Consumer-

Consumer-brand relationship:
relationship:
foundation and state-
state-of-
of-art
Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro
ISCTE-IUL, Portugal

ABSTRACT
The relationship between a brand and consumers is known to produce positive outcomes for both
partners. Consumers develop relationships with diverse brands regarding brands as partners. Brands are
humanized in the minds of consumers and therefore provide symbolic meanings and social and cultural
value, which is beyond the utilitarian benefits. Following this paradigm, the purpose of this chapter is to
show an overview of the research from customer relationship management to consumer-brand
relationship and propose a theoretical model of consumer-brand relationship process. In this vein, the
chapter begins with the conceptualization of customer relationship management. Then, the foundation, an
overview of main theories, and the seminal models of consumer-brand relationship are shown. Finally, a
model of consumer-brand relationship process is proposed, and insights for further research are provided.

INTRODUCTION
Consumer-brand relationship (CBR) has attracted interest and relevance since late nineties of 20th
Century. More and more organizations are interested in acquiring knowledge about how consumers relate
to brands, why some brands are preferred to others and even loved. Thus, these and other issues
associated to the bonds established between consumers and brands, which may be associated to goods,
services, organizations, celebrities, destinations, cities, and even counties, have gained prominence
amongst researchers and practitioners.
Indeed, all types of organizations, profit or non-profit, are adopting customer-centric strategies, programs,
tools, and technology for efficient and effective customer relationship management. Even tourism related
public entities are realizing the need for in-depth and integrated tourist knowledge in order to build close
cooperative and partnering relationships with their tourists.
In fact, since Fournier (1998) suggested the metaphor of human relationships in their awarded article, and
proposed the Brand Quality model, several other researchers and practitioners become more and more
interested in understanding the mechanisms behind the relationship between a brand and consumers. The
human relationship metaphor of marriage provides structure for the understanding of consumer–brand
relationships phenomenon. Nevertheless, the Brand Quality model focuses on the relationship dimensions
of love/passion, brand partner quality, intimacy, interdependence, commitment, self-connection, but it
does not illustrate how these dimensions are related each other, in other words, it is not a causal relational
model. Several studies have been analyzing how these and other relational constructs are related (e.g.,
Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005), as well as, antecedents and consequents of the relational constructs
(e.g., Chang & Chieng, 2006; Stokburger-Sauer, 2010; Tsai, 2011; Loureiro, Kaufmann, & Vrontis,
2012), or how to improve the measure of each construct (e.g., Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012).
From the practitioners’ perspective, we can find several evidence of the growing interest of company
CEOs and brand manager on this topic. The relationship metaphor is proposed to enhance the
understanding of brand loyalty. The love for a brand modifies the influence of attitude strength on loyalty
(Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2008).Therefore, Roberts (2004), CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, proposes the
1
theory of "Lovemarks" and alludes that brands should be about consumers and their relationship with
them. For Roberts (2004), in the same way the products evolved to carry trademarks, and trademarks
evolved into brands, nowadays, brands should evolve into "Lovemarks”. In this regards, "Lovemarks” are
about building and strengthening emotional bonds between brands and consumers. The website
“lovemarkscampus” provides information about the companies, consumer opinions, and events around
the topic: from brands to lovebrands. There, in the webpage “resources”, it is also possible to find some
academic literature on the topic of emotional marketing.
Accordingly, McEwen, a Global Practice Leader at The Gallup Organization, and previous senior
planning and account management in several leading advertising agencies, including McCann-Erickson,
FCB, and D'Arcy, launched in 2005 the book “Married to the Brand”. This book advocates the thesis that
great brands are built upon strong customer relationships.
In this vein, the propose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the evolution of the concept of
consumer-brand relationship, providing insight about the main proposed models and major constructs. A
framework is also presented and intends to suggest a sequential causal order from identity to outcomes in
the relationship between consumers and their loved brands. The antecedents and consequents of love for a
brand are not yet properly established and so the framework, based on literature review, intends to
contribute for fulfill this gap.
In this chapter the conceptual foundation of CBR is explored by examining the literature on relationship
marketing and other disciplines that contribute to the knowledge of CBR. Thus, the following sections
start with a definition of customer relationship management (CRM) and the sequential process that has
led to the consumer-brand relationship (CBR). Then, a parsimonious view is given of the various theories
together with a conceptual discussion on major constructs along with existing models so far developed in
various conceptual and empirical studies.
Finally, the chapter presents an overview of the process behind the consumer-brand relationship and
provides some insights for further research.

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

In the marketing literature the expression “customer relationship management” (CRM) has been used to
reflect a variety of themes and perspectives (Nevin, 1995). For example, CRM seeks customer retention
and loyalty by using a variety of after selling tactics that lead to customer bonds. Nowadays, information
technology allows the companies to focus on individual or one-to-one relationships with customers that
integrate database knowledge (Peppers & Rogers, 1993). Therefore, Berry (1995, p. 25) proposed that
relationship marketing can be seen as “attracting, maintaining, and – in multi-service organizations –
enhancing customer relationships”. This statement is according with other researcher in service
marketing, such as Grönroos (1990a), Gummesson (1987). In fact, Grönroos (1990a, p. 138) states that
“marketing is to establish, maintain, and enhance relationships with customers and other partners, at a
profit, so that the objectives of the parties involved are met. This is achieved by a mutual exchange and
fulfillment of promises”.
In this vein, exchange is no longer only transactional but evolved to relational and the role of marketing
lies in the activities directed towards establishing, developing, and maintaining relationships with success
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Another important event in driving companies to adopt the CRM has been the Lean Production System
and specially the Total Quality Management (TQM) philosophy, which implies the relationship with
suppliers and customers in implementing the program at all levels of the value chain. Just-in-time (JIT)
and Materials-resource planning (MRP) have also made use of interdependent relationships between
customers and suppliers.
However, with respect to the evaluation of the performance or results of CRM, two important researches
schools are in the core of quality evaluation and principles of marketing relationship: the North-American
School or the group of Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988) and the Nordic School or the

2
group of Grönroos (1990 a, b) and Gummesson (1987). The North-American School provides us with the
SERVQUAL scale (five dimensions which comprise a 22-item instrument to measure customers’
expectations and perceptions) and Gap’s Model in order to evaluate the quality perceived by customers.
The Nordic School presents the emblematic Image Model for the perceived service quality, in which
image could be a quality dimension because the corporate image is expected to be built up by the
technical quality and the functional quality of its service, or the Grönroos-Gummesson Quality Model,
which regards four dimensions of service quality (conception, production, deliver, and relational)
(Grönroos, 1984, 1990b; Gummesson, 1987).
The overall satisfaction of relational partner (such as customers, suppliers, employees) is another metric
used by firms to monitor CRM performance. The measure of satisfaction can estimate the propensity to
continue the relationship and can impact positively on customer loyalty (e.g., Reichheld & Sasser, 1990;
Oliver, 1980, 1999).
The growing academic and practical interest in the relationship phenomenon leads to the emergence of
numerous constructs, including trust, commitment, and long-term orientation. Concomitantly, the
consumers’ motivation to the brands and the increasing role of brands in the consumers’ lifestyle are
driving forces to the knowledge of consumer-brand relationship.
Furthermore, the process of establishing and maintaining the dyadic relationship between consumers and
brands, which could evolve to multi-relationships, like in brand community, is studied in consumer-brand
relationship.

CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIP: CONCEPTUALISATION AND MAIN

THEORIES
The last decade of the 20th Century marks the beginning of the interest in scientific studies about
relationship between brand and consumers.
Regarding the concept of brand, one can find several definitions. One of the most popular is proposed by
the American Marketing Association (AMA) and states that brand is “a name, term, design, symbol, or
any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (AMA,
http://www.marketingpower.com/Pages/default.aspx, 2010). However, De Chernatony and Riley (1998)
consider the brand as a multidimensional construct and present twelve brand theme definitions: value
system, personality, image, logo, risk reducer, company, adding value, shorthand, legal instrument,
identity, relationship, and evolving.
Based on the above considerations and the increasing incorporation of human characters in brand
building, Fournier’s (1998) was pioneer on the relationship theory associated to brands. She proposed a
brand relationship quality model that was the tipping point to create the research field of the consumer
brand relationship. This conceptualization starts with the idea that human anthropomorphize inanimate
objects and can think about brands as if they were human characters (Plummer, 1985). In fact, brands
cannot act, think, or feel by themselves, but can live and evolve through their managers and exist as a
partner in a dyadic relationship. In this perspective, the theories of relationship between two partners or
individuals can be brought and adapted into the relationship between the consumer and their brands.
According to Fournier´s (1998) the quality of the relationship between a brand and a consumer evolves
through meaningful brand and consumer actions. Their actions can enhance, dilute, or even dissipate the
relationship and shape the quality of such relationship. Therefore, brand relationship quality model with
six strong facets relationships are proposed: love and passion, self-connection, interdependence,
commitment, intimacy, and brand partner quality.
Love and passion has its position at the core of a strong brand relationship, meaning infatuation, selfish,
and even obsessive dependency. Self-connection reflects “the degree to which the brands delivers on
important identity concerns, tasks, or themes” (Fournier, 1998, p. 364). Interdependence is associated to
activities with a brand and strong brand relationship involves frequent brand interactions. Commitment
means the intention to continue the relationship and having faith in the future of the relationship,
3
promoting the longevity of the relationship. Intimacy lays in the elaborate knowledge structures and
believes that marks the brand as superior and irreplaceable (Wood, 1982). Finally, brand partner quality is
regarded as an overall relationship satisfaction and strength which comprises a positive orientation of the
brand toward the consumer; judgments of the brand’s overall dependability, reliability, predictability, and
adherence to rules (Fournier, 1998); and trust in the brand’s promises and accountability for its actions.
In this vein, Fournier (1998) perceives the brand love relationship as a whole and the six facets can be
regrouped in three main dimensions: attachment (love/passion and self-connection), behavioral ties
(interdependence and commitment), and supportive cognitive beliefs (intimacy and brand partner quality).
These dimensions are based on several theories such as interdependency theory and theories of attraction.
However, love and passion are the essential concepts in attachment theory.
Attachment theory (see table 1) is based on studies of parent-child relationships (Bowlby, 1979) and
continues through adulthood to romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), kinships, and friendships
(Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997; Weiss, 1988). Several studies suggest that emotional attachment is formed
between human beings and animals, places, destinations, special objects, brands (e.g., Schouten &
McAlexander, 1995; Price et al., 2000; Richins, 1994;Ahuvia, 2005; Yuksel et al., 2010), and even human
brands or celebrities (Thomson, 2006). In consumer research, Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005)
identified a higher-order emotional attachment construct consisting of three factors: affection, passion,
and connection. Thus, attachments reflect an emotional bond similar to love.

Table 1: Research streams based on the attachment phenomenon

Research stream Psychology Consumer behavior Tourism and
Consumer-brand Consumer- Leisure
relationships object
Relationships
Main objective Study the Study the Study the Study the
propensity of mechanisms consumers’ emotional
human behind the ability to love ties that
beings to make affectionate objects individuals form
strong bonds in with places (e.g.,
bonds of consumers’ cities, regions,
affection with long-term lakes, forests,
each relationships islands)
other with
brands
Designations Adult-pair Affective Possession Place
attachment, commitment, Attachment attachment,
parent-child emotional place
attachment attachment, dependence,
brand place identity
love,
Seminal source Sternberg Fournier (1998), Belk (1988), Moore and
(1986), Thomson et Shimp and Graefe
Bartholomew al.(2005), Madden (1988), (1994), Bricker
and Carroll and Ball and Tasaki and Kerstetter
Horowitz Ahuvia (1992), Kleine (2000), Williams
(1991), Hazan (2006), Park and and Baker and Vaske
and Shaver MacInnis (2004), Ahuvia (2003), Kyle et
(1994), (2006), Albert (2005) al. (2005)
Bowlby (1979) et al. (2008),

4
 Yim et al.
(2008)

In the field of tourism and recreation researchers have been exploring the bonds between people, tourists
or inhabitants, and places. Thereby, place attachment is regarded as an affective bond or link between
people and places (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001) and studied as psychological element of recreation
experiences (Williams, 2002). The place attachment construct has been conceived as having two
dimensions: place identity and place dependence (Backlund & Williams, 2003). Place identity refers to a
symbolic or affective attachment to a place, i.e., an individual’s emotional connection to a place. Place
dependence is an individual’s assessment of a specific place, the functional attachment to a place, which
lies in the awareness of the facilities and uniqueness and other forms of functionality dependence, and
how these can meet the needs and the goals of the tourist (Williams et al., 1992).
The interpersonal triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986), adapted to the consumption contexts, is
closely related to the emotional attachment construct; it considers that brand love is made up of
dimensions such as: passion, intimacy, and commitment (Kamat & Parulekar 2007; Keh et al., 2007).
Ahuvia (1993) suggests that consumers can have real feelings of love toward an object and conceptualizes
the love as having two dimensions: real and desired integration. Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi (2008)
propose that this love is made up of seven dimensions: perceived functional quality, self-related
cognitions, positive affect, negative affect, satisfaction, attitude strength, and loyalty.
Given the complexity of the construct, the interpersonal love theory alone does not allow for the
discovery of specific dimensions of love. Based on the brand-consumer relationship paradigm, Carroll
and Ahuvia (2006) suggest that brand love is composed of five dimensions: passion, attachment, positive
evaluation of the brand, positive emotions in response to the brand, and declaration of love for the brand.
More recently, Albert et al. (2008) propose two main components of brand love that are also found in the
interpersonal love literature: six first order dimensions (idealization, intimacy, pleasure, dream, memories,
and uniqueness) and two second order dimensions (passion and affection).

SEMINAL MODELS PROPOSED IN CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIP

Regarding consumer-brand relationship models that integrate the love element or at least affective
elements, we can found three (see figure 1): the holistic approach proposed by Fournier (1998), the causal
approach of Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), and the systemic approach of Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi (2008).
As mentioned above, Fournier (1998) suggests six strong relationships and is interested in the different
relationships a consumer may have with a brand. Batra et al. (2008) integrate various constructs like
brand loyalty, satisfaction, and attitude strength into a model a brand love system relationship (BLS);
however, they do not offer antecedents and outcomes of the consumer’s love for a brand and do not
explicitly use the construct of love. However, the model intends to present the nature and consequences of
brand love by a love system in which functional quality beliefs, self-related cognitions, positive affect,
and negative affect, through attitude valence and strength, influence brand loyalty.
Perceived functional quality deals with the perceived quality of the brand’s functional (instrumental)
attributes and superior product performance. Self-related cognitions represent “the extent to which
consumer believes the brand (1) helps give their life a sense of purpose and provides other intrinsic
rewards; (2) matches their privately held sense of self-identity; and (3) has the power to make them feel
the way they wish to feel and to create a desired public image” (Batra et al., 2008, p. 28).
In what concerns the positive and negative affect components, they congregate more than positive and
negative feeling. Thus, the positive affect comprises a sense of intuitive fit with the brand; the extent to
which consumers feel emotionally connected to the brand; and the extent to which consumers have
positive feelings (such as, contentment and fun) in connection with the brand. The negative affect,
however, evaluates anticipated negative feelings (such as anxiety, worry, fear) that consumers think they
might experience if they do not have access to the brand.

5
The BLS model has three consequences. The attitude valence comprises items combining standard
attitude and satisfaction measures and the attitude strength measures how strongly held, confident, and
intense are the feelings/evaluations about the brand, and how quickly they come to mind. The brand
loyalty uses positive word-of-mouth comments, repurchase intentions, and the extent to which the
consumer would question negative information heard about the brand.
Finally, Batra et al. (2008) also propose the potential moderating effect of materialism (importance placed
by individuals on worldly possessions) (Richins, 2004) and of susceptibility to normative influence (SNI)
(individuals higher in SNI are more subject to the normative influence of their reference groups in
determining their consumption choices) (Bearden et al., 1989).
Carrol and Ahuvia (2006) model the relationships between brand love and both its antecedents and
consequences. They propose that brand love is influenced by a hedonic product and self-expressive brand
and has a positive effect on brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth.
Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) highlight that brand love includes a willingness to declare love (as if the brand
were a person) and involves integration of the brand into a consumer’s identity. A consumer's love toward
a brand is greater for brands that play a significant role in shaping the consumer's identity. Therefore, a
self-expressive brand is the consumer’s perception of the degree to which the specific brand enhances
one’s social self and/or reflects one’s inner self (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006, p. 82); it includes two
dimensions: inner self and social self. Consumers satisfied and in love with a brand are more willing to
repurchase and to recommend it to others.
Nevertheless, another model without the concept of love, namely relationship investment (RI) (Rusbult
1980), has been proposed based on theories on close relationships found in social psychology, which
incorporate a different concept, the relationship investment. The RI model (see figure 1) is an extension of
the interdependency model proposed by Kelley and Thibaut (1978), and points out two sources of
dependence: satisfaction with the present relationship partner and the quality of alternatives. Satisfaction
refers to the sum of positive versus negative affect toward the relationship partner, and the quality of
alternative partners represents the subjective evaluation of the quality of a partner compared with the
quality of the best alternative partner. Thus, the subjective evaluation of the quality of alternatives means
what a person could be expected to obtain and receive in some other, alternative relationship (Brehm,
1985). In the interdependency model, satisfaction is viewed as positive influence on relationship stability,
and quality of alternatives is regarded as exercising a negative influence on relationship stability. In
addition, the RI model introduces the relationship investment as the third additional source of dependence
and commitment as a mediator between the dependence variables and outcomes variables.

________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Consumer-brand relationship models [insert caption Figure 1 here]
________________________________________________________________

Relationship investment refers to the importance of the resources that are attached to a relationship,
resources that could be lost if the relationship would end. According to Rusbult et al. (1998), these could
be direct, such as time and money, and indirect, which are related to personal relationships, such as
friends, personal identity, or shared material possessions and intellectual life.
In the RI model commitment is conceived as the intent to persist in a relationship, meaning a long-term
orientation toward the relationship and feelings of psychological attachment. Thereby, a person’s
commitment to a relationship will be directly and positively related to the extent to which he/she is
satisfied with the relationship, has no good alternatives, and has a lot invested in the relationship. Thus, in
the perspective of Breivik and Thorbjørnsen (2008), both self-connections and interdependence in the
BRQ model can be considered as forms of relationship investment.

MAJOR CONSTRUCTS INVOLVED IN CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIP

6
There is a growing interest among researchers and practitioners in consumer-brand relationship. The
studies in this context involve concepts such as attitude strength (Krosnick et al., 1993), brand
relationships (e.g., Fournier, 1998; Chang & Chieng, 2006), self-brand connections (e.g., Belk, 1988;
Escalas & Bettman, 2003), brand loyalty (e.g., Oliver, 1980; 1999), consumers’ emotional attachments to
brands (Thomson, MacInnis, & Park 2005; Loureiro, Kaufmann, & Vrontis, 2012), consumer delight (e,
g., Oliver, Rust, & Varki 1997; Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011), the phenomenology of customer
satisfaction (Oliver, 1980; Fournier & Mick, 1999), trust and commitment (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994),
brand image (Keller, 2003), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), brand community (e.g., Muniz & O'Guinn,
2001; McAlexander et al., 2002), brand cult (e.g., Brown et al., 2003), brand tribalism (Veloutsou and
Moutinho, 2009), and love in consumption contexts (e.g., Ahuvia, 2005; Albert, Merunka, & Valette-
Florence 2008; Carroll & Ahuvia 2006; Kamat & Parulekar 2007; Keh, Pang, & Peng 2007; Shimp &
Madden 1988; Whang et al. 2004; Yeung & Wyer 2005; Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012).

Brand loyalty, brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand personality

Brand loyalty, brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand personality are branding concepts which have
been investigated in association to consumer-brand relationship. The most influential works are those
from Oliver (1980, 1999), who proposes the customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) paradigm and
analyses the relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty. The analysis of the causal
relationship between satisfaction and loyalty concludes that satisfaction is a necessary step in loyalty
formation. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) examine two aspects of brand loyalty; purchase loyalty and
attitudinal loyalty, as linking variables in the chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance. However, three main streams of the research of loyalty may be distinguished: behavioral
loyalty, attitudinal loyalty and composite loyalty (considering the aforementioned constructs).
Consequently, in consumer research, the expression “customer loyalty” is often measured by indicators
like the “intention to continue buying the same product”, “intention to buy more of the same product” and
“repeat purchase” (behavioral measures) or “willingness to recommend the product to others” (attitudinal
indicator, reflecting product advocacy).(e.g., Rauyruen & Miller, 2007; Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011).
Caprara et al. (2001) examine mass-market brands to determine to what extent, in a consumer setting,
human personality and brand personality (e. g., Aaker, 1997; Loureiro & Santana, 2010) are related. In
fact, Aaker (1997, p. 347) define brand personality as "the set of human characteristics associated with a
brand" and proposes five dimensions for brand personality, namely, sincerity (down-to-earth, honest,
wholesome, and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date), competence (reliable,
intelligent, successful), sophistication (upper class, charming), ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough).

Brand commitment
Research on relationship commitment shows two approaches: affective commitment and calculative
commitment (Bendapudi & Berry, 1997; Hansen, Sandvik, & Selnes, 2003; Johnson et al., 2001; Sung &
Campbell, 2009). Calculative commitment (Fullerton, 2003) captures the more rational, economic-based
dependence on product benefits (Anderson & Weitz, 1992). Affective commitment is a more emotional
factor related to the degree to which a customer identifies and is personally involved with a company or a
brand which results in trust and commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994;
Loureiro, 2010).
Ahluwalia et al. (2001) apply the expression “brand commitment” and find that when consumers are not
familiar with a brand, negative information, even not mentioned in the message, becomes important.
However, when consumers like the brand, positive information is relevant and spills over.

Self connection brand

The expression “self connection” globally represents the associations and connections between consumers
and brands, this is, the extent to which individuals have incorporated a brand into their self-concept.
7
Escalas and Bettman (2003) focus on reference groups as a source of brand associations, which can be
linked to one's mental representation of self to meet self-verification or self-enhancement goals. Later,
Escalas and Bettman (2005) find that one reason for consumers to purchase brands lies in the construction
of their self-concepts and form self-brand connections. Thereby, brands with images consistent with an
in-group (group of reference) enhance self-brand connections for all consumers. However, self-brand
connections change as children move into adolescence (Chaplin & John, 2005).

Brand community and brand tribalism

Muniz and O'Guinn (2001, p. 412) introduce the concept of brand community as a “specialized, non-
geographically bound community that is based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a
brand”. McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) analyze brand community from a customer-
experiential perspective and proposed a customer-centric model of brand community that consists of four
relevant relationships (community integration): customer-product relationship, customer-brand, customer-
company relationship, customer-customers/owners relationship. Later, Algesheimer, Dholakia, and
Herrmann (2005) develop and test a conceptual model of how different aspects of customers'
relationships with the brand community influence their intentions and behaviors (purchase,
recommendation, membership duration, and participation). Thus, the quality of relationship and the
identification with the brand community lead to positive consequences, like greater community
engagement and behavior, and negative consequences, such as normative community pressure and
reactance. Recently, Stokburger-Sauer (2010) studied the brand community integration which depends on
customer’s perceived relationships with their own product, the brand, the company, and other owners.
Tribal brands evolve around products with similar values and are the emotional result of personalization.
The process of creating a tribal brand incorporates numerous social interactions amongst customers and
with their preferred brand, taking an extended link of time to attain a socialized expression that constitutes
a tribal brand (Moutinho, Dionísio, & Leal, 2007; Veloutsou & Moutinho, 2009).

Consumer behavior and attitude

The studies on consumer behavior and attitude are based on theories of social identity and organizational
identification. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) propose that strong consumer-company relationships often
result from the consumers' identification with those companies. Aaker et al. (2004) report findings from a
longitudinal field experiment examining the evolution of consumer-brand relationships. Aggarwal (2004)
alludes that consumers use norms of interpersonal relationships as a guide in their brand assessments
when they form relationships with the brands. Therefore, two relationship types are examined: exchange
relationships (benefits are given to others to get something back) and communal relationships (benefits
are given to show concern for other's needs).

Brand love
The research concerning brand love is dominated by the works from Ahuvia (2005), Carroll and Ahuvia
(2006), and Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi (2012). Ahuvia (2005) investigates the possessions, activities,
and objects that consumers love and reports the role and importance of loved objects and activities in
structuring social relationships with brands. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) propose the brand love construct
to assess satisfied consumers' passionate emotional attachment to particular brands. Batra, Ahuvia, and
Bagozzi (2012) developed the brand love prototype and presented the brand love factor model.

Brand cult and culture

In this context it is possible to find research related to cross cultural studies and consumer-brand
relationship and studies about consumer culture theory and consumer- brand relationship or cult (retro)
brands. Therefore, Chang and Chieng (2006) develop a framework of consumer-brand relationships and

8
conduct a cross-cultural comparative study of consumers at coffee chain stores. Thompson and Arsel
(2004) develop the construct of the hegemonic brandscape and study the intersection of global brands and
local cultures. Then, Thomson et al. (2005) assess the cultural dimensions of the consumption cycle with
their brands and provides an overview of the past twenty years of consumer research addressing the socio-
cultural, experiential, symbolic, and ideological aspects of consumption.
In what concerns cult brands, Brown et al. (2003) show the importance of allegory (brand story), aura
(brand essence), arcadia (idealized community), and antinomy (brand paradox).

FROM BRAND IDENTITY TO THE OUTCOME THROUGH LOVE AND PASSION

The process by which consumers prefer some brand to others and wish to establish and maintain their
relationship with a brand in a way that could drive to the development of a passion/love and advocate for
the brand in a favorable fashion, is not yet well known. However, overall it is possible to draw a smooth
flow (see figure 2). The framework proposed in Figure 2 is based on literature review presented in this
chapter, however, the causal order proposed is not yet well established and more empirical studies need to
be carried out to consolidate such relations. Another important issue lies in the definition and
conceptualization of the constructs employed in this field of knowledge. For instance, one of the core
constructs of consumers’ relationships with brands is love, or better brand love, however, little agreement
exists as to what brand love is. In fact, Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) show one dimension in order to
conceptualize brand love, but Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence (2008) found eleven dimensions.
Later, Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi (2012) develop a second order model of brand love factor. Similarly,
several other constructs need to be further studied and framed in the context of consumer-brand
relationship, for example, commitment, connection, attachment. In this vein, more exploratory studies are
needed to establish the boundaries and contents of the key construct of consumer-brand relationship.
The framework shown in Figure 2 highlights that companies create the brand system value and brand
identity in a more or less cooperation by the different stakeholders involved (e.g., Aaker, 1996; De
Chernatony, 2001) . The communication of the brand identity can lead to an inner self and social
identification to the brand and to an attachment which contributes to a connection (e.g., Carroll & Ahuvia,
2006; Loureiro, Kaufmann, & Vrontis, 2012). In other words, consumers tend to form connections to
brands that become meaningful in association to their own self and/or consistent with a group of reference
(could be family, friends, and professional group, sport, celebrities, or brand communities). This
connection can be reinforced and justified by the positive image, credibility, and reputation of the brand,
as well as because consumers identified themselves with celebrities, groups of reference, and other groups
of consumers who use and approve the brand (e.g., Baek et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2003; Muniz &
O'Guinn, 2001).

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: From brand identity to outcomes in consumer-brand relationship [insert caption Figure 2 here]
_____________________________________________________________________________________

When consumers feel a strong force of attraction and a connection with a brand, identify themselves with
the brand (the consumer self and the brand just fit), and live a positive experience or imagine this
favorable experience, they can be aroused and this process of activation conducts to strong positive
emotions like delight (consumers will be more than satisfied) (e.g., Oliver et al, 1997; Loureiro &
Kastenholz, 2011). All that involvement can bring passion and love (consumers will be deeply linked to
the brand) that keep the two partners (consumer and brand) interdependent and affective committed.
A committed consumer is more willing to want to continue the relationship to the brand, so will be more
available to advocate positively for the brand, saying positive things (e.g., Loureiro, Kaufmann, &
Vrontis, 2012) , forgiving mistakes, promote the brand to others, pay price premium, make sacrifices

9
(e.g., Loureiro, 2011). A consumer in love with a brand and committed will contribute to a favorable
image, reputation, and credibility.
The process could be mediated and influenced by several variables such as personality traits, lifestyle,
self-esteem, value system, gender, age, country social culture.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Further research should focus on: (1) improving the knowledge about the relationship among constructs;
(2) typology of the strength of the relationship; (3) how the relationship evolves in line with the lifestyle
cycle; (4) how technology (Internet) interferes in the relationship; (5) the moderated or casual effects of
consumers’ personality (trait of personality, self-esteem, age, gender), brand mythology, and lifestyle in
their relationship with brands (6) the effect of the countries’ social and cultural characteristics on the
relationship. The more social side of brand relationship should regard social identity and brands, societal
effects of brand relationships, relationships with cause brands.
What about extreme and dysfunctional brand relationship, such as involving brand advocates, brand
antagonists, and anti-brand movements, or addictions?
Consumers’ relationships with financial products, financial services, celebrities brands and entertainment
brands, as well as, other sectors of activity are not yet well known.
How to establish strategies based on the relationship with the consumer? That is, relationship-building
strategies, relationship-based market segmentation, building relationship-sensitive corporate cultures,
brand relationship metrics and dashboards.

CONCLUSION
In this chapter a literature review was conducted in the field of consumer relationship, especially
consume-brand relationship. The most relevant, theories, models, and the major related constructs so far
were presented. Furthermore, a model showing an overview of the process behind the relationship
between a brand and consumer was provided. However, the deep knowledge of the phenomenon of
consumer-brand relationship and its causal relationships are not yet properly established. Therefore, more
theoretical and empirical studies are needed.
For the researchers this chapter provides insights about the foundations and evolution of consumer-brand
relationship models and constructs, and suggests future directions in order to improve the knowledge in
this field of research.
The chapter also provides insights to practitioners, showing academic publications and more managerial
publications and websites, where brand managers could continuously find information about how brands
can evolve in building and strengthening emotional bonds between brands and consumers. Practitioners
should be aware that create and maintain the emotional bonds is a continuous process. The close
relationship between a brand and consumers could lead to a connection, a deep self and social
identification with the brand. The mystery, the intimacy, the uniqueness, the involvement based on past
experiences, and all positive emotional connection lead to love. A consumer in love with a brand are more
willing to be committed to that brand, forgiven less positive situations, advocate favorably, and willing to
sacrifice for the brand beyond reason.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 3 (August),
347-357.

Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31 (1), 1-16.
10
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal
of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 87-101.

Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H. R., & Burnkrant, R. (2001). The moderating role of commitment on the
spillover effect of marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), 458-470.

Ahuvia, A. C. (1993). I love it! Towards a unifying theory of love across diverse love objects.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers' identity narratives.
Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 171-184.

Albert, N., Merunka, D. & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When Consumers Love Their Brands: Exploring
the Concept and its Dimensions. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1062-1075.

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community:
Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 19-34.

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution
Channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 18–34.

Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The Differential Roles of Brand Credibility and Brand Prestige
in Consumer Brand Choice. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 662–678.

Ball, D., & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 1(2), 155-72.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-
category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-44.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. C., & Bagozzi, R. (2008). Brand love: its Nature and Consequences. Working
Paper, Michigan Dearborn University, Ann Arbord, MI.

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand Love. Journal of Marketing, 76 (2), 1-16.

Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to
Normative Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473-81.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-68.

Bendapudi, N., & Berry, L. L. (1997). Customers’ Motivations for Maintaining Relationships with
Service Providers. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 15–37.

Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship Marketing of Services - Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(Fall), 236-245.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding
consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 76-88.

11
Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Tavistock.

Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate Relationships. New York: Random House.

Breivik, E., & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2008). Consumer brand relationships: an investigation of two alternative
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 443–472.

Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment:
an exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22(4), 233-57.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and
the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 6 (73), 19-33.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit?.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 22 (3), 377-395.

Carroll, B., & Ahuvia, A. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters, 17
(2), 79-89.

Chang, P. L., & Chieng, M. H. (2006). Building consumer-brand relationship: A cross-cultural

experiential view. Psychology and Marketing, 23(11), 927-959.

Chaplin, L. N., & John, D. R. (2005). The development of self-brand connections in children and
adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 119-129.

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65 (2), 81-93.

De Chernatony, L. (2001). A model for strategically building brands. Journal of Brand Management,
9(1), 32-44.

De Chernatony, L., & Riley, F. D.’O. (1998). Defining A "Brand": Beyond The Literature With Experts'
interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (5), 417-443.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on
consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 339-348.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning. Journal
of Consumer Research, 32 (December), 378-89.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-373.

Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Rediscovering Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63 (October), 5-23.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Differential Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in
Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(April), 70–87.

Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European Journal of
Marketing, 18(4), 36.
12
Grönroos, C. (1990a). Relationship Approach to Marketing In Service Contexts: The Marketing and
Organizational Behavior Interface. Journal of Business Research, 20(January), 3-11.

Grönroos, C. (1990b). Service Management and Marketing. Managing Moments of Truth in Service
Competition. Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books.

Gummesson, E. (1987). The new marketing-Developing long-term interactive relationships. Long Range
Planning, 20(4), 10-20.

Hansen, H., Sandvik, K., & Selnes, F. (2003). Direct and Indirect Effects of Commitment to a Service
Employee on the Intention to Stay. Journal of Service Research, 5 (May), 356–368.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close
relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.

Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-81.

Johnson, M. D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T. W., Lervik, L., & Cha, J. (2001). The Evolution and
Future of National Customer Satisfaction Index Models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22 (April),
217–45.

Kamat, V., & Parulekar, A. A. (2007). BrandLove – The Precursor to Loyalty. Paper presented at the
Advertising and Consumer Psychology Conference, New Frontiers in Branding: Attitudes, Attachments,
and Relationships, Santa Monica, CA.

Keh, H. T., Pang, J., & Peng, S. (2007). Understanding and Measuring Brand Love. Paper presented at
the Advertising and Consumer Psychology Conference, New Frontiers in Branding: Attitudes,
Attachments, and Relationships, Santa Monica, CA.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd.
Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relationships: A theory of interdependence. New
York: Wiley.

Kleine, S. S., & Baker, S. M. (2004). An integrative review of material possession attachment. Academy
of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1-35.

Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude
Strength: One Construct or Many Related Constructs?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65(6), 1132-151.

Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in
recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), 153-77.

Loureiro, S. M. C. (2009). Segmentation Using Finite Mixture Partial Least Squares: loyalty and
satisfaction perceived by customers of the supermarkets in Portugal. In V. E. Vinci, M. Tenenhaus, & R.

13
Guan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Partial Least Squares and Related
Methods (pp. 264-269). Beijing: Publishing House of Electronics Industry.

Loureiro, S. M. C. (2010). Brand love as a driver of strengthening the relationship and the trust with the
brand: an empirical study on car sector. In E. Y. Kim (Ed.), Proceedings of 2010 Global Marketing
Conference - Marketing in a Turbulent Environment (pp. 362-373). Seoul, Republic of Korea: Chungbuk
National University.

Loureiro, S. M. C. (2011). Consumer´s Love and Willingness to Sacrifice for a Brand. In M. MacCarthy
(Ed.), Proceedings of ANZMAC conference - Marketing in the Age of Consumerism: Jekyll or Hyde?.
Perth, Australia: Monash University. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/25410

Loureiro, S. M. C., Kaufmann, H. R., & Vrontis, D. (2012). Brand Emotional Connection and Loyalty.
Journal of Brand Management, (online 24 February 2012), 1-15 doi:10.1057/bm.2012.3 .

Loureiro, S. M. C., & Kastenholz, E. (2011). Corporate reputation, satisfaction, delight, and loyalty
towards rural lodging units. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 575–583 doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.10.007.

Loureiro, S., & Santana, S. (2010). Effect of consumer perceptions of web site brand personality and web
site brand association on web site brand image. In H. Locarek-Junge and C. Weihs (Eds.), Classification
as a Tool for Research - Proceedings of the 11th IFCS Biennial Conference and 33rd Annual Conference
of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V., Dresden, March 13-18, 2009 (pp. 743-750). Berlin: Springer.

McAlexander, J., Schouten, J., & Koenig, H. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing,
66 (1), 38-54.

McEwen, W. J. (2005). Married to the Brand. New York: Gallup press

Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users.
Leisure Sciences, 16(1), 17-31.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Moutinho, L., Dionísio, P., & Leal, C. (2007). Surf tribal behaviour: a sports marketing application.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(7), 668–690.

Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412-
432.

Nevin, J. R. (1995). Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels: Exploring Fundamental Issues.
Journal of the Academy Marketing Sciences, 23(Fall), 327-334.

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.

Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (>ovember), 460-469.

Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 33-44.

14
Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varki, S. (1997). Customer Delight: Foundations, Findings, and Managerial
Insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(Fall), 311-36.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(Autumn), 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(Spring), 12-40.

Park, C. W., & MacInnis, D. J. (2006). What’s in and what’s out: questions on the boundaries of the
attitude construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(6), 16-18.

Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1993). The One to One Future: Building Relationships One Customer at a
Time. New York: Doubleday.

Plummer, J. (1985). How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Advertising Research,

24(December/January), 27-31.

Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Curasi, C. F. (2000). Older Consumers' Disposition of Special Possessions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2 - September), 179-201.

Rauyruen, P., & Miller, K. E. (2007). Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty.
Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 21-31.

Reichheld, F. F., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1990). Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services. Harvard
Business Review, 68(September-October), 105-111.

Roberts, K. (2004). Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands. New York: Powerhouse Books

Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions. Journal of
Consumer Research, 21(December), 504-521.

Richins, M. L. (2004). The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short
Form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 209-219.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment
model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,
5(4), 357–391.

Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New
Bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43-61.

Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-Object Relations: A Conceptual Framework Based
Analogously on Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love. Advances in Consumer Research, 15(1), 163-168.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.

15
Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand Community: Drivers and Outcomes. Psychology & Marketing, 27(4),
347–368.

Sung, Y., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). Brand commitment in consumer– brand relationships: An
investment model approach. Journal of Brand Management, 17(2), 97–113.

Thompson, C., & Arsel, Z. (2004). The Starbucks brandscape and consumers' (anticorporate) experiences
of glocalization. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 631-642.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The Ties that Bind: Measuring the Strength of
Consumers’ Emotional Attachment to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to

celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 104-19.

Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 603–625.

Tsai, S.-P. (2011).Strategic relationship management and service brand marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 45(7/8), 1194-1213.

Veloutsou, C., & Moutinho, L. (2009). Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism.
Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 314–322.

Weiss, R. S. (1988). Loss and recovery. Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 37–52.

Whang, Y.-O, Allen, J., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004). Falling in Love with a Product: The Structure
of a Romantic Consumer-Product Relationship. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research (Vol.31, pp. 320-27). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Williams, D. R. (2002). Leisure identities, globalization, and the politics of place, Journal of Leisure
Research, 34(4), 351-67.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Beyond the Commodity Metaphor:
Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29–46.

Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: validity and
generalizibility of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830-40.

Wood, J. T. (1982). Communication and Relational Culture: Buses for the Study of Human Relationships.
Communication Quarterly, 30(Spring), 75-83.

Yeung, C. W. M., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2005). Does Loving a Brand Mean Moving its Products? The Role
of Brand-Elicited Affect in Brand Extension Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 495-506.

Yim, C. K., Tse, D. K., & Chan, K. W. (2008). Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and
passion: roles of customer-firm affection and customer-staff relationships in services. Journal of
Marketing Research, 45(6), 741-56.

16
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F. and Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and
cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2), 274-284.

ADDITIONAL READING SECTION

Albert, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2009). Measuring the love feeling to a brand with interpersonal love
items. In D. Tojib (Ed.), Proceedings of 2009 A>ZAM/A>ZMAC Conference – Sustainable, Management
& Marketing. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/25410

Ashley, C., & Leonard, H. A. (2009). Betrayed by the Buzz? Covert Content and Consumer–Brand
Relationships. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(2), 212–220.

Baek, T. H., & Kim, J. (2010).The Differential Roles of Brand Credibility and Brand Prestige in
Consumer Brand Choice. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 662–678.

Belaid, S., & Behi, A. T. (2011).The role of attachment in building consumer-brand relationships: an
empirical investigation in the utilitarian consumption context. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
20(1), 37–47.

Beverland, M., Lim, E. A. C., Morrison, M., & Terziovski, M. (2006). In-store music and consumer–
brand relationships: Relational transformation following experiences of (mis)fit. Journal of Business
Research, 59(9), 982–989.

Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 3(3),
355-533.

Braun-LaTour, K. A., LaTour, M. S., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2007). Using Childhood Memories to Gain
Insight into Brand Meaning. Journal of Marketing, 71(April), 45–60.

Fournier, S., Breazeale, M., & Fetscherin, M. (2012). Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and
Practice, forthcoming, www.Amazon.com.

Gregory, N., & Daniele, R. (2011). Affiliate Marketing in Tourism: Determinants of Consumer's Trust. In
R. Law, M. Fuchs, F. Ricci (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2011:
Proceedings of the International Conference (pp.559-572). Innsbruck, Austria: Springer.

Grisaffe, D. B., & Nguyen, H. P. (2011). Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. Journal of
Business Research, 64(10), 1052-1059.

Jurisic, B., & Azevedo, A. (2011). Building customer – brand relationships in the mobile communications
market: The role of brand tribalism and brand reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 18(4/5), 349–
366.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal
of Marketing, 57(January), 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications Environment.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2-3), 139-155.

17
Kim, K. H., Ko, E., Xu, B., & Han, Y. (2011, in press). Increasing customer equity of luxury fashion
brands through nurturing consumer attitude. Journal of Business Research, forthcoming, in press.

Hess, J., Story, J., & Danes, J. (2011). A three-stage model of consumer relationship investment. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 20(1), 14-26.

Hubner, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct: Consequences on
consumer–brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1113–1120.

Lee, J., & Back, K.-J. (2010). Examining Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Personality in the
Upper-Upscale Business Hotel Segment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 132-145.

Liu, C., & Forsythe, S. (2011). Examining drivers of online purchase intensity: Moderating role of
adoption duration in sustaining post-adoption online shopping, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 18(1), 101–109.

Megehee, C. M., & Spake, D. F. (2011, in press).Consumer enactments of archetypes using luxury
brands. Journal of Business Research, forthcoming, in press.

Odekerken-Schröder, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Knaevelsrud, A. B. (2010). Exploring the post-
termination stage of consumer–brand relationships: An empirical investigation of the premium car
market. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 372–385.

Park, J.-W., & Kim, K.-H. (2001). Role of Consumer Relationships with a Brand in Brand Extensions:
Some Exploratory Findings. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 179-185.

Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating
role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61–67.

Pawle, J., & Cooper, P. (2006).Measuring Emotion—Lovemarks, The Future Beyond Brands. Journal of
Advertising Research, 46 (1), 38-48.

Sahay, A., & Sharma, N. (2010). Brand Relationships and Switching Behaviour for Highly Used Products
in Young Consumers. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 35(1 - January– March), 15-30.

Silberstein, R. B., Nield, G. E. (2008). Brain activity correlates of consumer brand choice shift associated
with television advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 27(3), 359–380.

Smit, E., Bronner, F., & Tolboom, M. (2007). Brand relationship quality and its value for personal
contact. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 627–633.

Song, P., Zhang, C., Xu, Y., & Huang, L. (2010). Brand extension of online technology products:
Evidence from search engine to virtual communities and online news. Decision Support Systems, 49(1),
91-99.

Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2010). “I Won’t Leave You Although You Disappoint Me”: The Interplay
Between Satisfaction, Investment, and Alternatives in Determining Consumer–Brand Relationship
Commitment. Psychology & Marketing, 27(11), 1050–1074.

18
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” Brand or “Our” Brand: The Effects of
Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations. Journal of Consumer
Research, 34(2), 248-259.

Torres, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2011). Customer satisfaction and brand equity. Journal of Business Research,
64(10), 1089–1096.

Veloutsou, C. (2010). Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand and Consumer Relationship.
Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1-2), 7-26.

Voorveld, H. A. M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2009). Consumers’ responses to brand websites: an
interdisciplinary review. Internet Research, 19(5), 535-565.

Yu, J., Ha, I., Choi, M., & Rho, J. (2005). Extending the TAM for a t-commerce. Information &
Management, 42(7), 965-976.

Zayer, L. T., & Neier, S. (2011). An exploration of men’s brand Relationships. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 14(1), 83-104.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Consumer-brand relationship, commitment, brand identity, brand love, attachment, brand loyalty,
sacrifice.

Consumer-brand relationship: relationship between a brand and a consumer based on the assumption that
brands are humanized in the minds of consumers, and therefore a brand and a consumer can develop
bonds as partners.

Commitment: intentions to continue the relationship and have faith in the future of the relationship,
promoting the longevity of the relationship.

Brand Identity: the value system of the brand proposed and presented by brand owners or a company.

Brand love: willingness to declare love for a brand (as if the brand were a person).

Attachment: emotional connection between human beings and brands.

Brand loyalty: intention to continue buying the same brand, or buying more of the same brand.

Sacrifice: consumer’s willingness to forgo his/her immediate self-interest for the sake of the relationship
with a brand.

19
Figure 2

Celebrities

Distribution Opinion leaders Reference group

Suppliers Partners

Consumers Brand community

Company
Brand
credibility
Brand Identity
Brand
(Values System reputation

Traits of Personality) Brand

experience
Brand Strong emotional
Connection feelings Brand

Outcomes
Shareholders Satisfaction image
Inner and social self Delight
Commitment
Managers
Attachment Love /passion
Employees Loyalty

Positive
W-o-m

Price
GOs and Media premium
NGOs Internet
and social Forgiveness/
Consumers
networks sacrifice
traits of personality, lifestyle, self-esteem, value system,
Competitors
gender, age
Country and social culture

20