1 / 36

Aaron Ahuvia University of Michigan-Dearborn

Interpersonal Primacy and Templates in Consumer-Brand Relationships. Aaron Ahuvia University of Michigan-Dearborn. Introduction. The scope of relationships we study. Fiske (1991) 4 types of human relationships Aggerwal Exchange relationships Communal relationships

lbanuelos
Download Presentation

Aaron Ahuvia University of Michigan-Dearborn

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. Interpersonal Primacy and Templates in Consumer-Brand Relationships Aaron Ahuvia University of Michigan-Dearborn

  2. Introduction

  3. The scope of relationships we study • Fiske (1991) 4 types of human relationships • Aggerwal • Exchange relationships • Communal relationships • Any ongoing series of interactions is a relationship, and fair game for us to study • What are theirrules and expectations? • How do relationship types fit together into a whole system? • When will each type be the most relevant? • But . . .

  4. Relationships & relationships • What makes what we have to say really interesting? • Dog bites man • buyers have exchange relationships with sellers • Man bites Dog • consumers have communal relationships with brands

  5. Ironically, it is the primacy of interpersonal relationships that makes CBRs interesting • It is because nothing matters more to people than other people, that the idea of consumers having quasi-interpersonal relationships with brands is powerful

  6. A shameless plug for my work And that makes brand love so very interesting

  7. Attack of the giant construct

  8. Why so big?Not just another pretty face • Love has a unique place in western culture • Love as a theme in music, drama, art, etc. • People are often willing to die (and kill) for love • Love is sacred • Some people are offended by “brand love”, but • not offended by love of country, art, freedom or God • Not only do people love God, but many claim that God is love

  9. Love is a summational category • Forthe psychological processes that lead to attraction and relationship maintenance • Murstein (1988) found a single factor underlying love which encompasses all the good things one can think of another • Love sumarizes all the most normatively positive aspects of relationships • Brand love is the ultimate “man bites dog” story

  10. Often unstated, it underlies much of our work Interpersonal Primacy Hypothesis

  11. Nothing matters as much to people, as other people • altruistic concern for other people • having the “right” relationships with the right people • close relationships • the respect of strangers • and even being feared by competitors If you trace consumer motivations back far enough, you will almost always bump into another person

  12. What about materialists . . . • who substitute brands for interpersonal relationships? • Those aren’t materialists, those are lonely people • “Mater” = worldly • Materialists use brands to structure their social relationships in hierarchical ways

  13. Nothing matters as much to people, as other people • Evolutionary roots • Bourdieu • Ayne Rand • even a broken clock is right twice a day • Fournier (2009) notes that CBRs are often the byproduct of attempts to for IPRs, such as joining consumption communities

  14. The Interpersonal-Communal Relationship Templates Hypothesis aka The Interpersonal Templates Hypothesis

  15. IPRs are so basic to human psychology, that they lurk in the background of CBRs • Mental templates include • Schemas • Scripts • Prototypes • Cultural models • Relationship contract • Etc.

  16. Four main responses • Yes • No -- CBRs have their own types and their own rules • Sometimes -- our job is to find out when and why • Sort of -- people start with interpersonal relationship models and then adjust for brands

  17. Brand LoveA definite case of “sort of” • People decide if they love a brand by using a prototype matching hypothesis (i.e. the duck test) • The prototype comes from some situationally relevant form of interpersonal love • Which is then adjusted to the brand context, e.g. • lack of responsiveness • unconditionalvery conditional love

  18. Does focusing on relatively communal relationship models overly constrain of our work?

  19. If we look at CBRs as including communal and exchange relationships, we’ll always be relevant • On the other hand • High involvement relationships are a pretty big area • Our models may extend beyond their original context

  20. Brand love predicting WOM/loyalty/resistance to neg. • Loved brand R2= .61 • Mundane brand R2 = .63

  21. Where to from here?

  22. Interpersonal relationships in marketing contexts • Sales people • Dyadic interpersonal relationships • Organization-to-organization relationships • Service providers • Doctors, matchmakers and social support • Highly involved customer collaboration on innovation

  23. Research ideas

  24. When will templates matter? • Will interpersonal relationship templates (schemas, scripts, relationship contracts, prototypes, etc.) be more influential in more communal CBRs?

  25. A rose by any other name . . .. • Does it matter if a consumer uses an interpersonal metaphor to describe their relationship with a brand? • How much? • When? • Why? • Sternberg’s commitment includes a declaration of love

  26. Attachment • Attachment styles are based on the default models people have for relationships • Is consumer attachment style primarily a function of their interpersonal attachment style? • Or do consumers have a separate model for CBRs? • Paulssen and Fournier (2008)

  27. Persons and personification • Do brand personification such as mascots, celebrities, and founders increase communal(ish) CBRs? • Theology again • What about relationships with employees? • Individual sales or service people? • Typical sales or service people from a company?

  28. Consumer or customer BRs? • Customers includes B2B • B2B relationships tend to be more long term and intense then typical consumer-brand relationships • There is a large literature on B2B relationships to build on • How do B2B CBRs compare to B2C CBRs?

  29. Managerial outcomes of CBRs • We know in general terms that stronger CBRs lead to better managerial outcomes • We need a much more theory driven account of how specific aspects of CBRs lead to specific managerial outcomes, such as: • Loyalty/increased volume • Expanding brand usage to new products • Advocacy/WOM • Resistance to negative information • Willingness to pay a price premium

  30. How does relationship type impact ethical obligations? Research questions on Ethics

  31. Ethics & relationships • Ethical responsibilities vary with the nature and closeness of the relationship • Where do customers belong? Family Friends Community Strangers Competitors Enemies

  32. Are (some) marketers the devil incarnate? • The devil we know • Charming • Keeps the letter of agreements • Deceives while speaking the literal truth • Leads us into temptation • Sound like anyone you know?

  33. Are (some) marketers the devil incarnate? • “Opportunism – “self-interest seeking with guile” – is the global norm governing commercial exchange relations (Williamson 1975); relational norms supersede opportunism to enhance interdependent relationships (MacNeil 1980).” • Fournier 2009

  34. CBRs & SWB? • How do CBRs relate to materialism and SWB? • The Meaning of Things

  35. Questions?

  36. Research ideas pot luck

More Related