You are on page 1of 70

1

Journal of Marketing Article Postprint


2011, American Marketing Association
All rights reserved. Cannot be reprinted without the express
permission of the American Marketing Association.

BRAND LOVE

Rajeev Batra

Aaron Ahuvia

Richard P. Bagozzi*

*All authors contributed equally. Rajeev Batra is S.S. Kresge Professor of Marketing, R5336

Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109,

USA, email: rajeevba@umich.edu. Aaron Ahuvia is Professor of Marketing, University of

Michigan-Dearborn College of Business, Fairlane Center South, 19000 Hubbard Drive,

Dearborn, MI 48126, email: ahuvia@umich.edu. Richard P. Bagozzi is Dwight F. Benton

Professor of Behavioral Science in Management, Ross School of Business, and Professor of

Clinical, Social and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan;

Ross School of Business, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, email: bagozzi@umich.edu.

The research assistance of Ryan S. Elder, and the helpful comments of Cele Otnes and Zeynep

Gurhan-Canli, are gratefully acknowledged.


2

BRAND LOVE

Abstract

Using a grounded theory approach, this paper investigates the nature and consequences

of brand love. Arguing that research on brand love needs to be built upon an understanding of

how consumers actually experience this phenomenon, we conduct two qualitative studies to

uncover the different elements (features) of the consumer prototype of brand love. We then use

structural equations modeling on survey data to explore how these elements can be modeled as

both first-order and higher-order structural models. A higher-order model yields these seven core

elements: self-brand integration, passion-driven behaviors, positive emotional connection, long-

term relationship, positive overall attitude valence, attitude certainty and confidence (strength),

and anticipated separation distress. Beyond these seven core elements of brand love itself, the

prototype also includes quality beliefs as an antecedent of brand love and brand loyalty, WOM,

and resistance to negative information as outcomes. Both our first-order and higher-order brand

love models predict loyalty/WOM/resistance better, and provide greater understanding, than an

overall summary measure of brand love. Theoretical and managerial implications are presented.
3

So much of our metrics aren't about sales, but they're about brand love. -- Michael

Donnelly, director-global interactive marketing, Coca-Cola Co., (in Capps 2007, p. 4).

While researchers have for decades studied how consumers form like-dislike attitudes

towards brands1, the past few years have seen a burgeoning interest -- among both practitioners

and academics -- in consumers love for brands. Among practitioners, the book Lovemarks by

Roberts (2004) expressed increased interest in this topic, and a growing use of love in

advertising was recently documented (Bauer, Heinrich and Albrecht 2009). Academic research

on brand love or related constructs has also been substantial (see Albert, Merunka, and Valette-

Florence 2008 and Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005 for reviews), finding it to be associated

with positive word-of-mouth and brand loyalty (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Fournier 1998;

Thomson, MacInnis and Park 2005), increased willingness to pay a price premium (Thomson,

MacInnis, and Park 2005), and forgiveness of brand failures (Bauer, Heinrich, and Albrecht

2009), among other outcomes.

In consumer research, Shimp and Madden (1988) adapted Sternberg's triangular theory of

inter-personal love (1986) from psychology, and Ahuvia (1995) performed the first major

empirical study. Fournier (1998) included love as one of the core elements of consumers

relationships with brands, and Ahuvia, Batra and Bagozzi (2009), Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) and

Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2008) explicitly studied brand love. Related work spans

self-brand connections (Escalas and Bettman 2003); consumers attachments to brands (Park et

al. 2010; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005); construction of self-identity (Belk 1988);

1
Brands are conceptualized here as the totality of perceptions and feelings that consumers have about any
item identified by a brand name, including its identity (e.g. its packaging and logos), its quality and performance,
familiarity, trust, perceptions about the emotions and values the brand symbolizes, and its user imagery. The present
work deals mainly with discrete manufacturer brands, and corporate brands. Further research is needed to establish
its applicability to other branded objects and possessions.
4

consumer-object bonds (Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995); and brand communities and reference

groups (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002).

While this interest suggests that brand love is an important marketing topic, little

agreement exists as to what brand love is (see Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence 2008).

Various definitions of brand love suggest that it has anywhere from one (Carroll and Ahuvia

2006) to 11 dimensions (Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence 2008), with most papers

presenting differing conceptualizations. This disagreement persists in large measure because, as

discussed below, most marketing studies have omitted the exploratory work needed in the early

stages of research to establish the boundaries and contents of the key construct (Lincoln and

Guba 1985). Instead, prior work has mostly substituted the vast psychological literature on

interpersonal love (e.g. Aron and Westbay 1996; Sternberg 1986) and/or attachment (e.g.,

Bowlby 1979) for foundational exploratory research on brand love.

In the psychological literature, definitions abound for what different types of inter-

personal love (romantic, compassionate/altruistic, etc.) consist of, with many of these definitions

mentioning affection, attachment, intimacy, caring, intense longing, passion, etc., depending on

the specific type of love (Fehr 2006, pp. 226-228). However, there are compelling reasons why

these conceptualizations of interpersonal love should not be applied directly to brand love. We

argue that brand love needs to be conceptualized from the ground up, based on a deep

understanding of how it is experienced by consumers, and only then should valid connections be

made to the interpersonal love literature. Thus the current research begins with two qualitative

studies, providing a grounded and evidence-based foundation for our later studies of brand love.

Consistent with research on interpersonal love (see Fehr 2006; 2009), we find that brand

love, as experienced by consumers, is best represented as a higher order construct including


5

multiple cognitions, emotions, and behaviors, which are organized by consumers as a mental

prototype. These include, but go beyond, brand attachment (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 1995)

and self-brand connections (Escalas and Bettman 2003). Using survey data, we then develop a

valid and parsimonious structural equations model of the brand love prototype which, because of

its grounding in the two qualitative studies, uses significantly broader emotional and self-related

constructs than prior work (a sense of natural comfort and fit; a feeling of emotional

connectedness and bonding; a deep integration with ones core values; a heightened level of

desire and interaction; a commitment to its long-term use; attitude valence and strength; and

more). We show that our multi-component model of the brand love prototype greatly expands

our understanding of the consumer experience of brand love. It also explains more of the

variation in repeat purchase intention, positive word-of-mouth, and resistance to negative

information about the brand, than does a summary measure of brand love. Through this richer

understanding of brand love, we gain insight into how brand liking can potentially be changed

into brand love, and draw theoretical and managerial implications.

LIMITATIONS OF EXTANT BRAND LOVE RESEARCH

Progress in brand love research has been hindered by a lack of exploratory studies which

could guide later measurement and theory development. This has led to two major problems.

Assuming the Equivalence of Brand Love and Interpersonal Love. Rather than exploring

brand love in an open-ended manner with consumers, most extant brand love research begins

with a chosen theory of interpersonal love and then creates scale items in order to apply this

theory to a marketing context. This approach presents a potential problem if brand love is not

directly analogous to the particular theory of interpersonal love being drawn upon. Research

suggests that this problem is real (Aggarwal 2004; Richins 1997).


6

We are not suggesting that because brand love may be different from interpersonal love,

it is not a "real" type of love. There are multiple kinds of interpersonal love (e.g. romantic,

parental, compassionate/altruistic, etc.), all of which are real (Fehr 2009), yet vary from each

other in their specific content. For example, sexual passion is a feature of romantic love but not

of parental love; thus, theories about parental love cannot be applied directly to romantic love.

Similarly, theories of interpersonal love cannot be applied directly to brand love.

Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2008) provide a similar type of analysis to our

Studies 1 and 2 presented below. They find that 11 dimensions underlie brand love: passion, a

long-duration relationship, self-congruity, dreams, memories, pleasure, attraction, uniqueness,

beauty, trust (satisfaction), and a willingness to state this love. However, as they note (p. 1073),

they fail to find the aspects of attachment and commitment found in most prior studies, and their

results could be idiosyncratic given their choice of the three specific images used to depict brand

love. Thus further studies to understand how consumers experience brand love are still needed.

Brand Love as an Emotion vs. as a Relationship. The existing literature also does not

adequately distinguish between the love emotion and the love relationship. The love emotion is a

single, specific feeling, akin to affection (Richins 1997), which like all emotions is short term

and episodic. In contrast, the love relationship, like the friendship relationship, can last for

decades and involves numerous different affective, cognitive and behavioral experiences

(Fournier 1998). Extant studies of brand love sometimes study the love emotion and sometimes

study the love relationship, but rarely acknowledge the distinction.

THE BRAND LOVE PROTOTYPE

The first step in understanding brand love is to uncover the implicit definition of love that

consumers are using when they say they love a particular brand or product. Past research has
7

found that fuzzy and complex concepts such as emotions or love (Fehr 2006; Shaver et al. 1987)

-- concepts not amenable to definition in terms of necessary and sufficient criteria (Fehr 2006,

p.227) -- are best described as prototypes (Rosch 1975). A prototype is a list of attributes (a.k.a.

prototype features) that people associate with a particular kind of thing, in this case love (see

Fehr 2006). These attributes are organized into a central or most typical exemplar of that

category (Shaver et al. 1987, p.1062) e.g. love, or a subcategory such as romantic love, parental

love, brand love, etc. The more of these prototype features a relationship or emotion has, and the

more central those attributes are to the prototype, the more likely a consumer is to consider it to

be some type of love. Since prototypes are cultural models, researchers have found high levels of

similarity in interpersonal love prototypes across gender, sexual orientation, and age.

Unlike "classical definitions" (Fehr and Russell 1991) which are consciously formulated

to be precise, prototype-based definitions are "fuzzy" (Shaver et al. 1987), in two different ways.

First, prototype definitions are always characterized by fuzzy boundaries, which in the present

case means that a typical consumer will see some brands as definitely loved, some brands as

definitely not loved, and other brands falling into a "sort-of-loved" middle category. Second,

prototype definitions are fuzzy because their features frequently include not only elements of the

phenomenon itself, but also antecedents and outcomes. For example, in Shaver et al. (1987,

p.1076) the prototype of the emotion fear included antecedents (e.g. the threat of harm),

attributes of fear itself (e.g. feelings of nervousness, cognitive inability to focus, and the

behavioral act of hiding or crying), and outcomes (e.g. self-comforting). This creates fuzziness

because not all elements of a prototype are necessarily attributes of the core phenomenon itself.

Once researchers elicit prototype features, it is often necessary to investigate whether

some kind of dimensional reduction might be possible. For example, Fehr (1988) identified 68
8

features for the love prototype, and Aron and Westbay (1996) then used factor analysis to extract

three underlying latent factors from them. Similarly, Shaver et.al.1987, after obtaining similarity

scores for 135 prototypicality-rated emotion terms, cluster-analyzed them in a hierarchical

manner, to see how they might be "split up" at different levels of abstraction. Thus, at the

maximal degree of abstractness, these emotion terms could be classified simply as being positive

or negative; at the other, much more subordinate, end of the tree, the analysis yielded 25 clusters.

"The cluster-analytic results therefore provide three sets of candidates for basicness," they wrote

(p.1068), "a 2-term list at a high level of abstraction (essentially, positive vs. negative emotions),

a 5- or 6-term list, and a 25-term list." In other words, the set of features that constitute a

prototype can often be hierarchically organized at different degrees of abstractness.

Uncovering mental prototypes presents a challenge since they are tacit knowledge

structures and hence not easily verbalized. To produce a description of a largely tacit mental

prototype one needs to get respondents to use the prototype for its natural purpose, observe (or

imagine) themselves doing this, and then report their observations to the researcher. Both studies

1 and 2 followed this data collection strategy by getting respondents to use their own love

prototype to determine if various brands or other items were clearly loved, on the borderline

between loved and not-loved, or clearly not-loved; and then reporting the criteria they were using

to make these classifications. This is similar to Study 2 of Shaver et. al (1987) in that the features

of each type of emotion were elicited from consumers, by asking them to list what they believed

and felt, and how they acted, when they experienced the emotional state being studied.

Our three studies move from being open and exploratory to being more focused and

confirmatory. Study 1 is designed to provide the widest possible lens on brand love. Rather than

directing consumers to talk specifically about brands, respondents are asked about things that
9

they love (excluding only other people). Casting a "wide net" in this way allowed us to place

brand love in context, and reduced the risk of overlooking important related phenomena. In

Study 2, the interviews are narrower in scope, focusing specifically on loved brands. Finally in

Study 3, a quantitative survey is conducted looking at loved brands in a consumer electronics

context.

Because conventional reporting of qualitative Studies 1 and 2 requires extensive

quotations and discursive analysis, not possible within the length constraints of this journal, they

are presented here only in summary. Their methodology and illustrative quotations are detailed

in the web appendix (longer versions are available from the authors).

STUDIES 1 AND 2

Methodology

Study 1 consisted of 70 structured phone interviews lasting between 10 and 60 minutes

each, and 10 follow-up depth interviews lasting 2-4 hours each. Respondents were between 23-

45 years of age, highly educated, urban, and about equally male and female. Study 1 looked at all

types of non-interpersonal love including, but not limited to, brand love (e.g., love for

consumption-related objects; activities such as eating and dancing). In 10 follow-up depth

interviews, respondents compared loved and not-loved items, as well as interpersonal and non-

interpersonal love. Study 2 focused specifically on loved brands (e.g. Apple or Victorias

Secret). It included 18 detailed interviews lasting about 2 hours each, with college students.

Respondents discussed brands of their own choosing in various categories (e.g., consumer

electronics, clothing, etc) or meeting specific criteria (e.g., a brand they have used for a long

time). They also discussed interpersonal love, to permit a comparison with brand love.

Because the 70 phone interviews from Study 1 were analyzed in part by comparing
10

frequencies of responses, inter-coder reliability was assessed, and a PRL statistic of .87

confirmed coding reliability (Rust and Cooil 1994). The depth interviews in Study 1, and all

interviews from Study 2, were analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin

1994, p. 283), combined with methods developed by McCracken (1988).

In Study 1, 96% of the respondents claimed to love something other than another person

and 72% percent saw at least one object or activity as being loved in the strictest and most literal

sense of the word. In Study 2, 100% of the respondents claimed to either love or sort-of-love

at least one brand, and 89% of them put at least one brand into the love (as opposed to sort-

of-love or not love) category. Hence, non-interpersonal love in general, and brand love in

particular, were very commonly reported experiences among our respondents.

Elements of the Brand Love Prototype

Our analysis yielded 10 major components: high quality; linkages to strongly-held

values; beliefs that the brand provided intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards; use of the loved

brand to express both current and desired self-identity; positive affect; a sense of rightness and

a feeling of passion; an emotional bond; investments of time and money; frequent thought and

use; and length of use. More detail about each appears in the web appendix.

Great Quality/Qualities. When talking about loved brands, respondents comments

almost invariably began with a list of the perceptions about the brands many attractive qualities

such as its exceptional performance, its trustworthiness, good-looking design, etc. But while

some forms of interpersonal love are said to be unconditional, not a single respondent made this

claim for brand love. Instead, loved brands were praised for being the best available (e.g. best in

every way, best value for money, or on some important attribute), and simply knowing that a

better brand existed was commonly offered as a reason for not loving a particular brand.
11

The only complaint that came up regularly in discussions of loved brands was the high

price of some higher-end brands. But even here, consumers felt satisfied, believing that this high

price was justified. For lower priced items, being considered an exceptional value for the money

was a commonly mentioned virtue of loved brands. For a few luxury goods that respondents

fantasized about owning, an exorbitant price was mentioned as making the product even more

special -- but this was not reported when the respondent had actually paid for the product.

Strongly-held values and existential meaning. While loved brands were praised for

providing a wide variety of benefits such as comfort, transportation, entertainment, exercise,

relaxation, etc., brands were more likely to be loved when they also connected to something the

respondent felt was deeper such as self-actualization, close interpersonal relationships (Richins

1994), existential meaning, or religious or cultural identities. For example, one respondent loved

Canon because she had a hobby of producing creative photo albums of friends which she gave as

gifts, thus she saw Canon cameras as intimately bound up in these meaningful social

relationships. Other loved brands succeeded through their marketing in establishing brand

meanings which connected to deeply held values; e.g. Apple represented creativity and self

actualization.

Intrinsic rewards. There is a common distinction between performing an act to get

something (extrinsic rewards) as opposed to doing it because you love it (intrinsic rewards)

(Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994, p.645). A loved brand provides intrinsic rewards when it

creates psychological states such as happiness which are perceived as being part and parcel of

using the product (e.g., Pinkberry frozen yogurt is delicious). Loved brands commonly provided

both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, so providing extrinsic rewards was not a problem per se.

But, when brands provided only extrinsic rewards, respondents often felt they didnt really love
12

the brand but rather were just using it to get something else that they did love.

Self-identity. Respondents strongly identified with the things they loved, reflecting the

important function of loved brands in both expressing existing identities and enacting desired

identities (Belk 1988; Escalas and Bettman 2003; 2005). This identity link occurred both through

the consumers direct relationship with the object and through the loved brands facilitation of

interpersonal relationships (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002). These findings match

prior research on brand love (Ahuvia 2005) and interpersonal love (Aron and Aron 1996). Since

talking about a brand with other people is an important part of identity-construction (Holt 1997),

high levels of word-of-mouth (WOM) should also be associated with brand love.

Positive affect. Respondents described their experience with loved brands in positive

emotional terms, and this tendency was even more prevalent for loved consumption activities.

This affect covered the lower arousal emotions termed affection (Thomson, MacInnis, and

Park 2005) and warm hearted feelings (Richins 1997) typical of companionate love (Hatfield

1988).

Passionate Desire and a Sense of Natural Fit. Respondents talked about a sense of

natural fit and harmony between themselves and their loved brands. For some this sense of

rightness about the relationship included a very strong desire for that brand, reflecting the

higher arousal, hotter, aspects of brand love frequently called passion (Belk, Ger, and

Askegaard 2003). Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2008) found passion to be the first

dimension in brand love, and Bauer, Heinrich, and Albrecht (2009) argue that passion is the most

managerially relevant aspect of brand love. When this sense of natural fit with a brand was

combined with passionate desire, it was sometimes expressed as love at first sight.

Emotional bonding and anticipated heartbreak. Feeling bonded with, and emotionally
13

connected to, a brand emerged as an important aspect of brand love (cf., Fournier 1998;

Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005). In addition to these positive emotions, other researchers

have also noted that consumers are likely to feel strong desires to maintain proximity with their

loved objects, even feeling separation distress when they anticipate or experience being

distanced from them (Hazan and Zeifman 1999; Park et al. 2010; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park

2005). In our interviews, such bonding and attachment was frequently seen in pervasive

comments that respondents knew they loved a brand because it was unique and irreplaceable,

and thus would be missed if lost.

Willingness to invest. Respondents reported investing high levels of time, energy and

money into loved brands. These investments highlight the importance of the brand, and integrate

it more deeply into the consumers identity, thus increasing attachment to the brand. Because

respondents anticipated separation distress if they were to lose a loved brand (Hazan and Shaver

1994), they are likely to be price-insensitive with respect to the brand (Thomson, MacInnis, and

Park 2005).

Frequent thought and use. Fournier (1998) argued that in order for a brand to become a

legitimate relationship partner, the consumer must engage in frequent, interactive behaviors

with it, and Park et al. (2010) utilize a construct, brand prominence, to capture frequent

thinking about, and use, of brands a consumer is strongly attached to. Similarly, we found that

having frequent interactions with, or thinking about, a brand was an important aspect of brand

love. Indeed, every respondent in Study 2 saw how much time they spent using or thinking about

a brand as a key criterion for how much they loved it.

These findings above have implications for the strength of attitudes (Krosnick et al.

1993) toward such loved brands. Because attitudes which rest on more frequent, direct
14

experiences tend to be more strongly held, consumers attitudes about loved brands should

therefore come to be strongly held. Many of the typical indicators of attitude strength -- greater

attitude extremity, more certainty and importance, greater affective-cognitive consistency, faster

response latency and more frequent thinking and talking about the attitude object, etc. (Krosnick

et al. 1993) -- are therefore logical elements of brand love.

Length of use. Having a long history with a brand was a frequently mentioned feature of

brand love. This shared history can give the loved brand an important place in the respondents

personal identity narrative. Since past behavior is often a good predictor of future behavior

(Guadagni and Little 1983), it implies higher loyalty to loved brands (Thomson, MacInnis, and

Park 2005).

Note that our results above are significantly different from those of Albert, Merunka, and

Valette-Florence (2008). Whereas Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2008) found that (1)

functional quality, (2) brand loyalty, (3) the attachment emotion and (4) the ability of the brand

to make the consumer feel good, were associated with lower as opposed to higher levels of love,

our two studies reveal them as one might expect to be positive components.

Hierarchical Organization of Brand Love Prototype Features

We noted above that the set of features that constitute a prototype can often be

hierarchically organized at different levels of abstractness (Aron and Westbay 1996; Shaver et al.

1987). Shaver et.al. (1987), for instance, found that their 135 prototypicality-rated emotion terms

could be classified at the most abstract level as simply being positive or negative; a little less

abstractly into 5 or 6 categories (hierarchically subsumable under the positive/negative higher-

level categorization); or at an even less abstract (lower) level) into 25 categories.

The grounded theory process of category creation requires the researcher to actively
15

interpret the raw data and code constructs which emerge from the respondent data as signifiers

of, parts of, properties of, or instances of, other coded constructs. Some of these relationships --

is an instance of, is part of, and is a property of -- suggest a hierarchical structure. As coding

takes place, the researcher may find that some instances of two coded constructs such as

Higher Order Needs and Deeper Meanings can best be subsumed under a single higher-level

category, such as Strongly-held values and existential meaning. This process of combining

codes into more general constructs was a central part of the analysis for Studies 1 and 2, as the

original list of over 75 codes was hierarchically reduced to the 10 major themes presented above.

Discussion and Conclusion

We began by noting the proliferation of conceptualizations of brand love, and argued that

this was due to (a) a lack of the exploratory qualitative research normally conducted when

developing a new topic area, and (b) a failure to differentiate between the love emotion and the

love relationship. These issues are discussed below in the light of our findings.

The applicability of interpersonal love theories to brand love. Our respondents often

stated that while they genuinely loved some brands, this was a different form of love than

interpersonal love. Respondents would sometimes compare brand love to interpersonal love in a

way which suggested that the brand love prototype was partially based on their understanding of

interpersonal love, but also modified to fit a consumer context. Not surprisingly, the most widely

noted difference in our data was that brand love was often described as a less important

relationship than interpersonal love. However two other important differences emerged as well.

First, while interpersonal love contained a strong element of altruistic concern for the beloved,

this was not found in brand love. Consumers were concerned with what the brand could do for

them, not what they could do for the brand. Second, in healthy interpersonal relationships, when
16

we love someone, they return our love through their helpful behaviors towards us and by

occasionally experiencing the love emotion towards us. In contrast, respondents noted that

brands dont experience emotions, and so couldnt return a persons love in that way (although

brands were seen as returning the consumers love when the brand benefited the consumer (see

also Harding and Humphreys 2011).

None of the prior brand love studies based on interpersonal love theories included all the

aspects of the brand love prototype uncovered here. Thus we conclude that the interpersonal love

theories which have been used as the basis for past work do not provide a suitable theoretical

foundation for brand love research. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all of the

theories of interpersonal love which have been applied to brand love. But because Sternberg's

(1986, 1997) triangular theory is by far the most frequently adapted framework to explain

consumers love for brands, some discussion of it is appropriate.

Sternberg's theory holds that various types of love are created through different

admixtures of passion, intimacy, and decision/commitment. Passion is the least problematic

aspect of Sternberg's theory, since it is plausibly translated into the passionate attraction

consumers feel for brands. Intimacy refers to feelings, thoughts and actions that are connected to

the experience of warmth, closeness and bondedness in loving relationships. Although Sternberg

(1997) sees intimacy as including 10 subcomponents, the integration of the beloved into the self

is not among them (nor is this phenomenon included in passion or decision/commitment). In

contrast, the current research finds integration of the loved brand into the consumer's identity to

be an absolutely central aspect of brand love (cf., Ahuvia 2005; Albert, Merunka, and Valette-

Florence 2008; Escalas and Bettman 2005; Fournier 1998). Hence, theories of brand love

derived from Sternberg's theory are likely to omit the ways brands are used by consumers to
17

construct or project their identity.

Finally, Sternberg's decision/commitment component is largely irrelevant to brand love.

The decision part of this component refers to a person's conscious choice to see their relationship

as love, with all the normative implications this entails. But in brand love consumers rarely

consciously choose to define their relationship with a brand as love -- at least prior to being

asked about it by a researcher. Furthermore, the commitment part of Sternberg's triangular

theory does not refer to a sense of bondedness to the brand (recall that Sternberg considers that

an aspect of intimacy). Rather, Sternbergs commitment refers to a perceived normative, moral

obligation to maintain the relationship even in the face of a much better alternative. While

respondents may have been resistant to negative information about their loved brands, if the poor

performance of a loved brand became undeniable, respondents reported that they would not

maintain their love for the brand. Thus, as Aggarwal (2004) observed, in brand love the norms of

a commercial marketplace often replaced the norms of interpersonal relationships, implying that

Sternbergs interpersonal decision/commitment component cannot be applied to brand love

without changing it into something quite different from what Sternberg intended.

In conclusion, we want to stress that we do not mean to imply that brand love researchers

should abstain from (a) citing interpersonal love research as sources of hypotheses, or even (b)

citing parallels between findings on brand love and interpersonal love, as relevant supporting

evidence. Our findings do suggest, however, that when theories of interpersonal love are used to

construct measures of brand love, important variables may be omitted from the study, and

unnecessary ones included -- and that this lacuna is unlikely to be detected through an analysis of

data collected only on dimensions suggested by the interpersonal love literature.

The Brand Love Emotion or the Brand Love Relationship? When consumers described
18

their love for a brand to us, they invariably described a broad and long-term consumer-brand

relationship, with multiple inter-related cognitive, affective and behavioral elements, rather than

a specific, single, transient love emotion. In fact, the love emotion itself was rarely mentioned

even as part of that brand love relationship, whereas other emotions such as happiness when

thinking about the brand, or anxiety about possibly losing the loved brand, were frequently

discussed. Hence, we will use the term brand love to refer to a consumer-brand relationship

which corresponds with the brand love prototype described above, and use the terms "brand love

emotion" or "love emotion" to refer to the specific affective state called love.

Etic themes: Structural Hierarchy, Positive Attitudes, and Resistance to negative brand

information. Grounded theory involves the generation of etic, theory-driven interpretations. As

interviews were coded for the presence or absence of certain constructs, they were also coded for

links between the constructs (Figure 1 provides an example of this process). Some of these links

revealed that constructs formed a system of hierarchical categories. The 10 themes reported

above were chosen because, in the researchers judgment, they provided a useful balance of

detail and parsimony. However, it would also have been possible to produce a more detailed

analysis by breaking these 10 themes down into smaller units, or a more parsimonious analysis

by combining some of these themes into fewer, even more general, categories. Thus Studies 1

and 2 reveal that features of the love prototype are grouped hierarchically (see Study 3).

A second etic finding is the important role that positive attitudes play in brand love.

Positive attitudes about the loved brands were too ubiquitous to be seen as their own theme, in

that they played a role in framing consumer discourse about a great many other themes. The

connection noted here between love and positive attitudes is a more modest version of claims

made in past research, which has gone so far as to define love as an attitude: "love is an attitude
19

involving predispositions to think, feel and behave in certain ways" (Rubin 1970, p. 265,

italics in original). Hendrick and Hendrick (2006, p.150) also describe love as attitude/belief

systems that include an emotional core..and are related to patterns ofbehavior. In addition to

very positive attitude valence, brand love also displayed many characteristics of attitudinal

strength. Attitude strength is comprised of multiple dimensions (Krosnick et al. 1993), many of

which -- such as greater attitude extremity and intensity, more certainty and importance,

affective-cognitive consistency, and more frequent thinking and talking about the attitude object

-- were clearly found in the interviews. This is not surprising, since in Studies 1 and 2 loved

brands were considered very important; related to at an intense level (since they connected to

deeper meanings and identities, and were invested in more); thought and talked about more;

and evoked strong affective responses.

The extensive and extreme positivity towards loved brands suggests a third etic finding:

resistance to negative brand information. Such resistance is also suggested by the fact that loved

brands become integrated into the consumer's identity, and people naturally tend to resist

negative information about themselves (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Green 2005).

Elements of the Brand Love Prototype: Antecedents, Core Elements, and Consequences

Recall that in the literature a prototype is typically conceived of in terms of close

antecedents, the phenomenon itself, and proximal consequences (Shaver et al. 1987).

Shaver et al. (1987) found that an antecedent to the love emotion was the judgment that

the loved one provides something the person wants, needs or likes (1987, p.1078). Equivalently,

in our brand love prototype, aspects of the loved brand characterized as great quality/qualities

will be considered antecedents to brand love, since people are attracted to things that provide

them with needed benefits (Murstein 1988), and it is hard to conceive of brand love in the
20

absence of necessary quality. In our respondent interviews, their positive evaluation of the loved

brands quality was widely recounted as an antecedent to their coming to love it.

The core phenomena of brand love would then include different cognitions (e.g. about

self-identity); feelings and sense of connectedness and fit; and behaviors (such as frequent

interactions, or resource investments) that our qualitative studies identified as being part of

experienced brand love. Since brands cannot be loved without also being liked and evaluated

highly, these core brand love features should also include attitude valence, even though brand

love clearly contains many elements that go beyond such valence (such as the self-related

cognitions and distinct feelings documented above). Further, as discussed earlier in our etic

themes, the core of brand love also ought to include attitudinal strength, including greater

attitude extremity and intensity, more certainty and importance, and more frequent thinking and

talking about the attitude object, etc. (cf., Krosnick et al. 1993).2

To understand which aspects of the prototype are best seen as consequences of brand

love, one needs to consider the purpose of mental categorization. As Barsalou (1991, p. 58)

points out:

the purpose of categorization is to identify information in memory that


provides useful inferences. Upon accessing a category for an entity, a tremendous
amount of knowledge becomes available that is useful in a variety of waysthe
origins of the entity, its probable behavior, its implications for the perceivers

2
Recently, Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisengrich and Iacabucci (2010) examined the relationship between brand
attachment (similar to brand love) and their interpretation of attitude strength, and claim empirical evidence for
discriminant validity between the two. However, their conceptualization and measurement of attitude strength is not
the same as ours (which relies heavily on Krosnick 1993). Most of the items that constitute our two attitude strength
factors (such as the frequency with which the brand comes to mind, and how quickly these brand-related thoughts
come to mind), are used by them to measure a different construct they label brand prominence. Just as we keep
our two attitude strength factors within our brand love prototype, they too keep their brand prominence factor within
their brand attachment construct. Clearly, given the lack of common agreement on what constitutes attitude
strength (see Krosnick 1993), it is not surprising that different authors and studies will use this term in varying
ways. More research is clearly needed to arrive at a more definitive understanding of the construct and
operationalization of attitude strength (and related constructs). Of note, while Park et al. 2010 focus in their paper on
the different outcomes of brand attachment/prominence, and attitude strength, they do not study the antecedents and
core elements of these in depth, as we do here.
21

goals, or actions for interacting with it successfully (emphases added).

Consistent with Barsalous (1991) argument that prototypes serve useful purposes, we

conceive the brand love prototype as helping consumers arrive at useful outcomes in their

relationship with brands. In the interpersonal love domain, earlier research has found

relationship stability (similar to loyalty) to be a relational outcome typical of relationships

consistent with prototypical rather than non-prototypical love (Fehr 2006, p.238). Analogously,

we conceive brand love consequences as higher brand repurchase intentions, willingness to pay a

higher price, engagement in positive word-of-mouth, and resistance to negative information.

STUDY 3: STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING OF BRAND LOVE

As Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2008) note, even if we know from Studies 1

and 2 -- what the different features are that jointly constitute brand love, we still need to know

which are the most important components for brand love to be strong. We also need to study how

these components are organized: whether some of them conceptually and empirically combine

into higher-order structures, or split up further at lower levels of abstraction. We thus proceed

now to Study 3, which builds on our grounded theory study, using SEMs to address these and

other questions.

Methodology

Pretest Data Collection. Items were generated to measure the brand love prototype

features, and pretested with undergraduates (n = 133). The items expressed the extent (Very

much to Not at all) to which respondents believe the brand possessed the listed characteristic

for them personally (e.g., lets you present yourself to others as the kind of person you want to

be). These were supplemented for the self-identity features by items that visually depicted

possible degrees of overlap between two concentric circles, one representing the brand, and the
22

other their personal identity (adapted from Bagozzi and Lee 2002). Items were also located from

existing scales for the constructs of attitude strength (Krosnick et al. 1993, p. 1150) and brand

loyalty (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 1995). For positive feelings we combined the items used

by Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005, p. 80) with nine more: contented, relaxed, hopeful,

calming, wanting, longing for, sense of desire, fun, exciting.

Preliminary Category Identification and Scale Refinement. The pretest data were

analyzed via exploratory factor analysis to group the items in the survey data into 16 factors

(shown in Table 1). Fourteen of these factors were seen in Studies 1 and 2 as core elements of

brand love itself, although these 14 factors subdivided some themes from Studies 1 and 2 into

smaller units. One of these 16 factors (Great Qualities/Quality) was seen in Studies 1 and 2 as an

antecedent of brand love. The other contained managerially relevant consequence items included

willingness to engage in positive word of mouth, high repurchase intentions, questioning

negative information, and brand loyalty. For brevity, we call this Loyalty/WOM/Resistance.

(Willingness to pay a higher price was also measured, but excluded due to poor reliability.)

[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

Final data collection. From this preliminary analysis, 593 items were identified that

loaded highest on these factors, and also displayed satisfactory scale reliabilities as scalar

measures of those factors. These were then administered in random order via an on-line survey to

268 college undergraduates (about 50% male) in a large university. As was done by Thomson,

MacInnis, and Park 2005 (Study 1), and Escalas and Bettman (2005), consumers entered their

own choice of a brand I love, for the consumer electronics product category. After answering

questions about this loved brand, respondents then answered the same questions about another

3 Two of these 59 items were not eventually used in the analysis (one measuring the willingness to spend time
shopping for the brand, and the other on the extent to which attitudes toward it were mixed and conflicted) because
their inclusion in the measures of the constructs in the final data lowered rather than raised reliability coefficients.
23

brand from the same product category, towards which they felt mostly neutral about, instead of

loved. Unless otherwise noted, all analyses refer to the data about loved brands.

Results

Structural Equations Modeling of a first-order structural model of the brand love

prototype. A non-hierarchical (first-order) structural equations model was first estimated for the

loved brands data (using LISREL 8.8, n = 187) in which brand love was specified to consist

directly of the fourteen core underlying factors emerging in our exploratory factor (and earlier

qualitative) analysis. Fit statistics for this and all other models reported below met, or came very

close to, all the standard criteria (RMSEA < .06, NNFI >.95, CFI >.95, SRMR < .08: Hu and

Bentler 1999). For brevity, model fit statistics are not reported here, but are available from the

authors. All composite indicators of the 14 latent constructs fit well as hypothesized.

Table 1 lists the individual latent first-order components (organized into the higher-order

hierarchical structure we will report below) and measurement items. Within each latent first-

order component, the various indicators listed in Table 1 were randomly split into two groups,

and composite indicators of each group, using averages of the source items, were then used in the

estimation of each factor or sub-component of it (Bagozzi and Edwards 1998).4 All the 14

components possessed adequately high (> .6) levels of average variance (AVE) extracted

(Fornell and Larker 1981), and composite construct reliability (CCR) levels > .7. The factors had

adequately high discriminant validity (phi coefficients < 1.0, or by the -difference test).

Nomological Validity. A second structural equations model estimated the relationship

4
Thus in cases where the latent higher-order construct consisted of more than one first-order component of the
brand love system from Studies 1 and 2 (e.g., self-brand integration combined current self-identity, life meaning,
and desired self-identity), two separate composite indicators captured each conceptual component. In cases where
the conceptual component from Studies 1 and 2 matched up with a single first-order latent factor (e.g., anticipated
negative affect), its items were randomly split into two composite indicators.
24

between these 14 brand love prototype components, the antecedent of high quality (HQ), and the

consequence of Loyalty/WOM/Resistance. These models fit well, with each of our first-order

brand love components relating positively and significantly (at p < .01) to each of these two

other constructs (HQ and L/WOM/R), but none at levels high enough to threaten discriminant

validity.

Comparison of mean levels. Means differences were between the high and low love

samples using multiple groups measurement models. Confirming the results of Studies 1 and

2, the high-love-brand factor means were statistically higher (at p < .01) than the low-love-brand

means on all components, with the smallest difference on attitude strength #2. Another such test

showed that the high-love-brand factor means were also statistically higher than the low-love-

brand means on high quality and on loyalty/WOM/resistance.

Structural Equations Modeling of a hierarchical, higher-order brand love prototype. In

the spirit of the grounded theory-building objective underlying this project, we next explored the

data via a hierarchical, higher-order structural model. We examined the factor correlations

among the components estimated in our first-order models earlier to see which components

might be grouped together as parts of higher-order factors, and where the empirical correlations

we observed also made conceptual sense, combining closely-related conceptual components of

brand love uncovered in our prior qualitative Studies 1 and 2.

Three such groupings were observed: (1) passion-driven behaviors: willingness to invest

resources, passionate desire to use, and things done in the past (involvement), correlated with

each other at levels that were (mostly) higher than with other sub-components; as did (2) self-

brand integration: life meaning, desired self-identity, current self-identity, and attitude strength

#1 (frequent thoughts); and (3) positive emotional connection: a sense of intuitive fit with the
25

brand in which it feels just right; the extent to which the respondent feels emotionally attached

or bonded to the brand; and the extent to which consumers have specific positive feelings (e.g.,

contentment, fun, etc.) connected with it. These correlation patterns were very similar in the high

and low brand samples.5 We modeled these three groupings as three second-order constructs.

The four other (first-order) factors in this higher-order structural model were the remaining

components that did not cluster in the manner above. These factors are depicted in Figure 1 and

described in more detail in Table 1. Following emerging interpretations of formative versus

reflective measurement and recent recommendations in consumer research and psychology

(Bagozzi 2011), we represented the brand love prototype by use of reflective indicators of

hierarchical organized factors. The three second-order factors and four first-order factors all

loaded on a single third-order factor, which we labeled Brand Love.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 AND TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]

This empirically-driven but conceptually-justifiable hierarchical structure of the brand

love prototype was then estimated. Relationships from the third-order brand-love factor to the

seven underlying brand-love factors (3 second-order, and 4 first-order), and from them to their

sub-components, are all strong, positive, and significant, as hypothesized (see Figure 1 and Table

2). All composite indicators of the seven latent constructs also fit well and as hypothesized.

Nomological Validity. A follow-up model estimated the relationship between this higher-

order core brand love factor and the two other constructs conceptualized as antecedents (High

Quality) or consequences (loyalty/WOM/resistance). These models fit well for both high and low

brand love. In them, the disattenuated correlation coefficients showed that our higher-order brand

love factor was indeed related positively and significantly (at p < .01) to each of these two other

5
The only statistically significant difference across them was that while attitude strength #1 and #2 correlated
strongly [.56] in the high brand love sample, this correlation was much weaker [.12] in the low brand sample.
26

constructs, but none so highly that it threatened discriminant validity.

Measuring brand love as a single, unitary construct vs. multi-component prototype.

Managerially and theoretically, it should clearly be more helpful to separately measure the

individual components of the love prototype, if one aims to understand all the options available

for increasing love for ones brands. Nonetheless, it could still be asked whether our multiple-

component brand love prototype adds predictive value over a summatory, single factor,

measure of overall brand love. In our questionnaire, we also asked respondents to rate the degree

to which they loved the brand in question in an overall sense: (1) Overall, how much do you

love (Brand), 1 = Not at all, 10 = Very Much, and (2) Describe the extent to which you feel

love towards (Brand), 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very Much. We used these items as separate indicators

of a summatory measure of overall brand love. Confirmatory factor analyses (details omitted

for brevity) showed that the two indicators for overall brand love had high, positive and

significant loadings on the factor of .79 and .82; had AVE and CCR statistics of .71 and .83; and

that the overall brand love latent factor had strong and positive (.84-.95), but significantly below

1.0, correlations with both our first-order and higher-order brand love factor models.

Comparative Predictive Models

We therefore tested the comparative predictive power of this overall brand love factor,

versus our brand love prototype higher-order factor6, in explaining and predicting

loyalty/WOM/resistance. The models estimated below, with the key R2 statistics (in explaining

brand loyalty/WOM), and fit statistics, are presented in Table 3.

[INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]

We first estimate Model 1 as a baseline, which is typical of conventional attitude models

6
Predictive models using our first-order factor model were also estimated. However, because of extensive
collinearity across its 14 components, the individual path coefficients predicting brand loyalty/WOM were not
usable. Hence these first-order predictive models are not discussed further.
27

in marketing that rely on the brands perceived high quality to drive brand

loyalty/WOM/resistance. High quality alone significantly predicts brand loyalty/WOM

[standardized coefficient .41, p < .01], R2 =.17.

We next estimate models 2a and 2b in which brand love, and nothing else (not even high

quality), directly predict loyalty/WOM/resistance. In model 2a, overall brand love significantly

predicts loyalty/WOM/resistance (standardized coefficient = .65, p < .01, R2 = .42). In model

2b, our higher order brand love factor also significantly predicts loyalty/WOM/resistance, but at

a much higher level (standardized coefficient = .78, p < .01, R2 = .61). Note that since we are

making comparisons only between models with the same number of variables, it is appropriate to

compare these raw statistics with each other.

Next, models 3a and 3b use both high quality and brand love together, to predict

loyalty/WOM/resistance; with high quality predicting brand love as well (see Table 3). Model 3a

uses overall brand love and significantly predicts loyalty/WOM/resistance (standardized

coefficient = .55, p < .01, R2 = .47). But again, when the higher-order brand love factor is used

instead of the overall brand love factor (model 3b), it not only significantly predicts

loyalty/WOM/resistance (standardized coefficient = .73, p < .01), but produces a notably higher

R2 of .63 as opposed to .47.

To summarize, these comparative model tests show a noticeable improvement in the

ability to predict loyalty/WOM/resistance brand loyalty, word-of-mouth, and resistance to

negative information, by using the multiple component higher-order brand love prototype as

opposed to a summatory overall brand love measure.

High versus low brand love structure and relationships. Heretofore we have analyzed the

data about brands that each individual respondent reported either loving or coming as close to
28

love as possible (henceforth, High Love Brands). In this section we compare these High Love

Brands to Low Love Brands, which are brands that each individual respondent provided in

response to a question asking for a brand towards which they felt mostly neutral about, instead

of loved. In our data, while respondents reported significantly lower levels of love for this

second brand than they did for the first brand (on a 10-point how much you love it item, the

first had a mean of 7.39 and the second brand a mean of only 3.76, p < .001), even for this

second brand 80% of respondents reported levels of love greater than 1 (not at all). We thus refer

to the second group as brands that are low in brand love, rather than "neutral" brands.

Structure. For both our first-order and hierarchical models, the structural models that fit

our high brand love data also fit our low brand love data (n = 187) well, and all but 2 latent

construct indicators again fit well and as hypothesized in the low brand love data. The exceptions

were one item of Positive Affect, and one of Attitude Strength #2. Multiple-group tests showed

that the model testing the equality of factor patterns across the high and low brand data samples -

- but allowing for just these two indicators to vary in their loadings -- could not be rejected.

Thus, it is an important finding from our modeling that the relationships from the brand-love

factor to the underlying factors and sub-components for low brand love are very similar (with the

exception of 2 loadings) to those obtained for high brand love, and that the structure of the Brand

Love prototype thus does not appear to be different across high and low love brands.

Relationships. In almost all our models, the structural relations between the brand love

prototype components, the antecedent of High Quality, and the consequence of

loyalty/WOM/resistance, were very similar, with three exceptions.

First, when we modeled the relations between the antecedent of High Quality and the

brand love components in the first-order model, we found a significant difference in the
29

relationship of High Quality with Passionate Desire to Use, across the high (low) brand love

samples, which was .30 for LBL but .12 for HBL. That is, a passionate desire to use the brand

was related to high quality much more for less-loved brands than for highly-loved ones.

Second, in our predictive model #3 (see Table 3), in which we used both high quality and

brand love together to predict brand loyalty/WOM, we found that the direct path from high

quality to loyalty/WOM/resistance was not significant for high brand love, but was significant

for low brand love. High Quality had a standardized coefficient into Brand love of .46 for High

Brand Love (and .40 for low brand love), and into loyalty/WOM/resistance (direct) of .12 n.s.

(.13, p < .05). Importantly, while these last two path coefficients appear to be very close, formal

chi-square tests in fact revealed that they were in fact significantly different at p < .05. Thus for

high brand love the higher-order brand love prototype mediates all the effects of high quality on

loyalty/WOM/resistance; for low brand love there are both direct and indirect effects.

Finally, in looking at the model 3b results (also Table 3), comparing the path coefficients

in the model for high versus low brand love, it appeared that while these path coefficients were

mostly very similar, they apparently differed for the path from Brand Love to Attitude Strength

#2 (certainty/confidence) of .66 high, .18 low. A formal test of this difference cannot be done,

however, because two factor loadings for these two factors are significantly different for the two

samples. What can be claimed statistically, however, is that the loading of attitude strength #2 on

the higher-order brand love factor is significantly higher in the high brand love sample than the

low brand love sample. We will return to this result in the discussion section below.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Theoretical Contributions

We began this paper by pointing out that while brand love had recently emerged as a very
30

important concept among both practitioners and academics, theoretical progress has been

hampered by: (a) the substitution of a literature review on interpersonal love for the basic

exploratory research on brand love needed to lay a solid foundation for future work; (b) the

failure to distinguish between the love emotion and the longer-lasting and more complex love

relationship; and (c) the non-utilization in the brand love domain of the now-accepted prototype

approach to identifying and defining different types of love.

Using a grounded theory approach, we therefore conducted two qualitative studies which

uncovered 10 consumer-experienced features of the brand love prototype. These features were

then sorted into an antecedent (perceptions about great quality/qualities), the core of brand love,

and consequences of brand love (brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth, resistance to negative

information, and willingness to pay a price premium). (See Table 1). Our work thus builds on

past research, by taking constructs which had earlier been studied independently, and showing

that brand love can function as an integrated framework for investigating how they work

together. Our qualitative studies also show that research on brand love which is derived directly

from theories of interpersonal love tends to overlook the crucial issues of how loved brands

become part of the consumers identity and provide intrinsic benefits. This does not mean, of

course, that it is inappropriate to use the interpersonal relationship literature as a source of

hypotheses, and even as supporting evidence, for research on consumer-brand relationships.

We then, in Study 3, continued in the spirit of grounded theory study of the brand love

prototype to a quantitative measurement of these brand love prototype features, followed by a

structural equations modeling analysis of these data. We estimated both first-order and higher-

order representations of brand love that are useful for managerial analysis and action. Predictive

models using the higher-order model showed that it better predicts brand loyalty, WOM and
31

resistance to negative information than does a simple overall measure of brand love.

We were thus able to show, through this programmatic set of studies, that in terms of

maximum theoretical and explanatory power, the phenomenon of consumer love for a brand is

modeled with much more richness and diagnostic insight, for both high and less loved brands, by

use of a prototype conceptualization that includes seven distinct elements: (1) passion driven

behaviors reflecting strong desires to use it, to invest resources into it, and a history of having

done so; (2) self-brand integration including a brands ability to express the consumers actual

and desired identities, its ability to connect to lifes deeper meanings and provide intrinsic

rewards, and frequent thoughts about it; (3) positive emotional connection, broader than just

positive feelings, including a sense of positive attachment and having an intuitive feeling of

rightness; (4) anticipated separation distress if the brand were to go away, (5) long-term

relationship which includes predicting extensive future use and a long-term commitment to it;

(6) positive attitude valence; and (7) attitudes strongly held, with high certainty and confidence.

We believe that our higher-order prototype model adds value over the individual study of

its included components in several ways. First, it leads us to a much more comprehensive and

integrated understanding of how consumers actually experience brand love, than the prior

academic study of its individual components, as stand-alone theoretical constructs, would

suggest. Second, by showing how survey data on these prototype elements can be collected and

modeled structurally, it shows how more lower-level, concrete sub-components can be used to

influence higher-level and more abstract consumer perceptions. For instance, it shows three

pathways through which consumers might develop a stronger emotional connection toward a

brand: the association of the brand with various types of positive affect; the sensing of an

intuitive fit with it; and the development of an old friend bond with it. Third, it allows for the
32

situationally-varying assessment of which component or sub-component might have the

strongest impact (weight) on the overall strength of felt brand love. For instance, in our data on

consumer electronics, structural model coefficients were highest for Positive Emotional

Connection (.99), Passion-Driven Behaviors (.96), and Self-Brand Integration (.83), and much

lower for Separation Distress (.55), Long-Term Relationships (.59), Overall Attitudes (.60) and

Attitude Strength #2 (.62). Such diagnostic insight is useful theoretically and managerially.

It is important to note here that our structural and measurement models for highly- and

less-loved brands did not differ significantly (only 2 measurement loadings were not invariant),

with two interesting exceptions. We did find that attitude strength #2 (attitudes being held with

greater certainty and confidence) had significantly higher loadings on higher-order brand love for

more-loved brands than less-loved ones. This is theoretically reassuring, since more-loved

brands with which consumers have more, and more direct, interactions ought indeed to have

stronger (not just more positive) attitudes (cf., Krosnick et al. 2003). We also found that beliefs

about high quality of the brand were a significantly weaker contributor to brand

loyalty/WOM/resistance for more-loved brands than for less-loved brands. This again makes

theoretical sense since it is for more-loved brands that aspects of brand love such as self-brand

integration, and positive emotional connection ought to have relatively more influence.

Managerial Implications

Naturally, the key managerial question is how brand managers can turn merely-liked

brands into loved brands, and maintain that relationship over time. To repeat, our hierarchical

model can assist managers in showing how more lower-level, concrete sub-components can be

targeted via product and service design, and via marketing communications -- to influence the

higher-level and more abstract consumer perceptions that shape a consumers feeling of brand
33

love. We discuss some of these ideas below. Further, a manager with budget constraints naturally

needs to know which pathways and mechanisms to emphasize, to maximize the ROI of brand-

love-increasing efforts. The path coefficients of the components in our higher-order model

(Table 2) are higher for some (enduring passion, positive emotional connection, self-brand

integration) than for others (anticipated separation distress, long-term relationship), indicating

the likely greater salience and importance of the former in creating brand love. Yet our model

estimates also showed that highly-loved brands had higher means than less-loved brands on all

of the elements of the brand prototype factors. This suggests that all of them represent potential

pathways to build brand love, subject to category- and brand- specific opportunities and

constraints, some of which managers might not have adequately appreciated before:

1. Facilitating passion-driven behaviors (reflecting strong desires to use the brand, to

invest resources into it, and to interact frequently with it). The need to create a strong desire to

use the brand suggests the need to employ design and packaging techniques that have been

shown to create a strong hunger-like, visceral sense of desire (cf., Belk, Ger, and Askegaard

2003, Norman 2004). Creating the need to invest resources (of both time and money) into, and to

interact frequently with, the brand, suggest the use of ways to encourage (or even require)

accessorization and personalization, in enjoyable ways. Examples include Scion cars, which

encourage owners to choose not only colors and sound systems, but also armrests, interior lights,

steering wheels, wheels and wheel covers, sport mufflers, etc. From a product/service design

perspective, it suggests creating more modular mix-and-match type product platforms, and/or

more software or service layers on top of the hardware that invite such personalization.

2. Build brands that symbolize or facilitate self-brand integration including not only the

usual aspects, such as a brands ability to express the consumers actual and desired identities,
34

but additionally the ability of brands to connect to what we are calling lifes deeper meanings

and important values. Furthermore, respondents told us that while their loved items provided

them with a wide range of benefits, the delivery of intrinsic rewards was a key factor that set

strongly-loved brands apart. Earlier results from the inter-personal love domain (Seligman,

Fazio, and Zanna 1980) also suggest that love differs from liking by having more of the rewards

tied to intrinsic, rather than extrinsic benefits. If this is an important way in which love for a

brand differs from liking for it, it would appear that more-loved brands are those that are

especially successful in being able to link themselves to a consumers sense of self-identity and

by giving life meaning, by connecting to some life aspects considered inherently important

possibly by linking credibly to social betterment (via CSR campaigns), or to deeply-held

individual values (such as individual creativity, or frugality and simplicity). Marketing

communications could attempt to emphasize intrinsic benefits (e.g. happiness) over extrinsic

(instrumental) ones, or even to re-frame the latter as the former. Other activities and domains

with which the targeted consumer segment feels a strong sense of identity-related involvement

(such as sports, currently being leveraged by Samsung in its NFL partnership, or the

environment) can also strongly contribute to a consumers sense of self-identity, and brands that

credibly come to symbolize such self-identifying values can become strongly loved brands.

3. Creating positive emotional connections with the brand. This is broader than just

positive feelings: it includes a sense of attachment (old friend, bond) and an intuitive feeling

of rightness about the brand. This may be achieved by endowing the brand with a sense of

authenticity from its origin and history, the vision of its founders and its corporate culture, so that

the brand buyer feels a sense of kinship about it. In the interviews, brands that seemed to

come from the heart of their producers had a much easier time finding a place in the hearts of
35

their consumers. Examples include Patagonia (with founder Yvon Chuinard) and Body Shop (by

Anita Roddick). The needed sense of emotional attachment the brand feeling like an old friend,

and the building of a bond with it could also be developed through the creation of active and

tightly-knit brand communities, such as that of Harley-Davidson, and brand presence at

emotionally-meaningful events such as music festivals or NASCAR races.

4. Brands that become valuable and trusted resources, as sources of expertise and advice,

are possibly most able to create and leverage a feeling of anticipated separation distress if the

brand were to go away. Examples include Tides stain-fighting web site or Krafts recipe site.

5. A sense of long-term relationship with the brand going forward could be created by

loyalty programs but these should emphasize intrinsic over extrinsic motives and rewards --

and by marketing programs for brands that require frequent and ongoing, rather than only one-

shot and initial, updating and interaction. Examples might include brand community Facebook

pages for brands (such as those of Coca-Cola) that incentivize frequent visits, dialog, the

frequent reading and putting-in of content, etc.

Taken together, our multiple uncovered-and-modeled features of the brand love prototype

build on and extend prior marketing research which focused on attachment (Thomson, MacInnis,

and Park 2005) and actual, or aspired-to, self-identity (Escalas and Bettman 2005). We believe it

is no coincidence that the Apple iPod was the brand most often rated by our respondents as their

highest-loved consumer electronics brand: it exemplifies many of the components of brand love

identified in this research. The iPod (and iPhone) product is all about personalizing ones music,

and other selections such as apps. This personalization requires substantial investments of time

and effort, and frequent interactions. And what could be more reflective of ones authentic self-

identity, and arousing of passion, than ones choice of music, which reflects deeply-held life
36

values, and connects the user with others with similar musical tastes (Larsen, Lawson and Todd

2009)? It is also noteworthy that the iPods industrial design (the simplicity of its click-wheel

mechanism and menu navigation) is likely to promote a sense of natural and intuitive fit.

Almost all (89%) of respondents in Study 2 reported truly loving at least one brand. Yet

the brands consumers really love are likely to be a small minority of the total brands they

purchase. Can our new understanding of brand love also be relevant for more mundane brands?

While this question requires further study, our findings suggest that brand love may indeed be a

useful construct in many situations. Even after directing respondents to select a brand they felt

mostly neutral about, instead of loved, and allowing respondents to choose any consumer

electronics brand they wished that met this criterion, 80% of respondents still reported feeling

some love for these brands. This suggests that love is a continuous variable with a very broad

positive range, and that even brands that we dont usually think of as loved may potentially

possess enough features of the love prototype for our brand love model to be applied to them.

This conclusion is strongly supported by the fact that our brand love models were very similar

for both high and love brands, and effectively predicted brand loyalty, WOM, and resistance to

negative information for both low and high love brands.

Limitations and Future Research.

More work is needed to see how the components of brand love identified here interact with each

other. In particular, further conceptual and empirical work is clearly needed to more definitively

assess the role of attitude valence and attitude strength within the brand love prototype.7 Further,

just as inter-personal love comes in different types (parental, romantic, sexual, etc.) so might

brand love. Experimental research manipulating the features of the brand love prototype would

7
Although not reported in this paper for reasons of space, we also estimated structural equations models
treating attitude valence as a covariate and attitude strength as a consequence. Our conclusions concerning the
explanation and prediction of brand loyalty/WOM by the other brand love prototype components remained the same.
37

complement our cross-sectional research, helping to more unambiguously establish causal

directions. Longitudinal research, on the temporal development and possible waning -- of

brand love would also be very useful. Our candidate measures for willingness to pay higher

prices, as an outcome of brand love, did not work out in our Study 3, suggesting the need for

better measures. Research is obviously needed to broaden the generalizability of our findings to

other types of consumers and categories, particularly durables and services. Although our Study

1 examined love for consumption activities, not just brands, further study is needed of the extent

to which our findings apply to other branded objects and possessions. Given the increasing

importance of brand love to marketing theory and practice, our present contributions are, only a

beginning and a lot of work clearly remains.


38

TABLE 1: BRAND LOVE HIGHER-ORDER PROTOTYPE MODEL: LATENT

CONSTRUCTS, COMPONENTS AND CONSTITUENT ITEMS

High Quality (Antecedent)


Well-made, functional quality, practical
Self-brand integration (also includes attitude strength #1)
Current self identity. Says Desired self-identity. Helps Life meaning & intrinsic
something about who you are, present self to others as the rewards. Makes life meaningful,
others seeing you using it get a person you want to be, makes makes life worth living, gives life
sense of who you are, important you look like what you want to purpose, is inherently important,
part of self, degree of image look, makes you feel like how is more than an investment in
overlap between brand and self, you want to feel. future benefit, experience
personal identity matches brand feelings of desire.
identity, important to be one of
the people who use this brand,
brand is an important part of self
identity, brand is a rewarding
part of self identity.
Passion-driven behaviors
Willingness to Invest Passionate Desire to Use. Feel Things done in past
Resources. Have spent lot of myself craving to use it, feel (involvement): Have been
time making it fit my needs, myself desiring it, feel a sense involved with it in past, Have
willing to spend lot of money of longing to use it, feeling of done a lot of things with it in
improving and fine-tuning it wanting towards it, feeling of the past, have interacted a lot
after buy it, willing to spend desire towards it, feeling of with it or the company that
lot of time improving and longing towards it. makes it.
fine-tuning it after buy it, have
invested lot of time, energy or
money in it, was willing to
spend lot of time shopping to
buy it specifically, have used
it often in appropriate
occasions.
Positive emotional connection
Intuitive fit. Feel psychologically Emotional attachment. Feels like Positive affect. Content, relaxed,
comfortable using it, meets needs old friend, emotionally fun, exciting, calming, helps
perfectly, natural fit, what Ive connected, feel a bond. relax, pleasurable
been looking for, fits tastes
perfectly, felt right when first
encountered it, now feels right,
strength of feeling of liking.
Long term relationship
Will be using for a long time, will be part of life for long time to come, feel sense of long term
commitment
39

Anticipated Separation Distress


Anxiety, worry, fear, apprehension
Attitude valence
Indicator 1. Satisfaction, compares well with ideal Indicator 2. Meets expectations, feelings of liking
product, like-dislike, positivenegative towards it, good-bad, favorableunfavorable
Attitude strength
Attitude strength #1: Frequent thoughts (part of Attitude strength #2: Certainty and Confidence
Self-Brand Integration) Certainty of feelings/evaluations, how strongly
Very often talk to others about it, Very often have hold feelings/evaluations, how quickly
thoughts about it, frequently find myself thinking feelings/evaluations come to mind, confidence of
about it, frequently find myself thinking about feelings/evaluations, intensity of
using it, find that it keeps popping into my head, feelings/evaluations.
feelings toward it are strong, feel lots of affection
towards it
Loyalty/WOM/Resistance (Consequence)
Strength of loyalty, if hear something bad would question it in own mind, would buy again, would say
positive things about brand to others
40

TABLE 2
PATHCOEFFICIENTSOFHIGHERORDERSTRUCTURALMODELS

High Brand Low Brand
Love Sample Love Sample
(n = 187) (n = 187)

Brand Love Enduring Passion .96 .99


Brand Love Self-brand integration .83 .90
Brand Love Long-term relationship .59 .72
Brand Love Positive emotional connection .99 1.00
Brand Love Anticipated separation distress .55 .54
Brand Love Overall Attitude Valence .60 .65
Brand Love Attitude Strength #2 (Certainty/Confidence) .62 .19
Enduring Passion Willingness to invest resources .70 .79
Enduring Passion Desire to use .79 .83
Enduring Passion Things done in past .65 .69
Self-brand integration Life meaning & intrinsic rewards .80 .76
Self-brand integration Desired self-identity .74 .66
Self-brand integration Current self-identity .90 .92
Self-brand integration Attitude Strength #1 (Talk/think Frequently) .85 .92
Positive emotional connection Intuitive fit .84 .90
Positive emotional connection Emotional attachment .82 .90
Positive emotional connection Positive affect .78 .63

Model Fit Statistics 2 (333) 640.67 847.14


p< .01 .01
RMSEA .075 .094
NNFI .97 .96
CFI .98 .97
SRMR .081 .069

41

TABLE 3
PREDICTIVEMODELSTATISTICS

R2 for Brand Loyalty


High love Low love
(n = 187) (n = 187)

1 High
Quality Loyalty/WOM/Resistance .17 .17

2A Overall
.42 .52
Brand Love Loyalty/WOM/Resistance

2B H.O.F.*
.61 .63
Brand Love Loyalty/WOM/Resistance

3A High
Quality Loyalty/WOM/Resistance
.47 .55
Overall
Brand Love

3B High
Quality Loyalty/WOM/Resistance
.63 .65
H.O.F*.
Brand Love

*H.O.F. = Higher Order Factor

Model Fit Statistics:

1: 2(1) =.041(1.01), p = .84(.32), RMSEA = .002(.004), NNFI = 1.00(1.00), CFI =1.00(1.00), SRMR = .003(.001).

2A: 2(1) = 2.15(.31), p = .14(.58), RMSEA = .078(.00), NNFI = .97(1.00), CFI = 1.00(1.00), SRMR = .02(.01)

2B: 2(387) = 752.96(1020.60), p = .00(.00), RMSEA = .076(.097), NNFI = .97(.96), CFI = .98(.96), SRMR = .084(.074)

3A: 2(6) = 4.82(6.47), p = .57(.37 ), RMSEA = .0003(.02), NNFI = .99(1.00), CFI = 1.00(1.00), SRMR = .022(.026).

3B: 2(444) = 882.29(1152.55), p = .00(.00), RMSEA = .078(.096), NNFI = .97(.96), CFI = .97(.96), SRMR = .089(.078)
42

FIGURE 1
HIGHER-ORDER BRAND LOVE FACTOR MODEL

PassionateDesiretoUse

PassionDrivenBehaviors WillingnesstoInvest
Resources
ThingsDoneinPast
(Involvement)

DesiredSelfidentity

CurrentSelfidentity
SelfBrandIntegration

LifeMeaning

AttitudeStrength1:
FrequentThoughts

Brand PositiveEmotional
IntuitiveFit

Love Connection
EmotionalAttachment

PositiveAffect

LongtermRelationship

AnticipatedSeparation
Distress

OverallAttitudeValence

AttitudeStrength2:
Certainty/Confidence

More More

Abstract Concrete

The specific items for each indicator for each construct are not shown here for simplicity but are listed in Table 1.
43

REFERENCES

Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and

Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research 31(1), 87-101.

Ahearne, Michael, C.B. Bhattacharya, and Thomas Green (2005), Antecedents and

Consequences of Customer-Company Identification: Expanding the Role of Relationship

Marketing, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574-585.

Ahuvia, Aaron C. (2005), Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers Identity

Narratives, Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 171-84.

Albert, Noel, Dwight Merunka and Pierre Valette-Florence (2008), When Consumers Love

Their Brands: Exploring the Concept and its Dimensions, Journal of Business Research, 61(10),

1062-1075.

Aron, Elaine N., and Arthur Aron (1996), Love and expansion of the self: The state of the

model, Personal Relationships 3(1), 45-58.

Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), Work and/or Fun: Measuring

Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-56.

Bagozzi, Richard P., and Jeffrey R. Edwards (1998), A General Approach for Representing

Constructs in Organizational Research, Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45-87.


44

--------- "Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research:

Methodological and Philosophical Foundations," MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 261-292.

--------- and Kyu-Hyun Lee (2002), Multiple Routes for Social Influence: The Role of

Compliance, Internalization, and Social Identity, Social Psychological Quarterly, 65(3), 226-

47.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1991), Deriving Categories to Achieve Goals, in The Psychology of

Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Gordon H. Bower, ed. San Diego,

CA: Academic Press, 1-64.

Bauer, Hans, Daniel Heinrich, and Carmen-Maria Albrecht (2009). All You Need Is Love:

Assessing Consumers' Brand Love. in the proceedings from the American Marketing

Association Summer Educators Conference. Chicago, IL, 252-253.

Belk, Russell W. (1988), Possessions and the Extended Self, Journal of Consumer Research,

15(2), 139-68.

---------, Guliz Ger, and Soren Askegaard (2003), The Fire of Desire: A Multisited Inquiry into

Consumer Passion, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 326-51.

Bowlby, John (1979), The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Tavistock.
45

Carroll, Barbara A. and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006), Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand

Love, Marketing Letters, 17 (2) 79-90.

Capps, Brooke (2007), How to Succeed in Second Life, Advertising Age 78:6.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), You Are What They Eat: The Influence

of Reference Groups on Consumer Connections to Brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology,

13(3) 339-48.

----------- and James R. Bettman (2005), Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand

Meaning, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-89.

Fehr, Beverley and James A. Russell (1991), The Concept of Love Viewed from a Prototype

Perspective, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 425-438.

Fehr, Beverly (2006), A prototype approach to studying love, in The new psychology of love,

R. J. Sternberg and K. Weis, ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 225-46.

----------- (2009), Love, Prototype Approach, in Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Harry

T. Reis and Susan Sprecher, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with

Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
46

Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-73.

Guadagni, Peter M. and John Little (1983), "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on

Scanner Data," Marketing Science, 2(3), 203-238.

Hatfield, Elaine (1988), Passionate and Compassionate Love, in The Psychology of Love,

Robert J. Sternberg and Michael L. Barnes, ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 191-217.

Hazan, Cindy and Debra Zeifman (1999), Pair Bonds as Attachments, in Handbook of

Attachment, Jude Cassidy and Phillip R. Shaver, ed. New York: Guilford, 336-54.

Hendrick, Clyde and Susan S. Hendrick (2006), Styles of Romantic Love in The New

Psychology of Love, Robert Sternberg and Karin Sternberg, eds. New Haven, CT: Yale, 149-170.

Holt, Douglas B. (1997), Poststructuralist Lifestyle Analysis: Conceptualizing the Social

Patterning of Consumption in Postmodernity, Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4) 326-50.

Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-

55.

Jackson, Dennis L. (2003), Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some
47

Support for the N: q Hypothesis, Structural Equations Modeling, 10(1), 128-141.

Kleine, Susan S., Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995), How is a Possession Me or

Not Me? Characterizing Types and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment, Journal

of Consumer Research, 22(3), 327-43.

Krosnick, Jon A., David S. Boninger, Yao C. Chuang, Matthew K. Berent, and Catherine G.

Carnot (1993), Attitude Strength: One Construct or Many Related Constructs? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6) 1132-151.

Larsen, Gretchen, Rob Lawson and Sarah Todd (2009), The Consumption of Music as Self-

representation in Social Interaction, Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(1), 16-26.

Lee, John A. (1988), Love styles, in The Psychology of Love, Robert J. Sternberg and Michael

L. Barnes, eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 38-67.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), Building Brand

Community, Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.

McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Norman, Donald A. (2004), Emotional Design, New York: Basic Books.


48

Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisengerich, and Dawn

Iacabucci (2010), Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical

Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers, Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1-17.

Richins, Marsha L. (1994), "Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions,"

Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 504-521.

------ (1997), Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience, Journal of Consumer

Research, 24(2), 127-146.

Roberts, Kevin (2004), Lovemarks: the Future Beyond Brands. New York: Power House Books.

Rosch, Eleanor (1975), Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories, Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192-233.

Rubin, Zick (1970), Measurement of Romantic Love, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 16(2), 265-273.

Rust, Roland T. and Burt Cooil (1994), Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and

Implications, Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 1-14.

Seligman, Clive, Russell H. Fazio, and Mark P. Zanna (1980), Effects of Salience of Extrinsic

Rewards on Liking and Loving, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(3), 453-60.
49

Shaver, Phillip, Judith Schwartz, Donald Kirson, and Cary OConnor (1987), Emotion

Knowledge: Further Exploration of a Prototype Approach, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52(6), 1061-1086.

Shimp, Terrence A., and Thomas J. Madden (1988), Consumer-Object Relations: A Conceptual

Framework Based Analogously on Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love, Advances in

Consumer Research, 15, 163-68.

Sternberg, Robert J. (1986), A Triangular Theory of Love, Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-

35.

---------- (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale, European Journal of Social

Psychology, 27(3), 313-335.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1994), "Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview," in

Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, 273-285.

Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. W. Park (2005), "The Ties that Bind:

Measuring the Strength of Consumers' Emotional Attachments to Brands," Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.


50

BRAND LOVE

Rajeev Batra, Aaron Ahuvia, Richard P. Bagozzi

WEB APPENDIX: QUALITATIVE STUDIES 1 AND 2

STUDY 1

Data collection took place in two stages. Initially, 70 structured interviews were

conducted. From these 70 respondents 10 subsequently participated in follow-up depth

interviews. Respondents were contacted through a snowball sampling procedure. Although the

search for respondents began with personal contacts of an author, the actual respondents had not

met the authors prior to the research. Seventy people were contacted and all of them agreed to

participate in the research. The respondents were evenly split by gender (36 male and 34 female),

predominantly white (white 57, black 10, Hispanic 2, other 1), ranged from 23 to 45 years of age

(M = 32), and were generally well-educated (graduate school 38, college 27, high school 5).

Quotes from respondents are identified by gender, occupation, and age; e.g. M, lawyer, 42.

Confidential taped interviews were conducted by the author over the phone and lasted

from 10 minutes to one hour, averaging 20-30 minutes. Respondents were informed that the

topic of the study was love in situations other than close personal relationships, and were asked,

if there is something aside from people with whom you have a close personal relationship that

you love what is it? Respondents were then asked several questions about each thing that they

loved (described below). The interview continued until the respondent ceased to name new loved

objects. Following the phone interviews, 10 respondents were selected from the large sample
51

study for 2 to 4-hour home interviews. Because data from these depth interviews is not presented

here, further discussion of them is omitted.

Past studies have asked respondents to rate how good an example of love something is, or

how typical of love it is, in order to assess its fit with the love prototype. This study asked

essentially the same question, but worded it by asking: Which of the following two statements

best expresses your opinion about the nature of your love for (fill in loved object)? (1) What I

feel for (loved object) is really love, or (2) When I use the word love in connection with (loved

object) I am speaking loosely, so its not strictly correct to say that I really love (loved object).

Since prototypes function as fuzzy definitions, asking respondents if their relationship was

really love was a natural way of getting them to assess its fit with the love prototype.

Respondents were then asked to explain why each loved object did or did not qualify as real

love, and prompts where used to encourage respondents to keep talking and think more deeply

about the topic. Interviews were transcribed and coded in a database.

Because the phone interviews would be analyzed in part through quantitative content

analysis, inter-rater reliability was assessed and a PRL statistic of .87 confirmed the reliability of

the coding (Rust and Cooil 1994). These initial codes were then sorted into groups based on

similarity and relevance to previous research on the love prototype. This process resulted in

several major themes which could be used to compare the popular understanding of love in

consumption contexts to past research. All quantitative contrasts were confirmed as significant

using a Chi square test, or, when the expected value for any cell fell below 5, a Fishers exact

test. All tests were significant (p <0.01).

When reading the results presented using quantitative contrasts, it is important to bear in

mind several points. (1) All quantitative statements are based solely on the phone interviews and
52

do not include data from the depth interviews discussed below. (2) Percentages are used to

contrast the frequency of responses within the sample. They are not intended to be generalized as

survey data to a larger population. (3) All responses are made to very general open ended

questions (e.g. could you tell me about _____?). Therefore, if say 20% of the respondents

mention a particular issue; this suggests a much higher level of importance for that issue than if

20% of the respondents had agreed with a statement about that issue in a more directive format.

(4) In some cases issues where raised by respondents both to explain why they loved certain

items, and why they did not love other items. For example, respondents sometimes commented

that they truly loved an item because they would miss it if it was lost, and respondents also

commented that they did not truly love an item because they would not miss it if it were lost. In

these cases, it was possible to contrast the percent of items that were considered real love when

the criterion was met with the percent of items that were considered real love when the criterion

was failed. In other cases, respondents commented where asymmetrical in that they mentioned

that they loved an item for a certain reason (e.g. because they had owned it for a long time), but

respondents did not use this criteria to disqualify items (e.g. no one said I dont really love that

item because I havent owned it for very long). In these cases, performing a similar type of

contrast was not possible.

Study 1 was analyzed using standard qualitative procedures and also coded

quantitatively, whereas study 2 was only analyzed using qualitative procedures. To avoid

redundancy in the presentation of the results, study 1 results will rely primarily on the data

coding for support and omit most quotations, whereas study 2 results will utilize quotations as

per standard practice in qualitative research.


53

Study 1 Results

Study 1 provides a description of the major components of love in consumer behavior,

drawn from the experience of consumers. Non-interpersonal love was widespread among the

respondents. Ninety-six percent of the respondents claimed to love something other than another

person. Seventy-two percent of the respondents saw at least one loved object as fitting the

prototype well enough to qualify as love in the strictest sense of the word.

Great Quality. Respondents had highly positive attitudes about the things they loved. As

one respondent (M, Business Consultant, 33) said about his loved seafood dish: If you die and

go to heaven, thats what you get served. In almost all cases (94.5%) when discussing items that

they loved, respondents spontaneously talked about how great the product was, and/or the many

benefits they received from it. In all cases where positive qualities of an item were mentioned,

they were in the context of respondents explaining why they loved the item. And in all cases

where negative comments were made, they were cited as things that detracted from the

respondents love for that item.

Higher-Order Needs. Respondents mentioned the loved objects ability to provide a wide

variety of benefits such as comfort, transportation, entertainment, exercise, nutrition, company,

relaxation, stimulation and so on. However, loved objects were considered a better fit with these

respondents understanding of love when they met higher order needs such as self actualization

or existential meaning. Among the 48 loved objects that respondents mentioned as meeting

higher order needs, those seen as a close fit with respondents understanding of love

outnumbered loose uses of the term love by a ratio of over 4:1. In contrast, when higher order

needs were not mentioned, the ratio was only 1:1. A respondents (F, Nurse, 26) comments about
54

her loved Honda CRX provide a typical example of how mundane products can come to

represent important life meanings: It's not so much the car, but what the car represents, because

all the while I was trying to get through school, I saw the car, and I wanted it. It represents

dreams coming true, for me. Getting through school was my first goal, that I really attained, but

getting the car made me feel like I could do anything.

Intrinsic Rewards. A loved item provides intrinsic rewards when it (1) creates

psychological states such as pleasure, existential meaning, etcetera, and (2) these rewards are

perceived by the respondent as being part and parcel of using the product (e.g., traveling is

pleasurable), rather than a means to a separate end (e.g., Im doing unpleasant work for money

now, so I can spend it on traveling later). Most loved items provide both intrinsic and extrinsic

rewards. But whereas intrinsic benefits were mentioned by respondents 86% of the time,

extrinsic benefits were only mentioned in connection with 8% of the loved objects.

When respondents felt an intrinsic interest in an object, they perceived it to be an

authentic part of themselves. By contrasting the responses of Pam and Joe, both of whom

have worked professionally in the music industry, we can see how intrinsic and extrinsic interest

relates to the self. In Pams statement, the importance she places on the intrinsic pleasure of

musical experience is clear.

I love this because Gould himself was a very unique person. If you listen

very carefully to his recordings, you can hear him humming in the background,

because of the sheer pleasure of playing these things. . . . Bach was a marvel

because he was able to take a genre and make it sound fresh every time he used it.

. . . There were a lot of other Baroque artists, but they were just hacks. And I'm
55

sure they were very good, but they just didn't put the same joy of playing into it. I

think of modern writers of music, such as Ginestera, who are like the pianist's

pianist, you know, who write things that happen to be very beautiful to the ear,

but also wonderful to play. Bach was also one of those people . . . This particular

recording is strange, like I said, because you can hear Gould humming....he loves

playing it. He had a real joy about it. . . . He played other pieces very well, too,

but I think I've always felt Bach was his strongest. He just enjoyed it so much, it

was so obvious, it was a real love . . . .

Like Pam, "Joe" had also worked professionally in the music business. Because Joe did

not consider playing and dancing in a rock band to fit well with his ideas about love, he had left

the music world to return to college. Joe attributed his disenchantment with performing to a

realization that his interest was extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated. Of particular

interest in the following quotation is the relationship between intrinsic interest and the self.

The reason I started [dancing] is for the same reason I did music and

comedy and everything else--I wanted to impress people, for people to really like

me and give me all this adulation and love. And you can get some of that, you

know. I'm doing it, and I've done it at parties, and people just come up and go,

That was great, that was great. But one of the things I learned by doing this, it

doesn't really fill up any void. It's kind of like when people tell you they like your

dancing . . . my reaction is sort of like, that's not me. You just like this talent, or it

didn't really change how I felt, you know, so it really lost its appeal.

[Dancing wasn't you, what do you mean by that?]


56

Its sort of like when somebody likes you for your car, that's an analogy I

came up with. It's like if a girl went out with you and really loved you and said, I

really like your hip car, well, it's like, Fuck you! Get out of here! You know,

it's got nothing to do with these features that are more integral to my personality.

It's more of a talent I've just learned. Stuck on. While it has implications for my

personality, it's not as directly related as how I present myself and what I have to

say, what I think, how I feel, that kind of thing. (M, undergraduate student, 30)

Because he is performing primarily to get a reaction, even when he gets a positive

response, he feels that the appreciation is not of him. Actions made under duress or to gain

extrinsic rewards may have little to do with our selves, or at least with romantic notions of the

authentic self. Conversely, actions stemming from intrinsic motivation are a direct reflection of

our will and therefore our self. Hence, the popular idea that being true to yourself means doing

things that are intrinsically rewarding, at least in Western culture. Since Joes motivation to

perform was extrinsic, he felt his performances were not really him; but Pams concern for music

is intrinsic, therefore she does see music and her compositions as part of herself. In fact, she

refers to music as intrinsic to my being, showing how our language recognizes this connection

between intrinsic concern and the self. Thus, intrinsic value and self-extension are closely

connected, cognitively and linguistically, within the object-love prototype.

Positive and Negative Affect. Almost all the respondents (87%) spontaneously described

their experience with loved objects in positive emotional terms. While love is usually associated

with positive emotions, jealousy can also be an important part of romantic love. However, in this
57

study jealousy was not mentioned, perhaps because rejection by the loved object was not a major

concern.

Willingness to Invest Resources. This lack of jealousy in the interviews about loved items

does not mean that these relationships were devoid of negative experiences. Sixteen respondents

talked about the effort, time and/or money they had invested into loved items; sometimes

framing these investments as significant personal sacrifices. When the respondents felt their past,

or contemplated future sacrifices, where justified by the rewords of the relationship they

considered that relationship real love in 60% of the cases; but where they did not see the

sacrifices as worth it, they did not see the relationship as love (i.e. 0% classified as love in the

strictest sense of the word). These findings suggest that love of certain consumption activities

will involve a willingness to expend resources such as time, energy and money on the loved

objects.

Emotional Bonding and Attachment. Fourteen respondents commented that when they

were deciding if they really loved an item, they used a mental how much would I miss it if it

were lost test. When respondents felt they would greatly miss the item, 74% of the items were

seen as real love. But when respondents felt they would only slightly miss the item, merely 11%

of the items were seen as real love. This suggests that consumers will feel emotional attachment

to the things they love, and will feel bad if deprived of these loved items.

Length of Use. The enduring nature of the relationship was cited by 20 respondents as a

reason why they loved an item. However, having a long history with an item was not a sufficient

criterion for classifying it as real love, as only 36% of these items were considered love in the

strictest sense of the word. This suggests that while having a long relationship with a brand is
58

neither necessary nor sufficient for love, all else equal having a long history with a brand will

increase its fit with the love prototype.

Frequency of Thought and Use. Respondents tended to be highly involved with their

loved items in both thought and action; although they didnt always mention this explicitly as a

reason why they loved an item. Twelve respondents did talk explicitly about how the loved item

was an important part of their life, and 92% of these respondents saw the item as real love.

Passionate Desire and a Sense of Natural Fit. Desire for the loved item was one of the

hallmarks of object love. Seventeen respondents described this desire explicitly, as when a man

talked about some of his favorite clothes: I saw them, and its like one of those things when

youre in a store, and you see something and it screams your name, you have to buy it. Thats the

way I feel about these clothes (M, publishing, 23). A consumers desire for the loved items was

closely linked to an intuitive sense of fit between themselves and that object or activity. Fifty-

three respondents reported a sense of natural fit between themselves and their loved objects

which included perceptions of harmony, comfort, and rightness about the consumption

experience.

Self-Identity. Notions of interpersonal love are replete with the idea that the lover and

beloved merge identities to a significant extent. This integration of the loved object into the

respondents self was also central to non-interpersonal love. This respondents (M, Record Store

Manager, 30) comment about loving shoes was typical: I enjoy them to a point where I would

say that I love them. I think its just because they allow, without being too obvious, some kind of

statement of personality, without being in peoples faces. Twenty-one respondents expressed

the view that loved objects were a part of their essential selves, and they saw their relationship

with that object as real love 80% of the time. In contrast, six respondents noted that their
59

relationship with the loved object lacked a sense that it was a part of their identity, and none of

these respondents saw that relationship as real love.

STUDY 2

Study 2 builds on and refines the findings of study 1, by looking specifically at loved

brands and branded goods. In study 2, 18 students from a large university were interviewed

(averaging 2 hours each) about loved brands and branded products. Because prototypes contain a

lot of tacit knowledge which is not easily verbalized, we used a strategy of getting respondents to

use the love prototype for its normal purpose, observe themselves doing this, and then report

their observations to the researcher. Respondents each completed 21 cards which asked for the

names of loved (or closest-to-loved) branded products in various categories (e.g. consumer

electronics, clothing, etc.) or meeting specific criteria (e.g. a brand you have used for a long

time). While most of the cards asked about brands, some asked for the name of a family member,

a romantic partner, a pet, a geographic place and an item from nature; so as to allow us to cross

check findings from study 1 if needed. Because prototype definitions produce fuzzy boundaries

respondents were asked to sort the cards into three piles: love, sort-of-love, and not love. They

then described each item, their history and relationship with that item, and why they categorized

it as they did. Next, respondents lined up all 21 cards from most loved to least loved, and

explained for each item why they loved it more or less than its immediate neighbors. These tasks

required respondents to use their love prototype, which helped them surface and then report to

the researcher the criteria they were using to perform these tasks.

The audio recordings from the interviews were coded based on what they revealed about

the features of the love prototype as applied to brands and branded goods. These prototype
60

features were then sorted into major themes based on researcher judgment. These emergent

categories (themes) largely replicate the findings of study 1, but some differences were also

found.

Results produced the following 10 themes which represent the defining features of the

brand love. In the complete results available from the authors, six examples are provided for

each theme; three of these examples show how the presence of that theme indicated a presence of

love to the respondent, and three examples show how the absence of that theme indicates an

absence of love to the respondent. Additional findings and insights from the data are also

included in the complete results. In this web appendix, one or two examples of each theme are

selected to give the readers a more complete understanding of each theme.

ATTRACTIVE QUALITIES

Not only did respondents tend to see their loved brands as durable and well made, but

they excelled at whatever the core feature of benefit of the product category was, and often

provided a wide variety of benefits beyond that. Here the respondent explains why his Sandisk

mp3 player is only in the sort-of-love category, rather than the love category. This is very typical

of respondents who said that simply knowing a better alternative product exists is enough to

mean that they dont truly love the product they have.

Respondent 13: I wouldnt really say I loved it. Why? . . . Because its

my second mp3 player because the other one didnt hold as much as I wanted and

this holds more music and stuff, but since theres better things out there and I had

to settle on this one due to financial reasons, I guess thats why its not in the love

pile. (Italics added)


61

Interviewer: Because you can imagine something that you really wanted

more.

Respondent 13: Yes.

Interviewer: And you anticipate if you get the finances to buy the ipod

Respondent 13: I anticipate it would be in the love pile.

STRONGLY-HELD VALUES AND EXISTENTIAL MEANING

Respondents saw love as a deep and profound experience. So while loved brands were

praised for providing a wide variety of benefits such as comfort, transportation, entertainment,

exercise, relaxation and so on; items were more likely to be loved when they also connected to

something the respondent felt was deeper such as self actualization, close interpersonal

relationships, existential meaning, or religious or cultural identities.

Here the respondent talks about a pair of earmuffs that have many of the attributes

associated with love, yet explains that theyre just earmuffs, so I dont love them. She then

contrasts the earmuffs with things which might better qualify as love, among them giving back

to others, volunteering. We interpret the theyre just earmuffs comment, especially in the

context of the contrast she makes with volunteering, as indicating that her relationship with the

earmuffs is not deep enough to qualify as love. That is to say its too superficial, too lacking in

ethically significant content found in activities like volunteering, to be considered love.

Respondent 5: These Ive had for . . . three or four years, and I love them

every year and they are great and functional and theyre fashionable and theyre

pretty classic so they havent gone out of style. I wear them every day in the
62

winter months so I spend a lot of time with them. But at the same time theyre just

earmuffs. . ..

Interviewer: And what is it that kept them out of even the sort-of-love

pile?

Respondent 5: Clothes are great but they arent something that Im so

passionate about.

Interviewer: So the things that you are more passionate about are . . . ?

Respondent 5: Family, friends . . . maybe giving back to others,

volunteering. . . . I really like volunteering, it makes me happy.

INTRINSIC REWARDS

There is a common distinction between performing an act to get something

(extrinsic) as opposed to doing it because you love it (intrinsic). A loved brand provides

intrinsic rewards when it creates psychological states such as happiness, which are perceived as

being part and parcel of using the product or performing the action (e.g., using this brand is

pleasurable). Loved brands commonly provided both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, so

providing extrinsic rewards was not a problem per se. But, when brands provided only extrinsic

rewards, respondents felt they didnt really love the brand but rather were just using it to get

something else that they did love.

Here respondent 7 explains why he loves Prince tennis rackets more than his Toshiba

laptop. This quote is a good example of several themes, including length of use. But well focus

now on how the Prince rackets are seen as love in part because they provide enjoyment an
63

intrinsic benefit; whereas the Toshiba laptop is seen as more of an extrinsically beneficial tool

valued for its functionality.

Interviewer: How about Prince tennis rackets?

I like them a lot. I played a lot of tennis. I played tennis all four years of

high school.

Interviewer: Oh, I remember talking to you about that. Yeah.

And I played since I was probably 1st or 2nd grade. I cant remember what

racket I actually started out with, but when I actually started getting good I

remember using a Prince racket like in 4th grade and Ive used the same brand all

the way on through my senior year in high school.

Interviewer: Why is (Prince) above Toshiba? . . .

Just because, Toshiba, I put it up there just because its a functional laptop

it works really well, but if I got a different laptop and it was just as functional I

dont think I would really put Toshiba that much more than that other laptop.

While the tennis rackets, Ive always enjoyed playing tennis and I used Prince

rackets.

Here respondent 3 explains how the store Forever 21 is just a means to an end for her (i.e.

produces extrinsic benefits), and therefore she doesnt feel she really loves it: it's just a store, so

I could find something to wear someplace else. . . I have no connection to it other than I want to

buy something. This theme also occurs in her discussion of her favorite band, Fallout Boy.

Here we see a chain of extrinsically rewarding things that arent loved, but that eventually end in

the what working out does for me which is intrinsically valuable and hence loved.

Respondent 3: I enjoy (Falloutboys) music . . ..


64

Interviewer: Is music important to you?

Respondent 3: Not that important. I like certain things. More so that if I

want to go to the gym and work out, its more like you need music to help you

work out . . . it helps me put more effort into working out. Because it will keep me

distracted, or the faster beats will keep me moving my legs faster.

Interviewer: Would you say that you love working out?

Respondent 3: No, but I love what it does for me. It makes you feel better

about yourself. You dont feel so lazy like an unaccomplished couch potato. . . .

It gives you energy rather than taking it away. It makes you feel better. . .. (Italics

added)

SELF-IDENTITY

Here the respondent explains why she considered an art-graphic T-shirt from Express to

be something she loved, but didnt feel that way about her New Balance shoes.

Respondent 9: The t-shirts I got from Express I think theyre really

unique. They were only available for only a limited time. Theyre just really

artsy and really pretty they say something about my style and whatnot, whereas

the shoe is just because it fits. I mean, it fits really well which is important but it

doesnt really say anything about me.

PASSIONATE DESIRE AND A SENSE OF NATURAL FIT

Respondents talked about a sense of natural fit and harmony between themselves and the

brands they loved, and for some respondents this sense of rightness about the relationship
65

included a compelling passionate desire for that item. This sense of natural fit with a brand was

sometimes expressed as love at first sight.

Respondent 18: I remember when I was really young (Victorias Secret)

had an Aquarius body lotion, and this is one of my first memories of ever setting

foot in there. And I thought, Im an Aquarius, out of all the smells of all the

different signs, that was the one that I loved the most too. I knew that before even

seeing it was Aquarius. Im like, This was for me and they knew it.

Here we see that a lack of a sense of desire for the product detracts from this

respondents belief that he loves it.

Interviewer: Why dont you love Sony?

Respondent 14: Its not outstanding. It does the job but it doesnt excite

me. It doesnt make me horny. Theres no inspiration involved.

POSITIVE AFFECT

Comments about positive emotional experience were notably stronger in study 1 which

included loved activities, than in study 2 which was limited to brands and branded goods.

Nonetheless, positive emotions remained an important theme in the discussion of loved brands.

Respondent 4: When I see other non-electric toothbrushes I feel happy that

I have a Sonicare toothbrush because . . . I think that I'm actually doing something

good for my teeth. So it's that sort of 'yeah' feel good kind of love.

Here the respondent explains why Canon is a better example of love than is fresh

seafood.
66

Respondent 17: Because as much as I like to eat, I like to take pictures

more. I get so much enjoyment out of that hobby. . .. And I get a lot of enjoyment

with sharing the images with friends and family

EMOTIONAL BONDING AND ANTICIPATED HEARTBREAK

Feeling bonded with, and emotionally attached to a brand was an important aspect of

love. This was seen in pervasive comments by respondents that they knew they loved a brand

because they would miss it if it was gone. It was also common for respondents to say they loved

items because they were unique, and volunteer that this meant the item was irreplaceable and

thus increased the sense that it would be missed if lost.

Respondent 15: And I put in the (truly love category) two automobiles that

I really do love. . . . The Lexus SUV, I already own that car and I would buy that

over and over and over again. . .. I also put in Mercedes CLK320. . . . So thats

like a dream car. Id love to own that some day.

Interviewer: Lets move to the next pile which is the sort-of-love pile.

Respondent 15: Well I have two that are similar: the ipod. One I put down

Apple ipod and the other one I put down the ipod Nano. I sort of love those

because I use music to exercise with and theyre real portable. . . . but I could

live without that So I sort of love it.

Interviewer: You used the expression I could live without that. What

does it mean to you to say I could or couldnt live without something?

Respondent 15: Well, for the Lexus, I would really not like it if I didnt

have it because I feel safe in that car and I drive a lot now that I go to school, so
67

Im on the expressway a lot. So I wouldnt really want to have to drive a car that

I thought was inferior. . . . So I suppose I could live without it but I really

wouldnt want to. If had a choice, . . . between the Nano ipod and my Lexus I

would let the ipod go.

WILLINGNESS TO INVEST RESOURCES

Respondents often invested high levels of time, energy and money into loved brands. The

impact of price on love seemed to differ slightly between lower and higher priced items. For

lower priced items, being considered a bargain was a commonly mentioned virtue of loved

brands. If a higher priced brand was seen as truly loved, it was always considered worth the price

and sometimes the price was mentioned as making the product more special to the consumer.

Respondent 2: They are priced higher . . . but I think its worth it. . . .

Even their cheapest mp3 player is still pricey compared to any other one you can

get . . .. But a lot of times its worth it.

FREQUENCY OF THOUGHT AND USE

Having frequent interaction with, or thought about, a brand was widely seen as an

important attribute of love. Several respondents talked about how the mere fact that they used

product X more than product Y, led them to say that they loved product X more than they loved

product Y. This was true even if they understood that their greater use was caused by a totally

exogenous factor that had no bearing on the merits of the two products. Here, for example, we

see a case were a shift in lifestyle from having a commute to not having a commute, led this

respondent to use her iPod less, and from this she concludes that she now loves it less.
68

Respondent 19: I used to like the iPod more. For example I dont even

know where it is right now. Ive been traveling so I havent used it for at least

three weeks, so its not top of mind. When I was commuting to work it was

essential. It was part of my daily life, I listened to it to and from all the time. Now

I live one block from school, so I dont use it every day like I used to. I use it

when I go to the gym, which is much less frequently.

Interviewer: If I had asked you this question and it was a while ago when

you were using the iPod all the time.

Respondent 19: I would have said I loved it.

Interviewer: You would have said you loved it then. But now youre not

using it as much, and so you wouldnt say you loved it.

Respondent 19: Is it a huge part of my daily life? Is it really changing the

way I live my life? Commuting, it transformed my commuting experience. To be

able to have that with me just made the time fly. To go anywhere and do anything

just having my favorite music with me.

LENGTH OF USE

Having a long history with a brand was an important aspect of brand love. This shared

history often gives the loved object an important place in the respondents personal identity

narrative, and suggests that consumers are likely to remain loyal to the brand in the future.

Respondents were asked to list a brand or branded product in a variety of categories such

as automotive, food, etc. or which met various criteria such as something they had owned for a

long time, something that they did not own, etc. Respondents were allowed to use the same
69

brand or product in more than one instance if it fit more than one criterion. Respondent 10 listed

Ecco shoes twice: he placed Ecco in the truly loved category when it was in response to the

prompt for a brand he had used for a long time, but he only put it in the sort-of-loved category

when it was in response to the prompt for a fashion brand. He first mentions Ecco shoes as he is

going through the items in the truly loved category.

Interviewer: How about your Ecco shoes?

Respondent 10: I dont primarily enjoy buying clothing of almost any

kind, or buying anything like that. However I do like to buy Ecco shoes when it is

time to buy shoes, because over the years Ive found that theyre very

comfortable. Theyre not top of the line shoes . . .. Theyre probably from one to

three hundred dollars, somewhere like that, so you cant afford to have too many

pairs. But they seem to last five or six years or more, at least the ones Ive

purchased. I enjoy them. I think theyre comfortable, theyre somewhat stylish,

and they go well with my simple dress code.

Interviewer: Was Ecco shoes in there twice? They were. Its interesting.

One time you say you really love them, the other time you say, Nah, I just sort-

of-love them. . . . Its kind of interesting because one was about a brand or

product that youve been using for a very long time, so when you think about

them as something youve used for a long time, you think you really love them;

but when you think of them as a fashion product, you think you dont really love

them.
70

Respondent 10: Yeah, I would say thats accurate. I guess for a really

long time for me is about nine years, ten years Ive been wearing their product,

and aside from Nike that Ive had some pairs of Nikes over the years, most people

have, but Im not brand loyal there. I am with Ecco, so I suppose that might have

something to do with it.

You might also like