Interpersonal Primacy and Templates in Consumer-Brand Relationships

Aaron Ahuvia

University of Michigan-Dearborn

Interpersonal Primacy and Templates

in Consumer-Brand Relationships

INTRODUCTION

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 their rules and expectations?

– How do relationship types fit together into a whole system?

– When will each type be the most relevant?

But . . .

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

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

AND THAT MAKES BRAND

LOVE SO VERY INTERESTING

A shameless plug for my work

Attack of the giant construct

Brand Love

Passion-driven Behaviors

Willingness to Invest

Resources

Passionate Desire to Use

Things Done Past (involvnt.)

Self-Brand Integration

Life Meaning

Desired Self-identity

Current Self-identity

Attit. Strength 1:Frequent Thoughts

Positive Emotional Connection

Intuitive Fit

Emotional Attachment

Positive Affect

Long-term Relationship

Anticipated Negative Affect

Overall Attitude Valence

Attit. Strength 2: Certainty/Confidence

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

Love is a summational category

For the 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

INTERPERSONAL PRIMACY

HYPOTHESIS

Often unstated, it underlies much of our work

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

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

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

THE INTERPERSONAL

TEMPLATES HYPOTHESIS

The Interpersonal-Communal Relationship Templates Hypothesis

aka

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.

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

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

• unconditional very conditional love

DOES FOCUSING ON

RELATIVELY COMMUNAL

RELATIONSHIP MODELS

OVERLY CONSTRAIN OF OUR

WORK?

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

Brand love predicting

WOM/loyalty/resistance to neg.

Loved brand

R2 = .61

Mundane brand

R2 = .63Brand Love

Passion-driven Behaviors

Willingness to Invest

Resources

Passionate Desire to Use

Things Done Past (involvnt.)

Self-Brand Integration

Life Meaning

Desired Self-identity

Current Self-identity

Attit. Strength 1:Frequent Thoughts

Positive Emotional Connection

Intuitive Fit

Emotional Attachment

Positive Affect

Long-term Relationship

Anticipated Negative Affect

Overall Attitude Valence

Attit. Strength 2: Certainty/Confidence

Where to from here?

Communal

relationships

Exchange

relationships

Brand

relationshipsYou are here

Needed to

provide context

Interpersonal

relationships in

marketing

contexts

Low hanging

fruit

Not so

interesting right

now

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

RESEARCH IDEAS

When will templates matter?

Will interpersonal relationship templates

(schemas, scripts, relationship contracts,

prototypes, etc.) be more influential in more

communal CBRs?

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

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)

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?

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?

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

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ON

ETHICS

How does relationship type impact ethical obligations?

Ethics & relationships

Ethical responsibilities vary with the nature

and closeness of the relationship

Where do customers belong?

Family Friends Community Strangers Competitors Enemies

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?

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

CBRs & SWB?

How do CBRs relate to materialism and

SWB?

– The Meaning of Things

Questions?

RESEARCH IDEAS POT LUCK