, and other destructive behaviours, and to respond in constructive ways after an organisational violation of trust and the related recovery efforts’ (Xie & Peng, 2009, p. 578). This definition highlights the behavioural component of forgiveness and fails to capture the cognitive and emotional aspects encapsulated in the concept (McCullough et al., 1997). In addition, the focus on ‘organizational violation’ is highly problematic as consumers often tend to evaluate and build relationships at the brand level rather than the firm level (Fournier, 1994). Transgressions addressed in the existing literature include moderately fit brand extensions (Fedorikhin, Park, & Thomson, 2008), negative PR (Xie & Peng, 2009) and delayed product launches (Herm, 2013). When conceptualising consumer forgiveness, Chung and Beverland (2006) suggested that the process of forgiveness provides a foundation for relationship restoration, which ultimately results in rebuilding trust (Chung & Beverland, 2006; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Methodology Consistent with Churchill’s paradigm (1979) for scale development, qualitative data was first collected using 16 in-depth interviews with British consumers to better understand the concept of brand forgiveness and to identify pertinent dimensions. The interviews lasted on average 40 minutes. Based on the literature and the interviews an initial pool of items tapping consumer brand forgiveness was created. A questionnaire was subsequently developed that included the aforementioned item pool as well as demographic and nomological network variables. Data was collected in the UK using an online consumer panel. 603 fully completed questionnaires were returned. In line with scaling procedures (Chrurchill 1979) we divided the sample into two sub-samples: calibration (n=302) and validation (n=301). Results and Discussion The qualitative data supported the three-dimensional structure of consumer-brand forgiveness, which is consistent with the conceptualisation of interpersonal forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997). For example issues regarding disappointment for the brand’s wrongdoing, impact on evaluations as well as intentions to switch to another brand emerged from the interviews. In line with our findings and extant research in this area, we define consumer brand forgiveness as the consumer’s cognitive, affective and behavioural response to a brand’s (perceived) wrongdoing. The quantitative data was used to confirm the dimensionality of the construct and develop a scale that measures consumer brand forgiveness. CFA was performed on the calibration sample and through an iterative process an acceptable fit was obtained; χ2 (24)= 70.495; GFI= .95; CFI= .98, TLI= .97, RMSEA= .08. Internal consistency and composite reliabilities were also within acceptable levels; α= .79, CR= .83 (cognitive), α= .85, CR= .86 (affective) and α= .96, CR= .96 (behavioural).CFA was then performed on the validation sample and acceptable fit was once again obtained; χ2 (24)= 70.800; GFI= .95; CFI= .98, TLI= .96, RMSEA= .08. All internal consistency and composite reliabilities were above .70; α= .82, CR= .82 (cognitive), α= .82, CR= .82 (affective) and α= .94, CR= .94 (behavioural). Convergent and discriminant validities were established using Fornell and Larcker’s criteria (1981). Table 1 provides a summary of the CFA results. The next step involved criterion-related validity tests, where two variables were drawn from relevant literature from both the psychology and the marketing literature, including brand love and relationship satisfaction. Regression analysis shows that brand forgiveness results in brand love (β= .32, p< .01) as well as relationship satisfaction (β= .69, p< .01). This confirms existing literature that forgiveness can lead to positive emotions (Takaku, 2001) and satisfaction with the relationship (McCullough et al., 1998). Conclusion and Implications for Theory and Practice Despite extensive research on interpersonal forgiveness, there is very little scholarly enquiry into forgiveness in the marketing domain. This is an important area for marketers to understand since forgiveness is likely to result into stronger relationships whilst the lack of it is may have detrimental effects on customer retention and advocacy. This study contributes in this area by providing an enriched conceptualisation of consumer brand forgiveness in the context of a brand’s wrongdoing and by developing a psychometrically sound scale that measures the levels of consumers’ brand forgiveness. Following a multi-stage methodology, our results establish a three-dimensional structure of consumer brand forgiveness, encompassing cognitive, affective and behavioural elements. The study also provides some initial insights into the consequences of forgiveness. Positive outcomes, such as brand love and relationship satisfaction are important outcomes of brand forgiveness. Following from these results, some important managerial implications could be identified. For example, managers could benefit significantly from reinforcing forgiveness, as this could lead to stronger ties with the brand and increased levels of satisfaction. A brand’s wrongdoing that subsequently results in affective, cognitive and behavioural forgiveness on the part of the consumer will benefit the brand. Managers should therefore not only focus their recovery strategies on behavioural forgiveness but also target strategies to ensure affective and cognitive forgiveness. Managers who are successful in building strong relationships with their customers might be more able to promote consumer brand forgiveness and therefore enjoy the positive benefits of the process. Therefore, CRM programs could be very useful in strengthening the relationships with customers and therefore have a greater likelihood of forgiveness should a wrongdoing occurs.

스타벅스 브랜드 개성이 소비자 만족과 소비자 웰빙에 미치는 영향

이지원(Jiwon Lee),김도희(Dohee Kim) 대한경영학회 2016 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.29 No.6

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.

소비자-브랜드 관계, 소비자-소비자 관계, 브랜드 충성도 등의 관계에서 SNS 브랜드 페이지의 매개적 역할에 대한 연구-브랜드의 관여도와 소비자-브랜드 상호작용성의 수준에 따른 차이를 중심으로-

김문태(Kim, Moon-Tae) 한국산업경영학회 2017 경영연구 Vol.32 No.1

본 연구는 소비자 브랜드 관계와 소비자와 소비자 관계 등의 브랜드 충성도와의 관계에 있어 SNS의 매개적 역할에 대해 검증해 보았다. SNS는 브랜드충성도 구축에도 효과적인 도구로 평가되고 있기에 마케팅관리자들의 관심이 되고 있는데 본 연구에서는 과거 연구들을 바탕으로 소비자-브랜드 관계와 소비자-소비자 관계의 역할을 동시에 검증해 보며 거의 수행된 적이 없는 제품유형별 SNS의 역할의 차이를 검증하기 위한 초석이 되기 위한 연구를 수행하였다. 그리고 그 연구의 시사점은 다음과 같이 정리될 수 있다. 먼저, 소비자-브랜드 관계는 소비자-소비자 관계와 SNS 브랜드 페이지 충성도 그리고 브랜드 충성도 모두에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 요인임을 할 수 있었다. 특히, 소비자-소비자 관계는 SNS 브랜드 페이지 충성도에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 변수임이 검증되었는데 이는 소비자들 간의 친밀도를 높이는 방법이 해당 브랜드 페이지에 대한 충성도 더 나아가 브랜드 충성도를 높이는 매우 중요한 마케팅 기술이라는 점을 지지한다고 볼 수 있다. 또한, SNS 브랜드 페이지 충성도는 브랜드 충성 도와 구전의도 등에 긍정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 그 다음으로 SNS의 제품유형별 효과에 대한 검증에서는 고관여 제품이 저관여 제품보다 소비자 -소비자 관계가 유의적으로 높았는데 고관여 제품일수록 소비자 간의 관계 구축이 더욱 중요한 제품군이라는 것을 말해준다. 또한, 소비자가 해당 브랜드와 얼마나 상호작용성이 높은 것은 매우 유의한 차이를 보여 주었는데 상호작용성이 높은 제품은 소비자-소비자 관계 뿐만 아니라 SNS 브랜드 페이지 충성도 또한 매우 높은 것으로 나타났다. 가설과는 별로도 본 연구에서 상품, 서비스, 스타, 스포츠 구단 등의 4가지 제품군으로도 한번 비교를 해보았는데 스포츠 구단, 스타 등이 소비자-소비자 관계가 더 높은 제품군임을 알 수 있었 다. 이는 스포츠 경기나 스타의 콘서트 등에서 집단적인 일치성과 분위기가 중요한 제품군이라는 것이 그 이유가 될 수 있다고 생각된다. This study testified the roles of SNS brand pages in relationship among consumerbrand relationship, consumer-consumer relationship, SNS brand page loyalty. Marketing managers have interested in using SNS in these days because it is considered as one of effective marketing tools. This study tested roles of consumer-brand relationship and consumer-consumer relationship in one research model and tried to be a cornerstone of research area that testified different roles of SNS among product types. And research implications are as follow like these. First, consumer brand relationship was a variable that influence positive effect to consumer -consumer relationship, SNS brand page loyalty, and brand loyalty. Specially, consumer-consumer relationship was a key variable that influence SNS brand page loyalty, this means building a strong connection among consumers is one of effective marketing methods to mange popular SNS brand page and finally enhance brand loyalty. And SNS brand page loyalty make a positive influence to brand loyalty and word of mouth intention. Second, this research suggest that consumer-consumer relationship is higher in high involvement and interactivity situations than low of those, this mean high involvement product need more relations with other consumers because it need more information about using products. Apart from, hypotheses, this study compares the consumer-consumer relationship and SNS brand page loyalty and suggests consumer-consumer relationship of celebrity and sport team higher than other. One of reasons of this is that collective behavior of these products is much more needed to support celebrities and sports teams.

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.

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.

글로벌 브랜드에서 소비자-브랜드 관계 변수들의 인과관계 및 조절변수들의 효과

김규배,김병구 한국유통과학회 2017 유통과학연구 Vol.15 No.2

Purpose – There are many variables related to consumer-brand relationship such as brand attitude, attachment, commitment and brand loyalty and we should manage these all variables successfully to achieve a strong brand loyalty. The objective of this research is to investigate the path from brand attitude and brand attachment to brand commitment and brand loyalty. Specially, this article focuses on the moderating effects of brand type and consumer innovativeness in the causal relationships between variables. Research design, data, and methodology - The seven hypotheses were proposed and tested empirically in this research. Three of seven hypotheses were the effects of brand attitude and brand attachment on the brand commitment and brand loyalty. Another two hypotheses presented the moderating effect of brand type and other two hypotheses expressed the moderating effect of consumer innovativeness in the causal relationships between variables. Research data were collected from the surveying of university students and the 282 samples were used to test the proposed hypotheses empirically. We utilized SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 20.0 for statistical analyses such as reliability test, validity test and path analysis. Results - The results show that brand attitude influences the brand loyalty and brand attachment influences the brand commitment positively. The brand attachment also influences the brand commitment positively. We found that there is a moderating effect of brand type in the causal relationship between brand attitude and loyalty though there is no significant moderating effect in the causality between brand attachment and commitment. We also fount that there is no significant moderating effect of consumer innovativeness in the causal relationships among brand attitude, brand attachment, brand commitment and brand loyalty. In Summary, 5 of 7 hypotheses in this study were supported and 2 hypotheses were not supported. Conclusions – There is a path model of consumer-brand relationship from brand attitude and brand attachment to brand commitment and brand loyalty. Companies should provide their consumers with effective marketing program in every phase of consumer-brand relationship to build brand loyalty. In addition, there are possibilities that the relationships among brand attitude, brand attachment, brand commitment and brand loyalty are moderated by brand type and consumer innovativeness. Companies should consider perceived brand type and innovativenss of their consumers in planning and executing their various marketing programs for their brand management.

소비자-브랜드 관계의 선행 후행 변인들의 관계에 관한 연구

김정현(Jung Hyun Kim) 한국광고홍보학회 2008 한국광고홍보학보 Vol.10 No.1

기업의 경쟁 우위를 확보하기 위한 수단으로 강력한 브랜드의 구축 및 관리와 관련된 연구가 다각도로 진행되고 있다. 그 가운데에서도 소비자와 브랜드가 동등하게 서로에게 파트너로서 공헌하며 상호 작용한 결과로 생성된 연대를 의미하는 소비자-브랜드 관계에 관한 연구들은 그동안 축적된 브랜드 관련 연구들을 토대로 보다 포괄적이고 새로운 시각을 전해준다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 소비자-브랜드 관계를 다룬 연구들은 대부분 질적 연구를 통해 소비자-브랜드 간의 관계를 심층적으로 보여주거나 다양한 유형을 제시하는 데에 그치고 있다. 최근 들어 소비자-브랜드 관계를 다룬 실증연구들이 수행되고 있으나, 이 연구들에서는 소비자-브랜드 관계의 성과 변인이나, 이에 영향을 미친 변인들을 단편적으로 다루고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 보다 포괄적인 시각에서 소비자-브랜드 관계의 선행 후행 변인들을 다뤄봄으로써 이론적 및 실무적 시사점을 제시해보고자 하였다. 구체적으로 소비자의 관여도와 대인관계 지향성 및 브랜드 동일시가 소비자-브랜드 관계 형성 시에 영향을 미치는 선행변인일 것으로, 그리고 소비자 만족도 및 브랜드 충성도를 소비자-브랜드 관계가 영향을 미치는 후행변인일 것으로 가정하고 이들 간의 관계를 다뤄보았다. Recent studies dealing with building power brands are focused on Consumer-Brand relationship. However, most of the previous studies of Consumer-Brand relationship are performed by qualitative methods or with limited perspective. In this respect this study was designed to investigate the antecedents and consequences of Consumer-Brand relationship, and their relationships from a comprehensive perspective. That is, involvement, interpersonal orientation and brand identification were hypothesized to be antecedents and consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty to be consequences of Consumer-Brand relationship. The results found that the effects of interpersonal orientation and brand identification on Consumer-Brand relationship were statistically significant but the effect of involvement was only marginally significant. The results also proved consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty to be consequences of Consumer-Brand relationship.

브랜드 사랑, 그 개념적 요인과 합의

최원주,최준환 한국주관성연구학회 2008 주관성연구 Vol.- No.17

The consumer-brand relationship is created through interaction with consumers based on brand personality and image, which may involve the transference of human emotion. This addresses the need to approach this relationship by understanding emotional human relationships. This study aims to discover conceptual factors in brand love by approaching them from the aspect of love, the most fundamental human emotion in the consumer-brand relationship. In addition, the study is to seek an agreement with those conceptual factors. Specifically, through a Q-methodology, the study intends to classify the type of brand love, which is based on consumers’ subjectivity about a brand. Brand loyalty is utilized for measuring a consumer-brand relationship, whereas brand love is valued as a strategic tool in brand communication for the consumer-brand relationship. Brand love is somehow differentiated from brand preference, reliability, loyalty, and satisfaction, all of which have explained the consumers’ emotional attitudes toward a brand. Existing concepts may be both a tool and a concept for measuring and diagnosing the consumers’ emotional attitudes toward a brand. Meanwhile, brand love may be used not merely for diagnosing but also for healing the emotional relationship between a consumer and a brand. brand love is a new concept today, in which it is required to pursue a strong and exclusive relationship with consumers amid increasingly fiercer competition among brands and a wider selection of consumers. Consequently, the study discovered that there are four types of brand love. They include <familiar love>, <attractive love>, <delightful love>, and <reliable love>, First, <familiar love> is the consumers’ affection toward a familiar brand just like their old close friends, which is so deeply rooted as a part of their lives. <Attractive love> is the consumers’ affection for a brand that they are infatuated with out of a strong passion for the brand. <Delightful love> is the consumers’ brand love, which is already fixated within consumers out of intimacy with and reliability on the related product. <Reliable love> features affection, which advances into a solid, reliable, fixative relationship. This relationship provokes the consumers’ affectionate emotion from their various experiences over a length of time. This study is to propose communications strategies in compliance with each type of brand love and to reach an agreement with the concept of brand love.