1. Daniel Heinrich 1 Love Actually? Investigating Consumers’ Brand Love Daniel Heinrich Carmen-Maria Albrecht Hans H. Bauer 23 April 2010 1 st International Colloquium on the Consumer-Brand Relationship

2. Daniel Heinrich 2

3. 3 LOVE

4. Daniel Heinrich 4

5. 5 Relevance from a managerial point of view (1/2) ConsumersBrands Marketers  Consumers nowadays live in an almost demystified world of consumption  More and more people trying to fill their lives with meaning by consumption  Thus the role of consumption has changed over the last decades: hedonic consumption, self-expressivness, symbolism, consumtion as status and prestige (e.g. Lasslop 2002)  Brands can provide such values (hedonic value, prestige value, symbolic values, etc.) (e.g. Hirschman 1982; Holbrok/Hirschman 1982; Belk/Wallendorf/Sherry 1989)  Brands can become also an important part of Individuals‘ lives. (e.g. Fournier 1998; Belk 1988)  Emotions gain more and more relevance in today’s brand management and advertising  Increasingly trend toward emotional advertising slogans, like McDonald‘s „I‘m loving it“ or „Mini – is it love?“  Marketers try to anchor brands not only in the mind of customers but also in their hearts  This so called „share of heart“ gets more and more important in marketing practice

6. Daniel Heinrich 6 Relevance from a managerial point of view (2/2) Marketers have already developed a model to meet the requirements… BRANDS Low Love | High Respect Low Love High Love PRODUCTS Low Love | Low Respect LOVEMARKS High Love | High Respect FADS High Love | Low Respect High Respect Low Respect (Saatchi & Saatchi/Roberts 2004, 2006)

7. Daniel Heinrich 7 Relevance from a academic point of view (1/2) … but also academic research is focusing on brand love and it’s consequences on consumers‘ behavior “For marketers who want consumers to be attracted to, and loyal to their products, love of products and brands is a topic of clear relevance.” (Ahuvia/Batra/Bagozzi 2008) “For marketers who want consumers to be attracted to, and loyal to their products, love of products and brands is a topic of clear relevance.” (Ahuvia/Batra/Bagozzi 2008) “We believe that brand loyalty is merely a symptom or the result of a deeper underlying relationship between the consumer and brand and that relationship is love.” (Kamat/Parulekar 2007) “We believe that brand loyalty is merely a symptom or the result of a deeper underlying relationship between the consumer and brand and that relationship is love.” (Kamat/Parulekar 2007) “In its strong behavioral, emotional and psychological foundations, satisfaction – as love – probably constitutes the most intense and profound satisfaction of all.” (Fournier/Mick 1999) “In its strong behavioral, emotional and psychological foundations, satisfaction – as love – probably constitutes the most intense and profound satisfaction of all.” (Fournier/Mick 1999)

8. Daniel Heinrich 8 Brand love even becomes relevant in the concept of relationship marketing… SHARE OF WALLET REPUTATION ANCHORED SHARE OF HEARTH (WHAT) PERSON ANCHORED (HOW) Past Reality Future Reality Jagdish N. Sheth (2007) Relevance from a academic point of view (2/2)

9. Daniel Heinrich 9 Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg 1986, 1988, 1997) Intimacy Passion Decission/ Commitment LOVE Love Attitude Styles (Lee 1977) Ludus ErosStorge Agape Pragma Mania Seite 10 Social psychology is providing applicable theoretical frameworks, e.g.:

10. Daniel Heinrich 10 Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg 1986, 1988, 1997) Intimacy Passion Decission/ Commitment LOVE Sternberg’s theory as basis for exploring consumer-object relations? Consumer-Object Relations (Shimp /Madden 1988) Liking Yearning Decission/ Commitment COR “A necessary next step is developing psychometric scales to measure each of the components comprising consumer-object relations.” (Shimp/Madden 1988)

11. Daniel Heinrich 11 Step 1: Development of psychometric scales Qualitative in-deph-interviews to shed light on how love toward brands can be characterized Scales were developed by drawing on items used in interpersonal or psychological context Items were captured by 7-point Likert scales Pre-test for external and internal consistency Evaluation of reliability and validity criteria Fornell-Larcker test to ensure discriminant validity 5 weeks field study time (45.5% female, 54.5 % male); average age 38.8 (SD=12.8) Main-study : self-administrated online questionnaire

12. Daniel Heinrich 12 Step 1: Results FactorsItemsFactor Loading Item-to-total Correlation Indicator Reliability Factor Reliability Alpha Brand Commitment I am very focused on this brand.0,8990,7710,71 0,890,888 […] would be my first choice.0,9210,8150,75 I will not buy other brands if […] is available at the store. 0,8980,7680,73 Brand Intimacy Most of the time I feel very close to this brand. 0,9440,8710,86 0,900,936 There is a close connection between me and this brand. 0,9680,9230,94 There is a certain intimacy between me and this brand. 0,9130,8130,73 Brand Passion I am passionate about this brand.0,9230,8310,73 0,900,897 […] is a captivating brand.0,9340,8100,79 I am enthusiastic about this brand. 0,8840,9030,75 Brand Love can be captured as a second-order construct, reflected by 3 facets…

13. Daniel Heinrich 13 Step 2: Investigating consequences of Brand Love The second study tests our measurement scales for nomolgical validity and explores consumers’ behavior  Partners in close relationships are more willing to accommodate and to forgive mistakes made by their partner (Rustbulk et al. 1991; Wieselquist et al. 1999).  Emotional bonds strengthen relationships even if dissatisfactions appears (Hazan/Shaver 1994).  Consumers’ willingness to forgive mistakes made by a company or brand is affected positive by consumer-brand relationship (Aaker/Fournier/Brasel 2004). H1: Brand love has a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to forgive  Brand equity literature highlights that consumers’ willingness to pay a higher price depends on perceived value (Aaker 1996; Keller 2003; Vazquez/Belen del Rio/Iglesias 2002; Yoo, Donthu/Lee 2000).  Consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium is affected positive by their emotional attachment to a brand (Thomson/MacInnis/Park 2005). H2: Brand love has a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium

14. Daniel Heinrich 14 Step 2: Results Structural equation modeling shows the impact of consumers’ brand love on behavioral constructs… consumers‘ brand love consumers‘ willingness to forgive willingness to pay a price premium brand passion brand intimacy brand commitment H 1 +.64 H 2 +.43 χ 2 /df=2.42 NFI=.97 TLI=.98 CFI=.98 RMSEA=.073 SRMR=.064

15. Daniel Heinrich 15 Step 3: Identifying Brand Love Styles Finally we explored the data to identify different kinds of love relationships… Love Style Component IntimacyPassion Decision/ Commitment Nonlove --- Liking + -- Infatuated Love - + - Empty Love -- + Romantic Love ++ - Companionate Love + - + Fatuous Love - ++ Consummate Love +++ Intimacy Passion Commit- ment LOVE

16. Daniel Heinrich 16 Brand Love Style # Component Brand Intimacy Brand Passion Brand Commitment Nonlove 58--- Liking 2  -- Infatuated Love 55-  - Empty Love 20--  Romantic Love 18  - Companionate Love 3  -  Fatuous Love 50-  Consummate Love 125  ∑ 331 Step 3: Results

17. Daniel Heinrich 17 Conclusion Development of a measurement scale reflecting consumers’ love for brands Consumers’ love for brands is reflected by brand passion, brand intimacy & brand commitment Brand love has a strong influence on consumers’ willingness to pay a price premium Brand love has a strong influence on consumers’ willingness to forgive “Research is needed to expand the conceptual model, identifying antecedents and outcomes of brand love.” (Carroll/Ahuvia 2006) “Despite its growing popularity, consumer research on love is still in its infancy and much of the work centers around the basic question of what love is when applied to products and brands.” (Ahuvia/Batra/Bagozzi 2008) Analogously to interpersonal love, different love styles can be identified

18. Daniel Heinrich 18

19. Daniel Heinrich 19 Daniel Heinrich daniel.heinrich@bwl.uni-mannheim.de University of Mannheim Germany

20. Daniel Heinrich 20 Additional slide

21. Daniel Heinrich 21 NOTE.—In each row, the same group activation is displayed from three different perspectives (from left to right: sagittal, coronal, and axial) on an individual participant’s normalized SPGR structural image. The displayed anatomy does not represent the anatomical variation of all 19 participants. The region of interest in which the contrast was tested is marked in white and the significant voxels (p <.005 uncorrected at the individual voxel level) within that region are marked with color, according to the t-scores. “Overall results of the present fMRI investigation support the contention that consumers do not process descriptive judgements of products in the same manner as those applied to humans.” (Yoon et. al 2006, p. 36)