1 / 29

Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On

Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On Crummer Graduate School of Business Rollins College. Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway Dato-on, Ph.D. Rollins College

evam
Download Presentation

Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On Crummer Graduate School of Business Rollins College

  2. Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway Dato-on, Ph.D. Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business MBA Ranking Financial Times#59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes#36 nationally, #1 in Florida

  3. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations

  4. Purpose • Assess the relationship between brand love and existing branding concepts (2) Assess the suitable underlying relationship theory in which brand love is grounded

  5. Literature Review • Feelings of love towards products (Ball and Tasaki, 1995; Rozanski et al., 1999; Thomason et al., 2005; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988) • Feeling of love towards brands (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998; Monga, 2002; Swaminathan et al., 2007) • Brands as relationship partners (Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007) with many different brand relationship constructs (Fournier, 1998) • Various types of intensities of relationships (Albert et al., 2008) • Literature review indicates all empirical studies based on the interpersonal love relationship theory (Sternberg, 1986)

  6. Brand Love • Brand love - one of the least studied brand constructs • Love influences consumer’s emotion and has a strong connection to individual’s self concept and identity (Richins, 1997) • Emotions are linked to product risks and purchase intention (Chaudhuri, 1998) • Definition of brand love • Degree of passionate emotional attachment(Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006) • Intimate, passionate, and committed relationship characterized by its reciprocal, purposive and dynamic properties(Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007)

  7. Few Brand Love Studies

  8. Limitations of Current Studies • All based on same relationship theory, Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love • Theory is robust but sole theoretical basis is challenged • Yoon and Gutchess (2006) showed consumers process brand relationships in a different part of the brain than is used for interpersonal relationships (see also Ahuvia, 2008*) * Symposium, Advances in Consumer Research, 2008, p. 177

  9. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations

  10. Interpersonal Love • If brand love is grounded by theory of interpersonal love relationship, many other theories: • Love Attitude Scale (Henddrick and Hendrick, 1986) • Relationship Rating Form (Davis and Todd, 1985) • Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986) • Attachment Styles (Shaver and Hazan, 1987) • Masuda (2003) in the meta-analyses of love scales shows love has two dimensions: erotic and companionate love • Sternberg does not differentiate among love dimensions H1: Interpersonal companionate love relationship has a positive effect on brand love

  11. Parasocial Love • Brand love is a one-directional relationship (parasocial) rather than a bi-directional relationship (interpersonal) • Wang et al. (2004, p. 320) “when the target of love is replaced with an object, love becomes uni-directional” • Parasocial interaction (PSI) is a perceived relationship of friendship or intimacy by audience with media person (Horton and Wohl, 1956) • Originally assess the relationship between celebrities and audience or fans (Caughey, 1984) H2: Parasocial love relationship has a positive effect on brand love

  12. Brand History • Fournier and Yao (1997) stressed that a brand can generate nostalgic remembrances from childhood • Consumers with long history might be more brand loyal, but might also have a positive feeling towards the brand H3a: Brand history has a positive effect on brand loyalty H3b: Brand history has a positive effect on brand love

  13. Brand Loyalty • Generally positive relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty (Kraft et al., 1973; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983; Kasper, 1988; Bloemer and Lemmink, 1992). • Less known relationship between brand loyalty and brand love. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) or Kamat and Parulekar (2007) argue that brand love precedes brand loyalty • We challenge, people who are loyal do not necessarily love the brand but people who love a brand are loyal to that brand H4: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on brand love

  14. Research Model Relationship Theory H1, H2 Brand Love Brand History H3b H4 H3a Brand Loyalty

  15. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations

  16. Research Method • Measurement items • Dependent variables: • Expressed overall love for brand (Albert et al. 2008; Rubin, 1970) • Independent variables • Interpersonal love: Love Attitude scale (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Lee 1977) • Parasocial love: Parasocial Interaction scale (Perse and Rubin, 1989) • Brand history: (Albert et al., 2008) • Brand loyalty: Attitudinal & behavioral brand loyalty (Quester and Lim, 2003) • Product category: Cars - heavily branded products (Albert et al. 2008)

  17. Data Collection • Data collection: Survey among undergraduate and graduate students in the United States* • Pre-Test with 20 respondents • Surveyed 196; 180 usable questionnaire • Unbiased brand recall of 3 car brands, select favorite as reference brand to answer survey • All Questions use 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This allows consistent coding * Country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001)

  18. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations

  19. Reliability and Validity • Content validity - items based on current literature and consulting other marketing professors • Construct validity • Convergence validity (internal consistency, stability and reliability) • Cronbach alpha. Overall with .922; interpersonal love (.905); parasocial love (.794); brand history (.840); and brand loyalty (.850) • Test-retest reliability by split-half reliability (.728) and odd-even reliability (.927) • Discriminate validity by means of EFA and CFA

  20. Summary Results

  21. Summary Results Parasocial Love Relationship Theory 0.75*** Brand Love R2 = 70% Brand History 0.06 0.44*** 0.35*** Brand Loyalty R2= 19% Relationship Theory Interpersonal Love 0.35*** Brand Love R2 = 46% Brand History 0.04 0.43*** 0.60*** Brand Loyalty R2= 19%

  22. Summary Model Fit

  23. Agenda • Introduction & Literature Review • Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses • Research Method • Analyses and Results • Conclusion and Limitations

  24. Conclusion • Both relationship theories explain some degree of brand love but the construct based on parasocial love theory > interpersonal love theory • Brand history positively influences brand loyalty but does not influence brand love • What is the relationship between brand loyalty and brand love? We show that brand loyalty positively influences brand love • Future research is needed to further understand the concept of brand love and the interaction with other brand constructs

  25. Limitations • Student sample: Many studies use students still limitation and larger and more diverse pool of respondents needed(e.g., country image scale by Martin and Eroglu (1993) or consumer-based brand equity scale by Yoo and Donthu (2001)) • Other countries (relate culture and brand love) • Other product categories • Independent variables, use other branding constructs • Dependent variable, include behavioral data • Improve overall model fit by adding other variables or measurement items

  26. Title • Text…. • Text • Financial Times #59 worldwide • Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida • Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida www.consumer-brand-relationship.com Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business MBA Ranking Financial Times#59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes#36 nationally, #1 in Florida

  27. Thank you

  28. Comparison: Parasocial Love Relationship Theory 0.75*** Brand Love R2 = 70% Brand History 0.06 0.44*** 0.35*** Brand Loyalty R2= 19% Relationship Theory 0.86*** Brand Love R2= 76% Brand History 0.15 0.66*** 0.21** Brand Loyalty R2= 52%

  29. Comparison: Interpersonal Love Relationship Theory 0.35*** Brand Love R2 = 46% Brand History 0.04 0.43*** 0.60*** Brand Loyalty R2= 19% Relationship Theory 0.53*** Brand Love R2 = 30% Brand History 0.12 0.63*** 0.23** Brand Loyalty R2= 49%

More Related