1  

Consumer Brand Engagement Positioning in Marketing Theory under a Service Dominant Logic Perspective.1

Luigi Cantone, Full Professor of Marketing and Strategic Management, Department of Economics, Management, Institutions. Federico II University of Naples, Italy. Phone: +39.081.675365, e.mail: luigi.cantone@unina.it.

Pierpaolo Testa, Researcher in Business Administration, Ph.D in Management Science, Department of Economics, Management, Institutions. Federico II University of Naples, Italy. Phone: +39.081.675062, e.mail: pierpaolo.testa@unina.it.

Teresa Marrone, Ph.D Student in Management, Department of Economics, Management, Institutions. Federico II University of Naples, Italy. Phone: +39.081.679705, e.mail: teresa.marrone@unina.it.

ABSTRACT

Purpose. The paper is a theoretical contribution on the role of consumer brand engagement (CBE) in marketing theory and moves within the Service Dominant Logic paradigm. The paper aims to identify the distinctive positioning of consumer brand engagement topic in marketing literature filling a literature gap and contributing to a better definition of the concept useful also for a good managerial practice. Several Authors have investigated the interface between CBE and SDL (Merz and Vargo, 2009; Hollebeek 2013, Brodie, et al. 2006). However, still remain in marketing literature a certain confusion and overlapping among several research topics that probably derive from an unclear systematization of brand theory in particular that related to brand feelings (brand love, brand attachment, brand engagement) and consumer active role in Brand Equity Creation. The literature contribution on CBE suffer this limitations. As a consequence of that, it is very difficult to identify an effective scale measurement that measure CBE and not something else (brand experience, brand image, brand perceptions, consumer brand resistance, brand antagonism, and so on). This probably because CBE topic is still under-conceptualized and, consequently, under-investigated. Methodology/Research design/Approach for empirical investigation. The methodology of empirical investigation is qualitative (Gummesson, 2005; Cantone and Testa, 2011) and quantitative based on Multiple Components Analysis (MCA) protocol (Stewart, 1981) and based on the following research questions: RQ1: How is it perceived in marketing scientific community CBE respect to extant research streams and pre-theoretic paradigms considering an active role of consumers in creating brand equity? RQ2: How is it perceived in marketing scientific community CBE respect to extant research topics related to Brand Feeling (emotional bonding, attachment, love, loyalty)? In order to investigate the RQ1 and RQ2:

1. It will be carried out a critical review of relevant contributions existing in marketing literature on the active role of consumer engagement in creating brand equity;

2. It will be carried out a critical review of relevant contributions existing in marketing literature on consumer engagement role in Brand Feelings (emotional bonding, attachment, love, loyalty);

3. They will be carried out 7 open-ended interviews to national and international marketing Academicians researching on the CBE topics and/or SDL;

4. It will be administered a questionnaire to marketing academicians in national and international scientific marketing community (PhD, Researchers, Professors) in order to identify key latent variables that explains the positioning of CBE respect to several research streams that posits an active role of consumer in creating brand experience.

                                                                                                               1  This  research  is  sustained  with  funds  of  Master  in  Marketing  &  Service  Management  (University  of  Naples  Federico  II)  financed  by  Compagnia  San  Paolo  (Bank  foundation  in  touring  Italy)  

  2  

Expected Findings and originality. On the basis of critical review of relevant literature and the findings of empirical researches sub 2 and 3 it will be illustrated the emergent positioning of CBE in marketing scientific community in order to be further discussed in scientific conferences. One expected finding is to identify eventual overlap or confusion existing among several research streams existing in marketing literature and looking differently at the active role of consumers in creating brand equity. The second expected finding is probably a better understanding of consumer brand engagement role in feeling of consumer toward a brand. The originality lies in rationalizing and systemizing the theory rather than contributing to create further definitions or conceptual models. Research Implications. Advancement in SDL paradigm, advancement in Marketing and Brand Theory, advancement in theorizing CBE.

Keywords: Consumer engagement, Brand engagement, Community engagement, Brand equity, Brand Feeling, Brand Love.

INTRODUCTION

In accordance to Service Dominant Logic, Merz and Vargo (2009) demonstrated that “brand scholars have shifted their focus over the past several decades from viewing a brand as an identifier to viewing it as a dynamic and social process. Thus, the branding literature shifted from an output orientation (brand value is embedded in the physical goods and determined through value-in-exchange) to a process orientation (brand value is co-created with all stakeholders and determined through all stakeholders’ collectively perceived value [in the context of their own lives]). Furthermore, it shifted from viewing internal and external customers as exogenous to the brand value creation process to viewing them as endogenous. Finally, the branding literature shifted from viewing brands as operand resources and directly connected to the market offering to viewing brands as operant resources that exist independently from the market offering”. Consumer engagement (in the following labeled CE), consumer brand engagement (in the following labeled CBE) and community brand engagement (in the following labeled COBE) are topics of spreading interest in the academic literature and managerial practice. Therefore, CE, CBE and COBE are terms that describe the spontaneous, active and productive role of the consumers in the relationships with the brands, products and/or services. In the past, consumer engagement was debated in the academic literature making use of different terms: prosumer (Toffler 1980), co-producer (Wilkström 1996; Norman and Ramirez 1993), consum-actor (Cova and Cova 2009), co-creator (Gronröss 2008; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004), lead-user (Von Hippel 1986), working consumer (Cova and Dalli 2009). Through the engagement, companies can also absorb customers’ knowledge and competencies (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000), and turn them in market value. Furthermore, the new digital platforms, leveraging the empowered capabilities of consumers (Covà and Pace 2006), can foster the awareness of the same consumers to participate actively in the process of brand equity creation. In some situation, however, the participation assumes the form of conflict and resistance (Firat and Venkatesh 1995; Price and Peňaloza 1993; Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Hollebeek and Zinkhan 2006; Wipperfürth 2005). In other cases, the participative role of consumers is, since the beginning, widely collaborative with the companies, in order to: a. change the products and/or services features; b. improve the performance of them; c. create means and contents, as witnessed by the spread of the consumer generated contents (Muñiz and Schau 2011) in the Web 2.0 world; d. construct and manage virtual and physical spaces in which the values of the companies, and their brands, are established, defended and communicated among other consumers. Therefore, the engagement assumes the nature of a co-creation relationship. According to other research streams (Cova and Dalli 2009), the topics briefly discussed put in evidence that the role of the consumers is hugely changing because they are - cognitively, emotionally and behaviorally - increasingly involved in the consumption experience. This article

  3  

contributes to the debate on the active brand engagement of consumer into the brand equity creation, putting in evidence also the findings of an empirical research on six Italian luxury fashion brands. The empirical study on the consumer engagement, and involving six luxury fashion brands, has been carried out in accordance with the social practice theory (Reckwitz 2002; Schau et al. 2009).

LITERATURE REVIEW

CE CBE and COBE are topics of spreading interest in the academic literature and managerial practice. These terms describe the spontaneous, active and productive role of the consumers in the relationships with the brands, products and/or services. Coproduction and co-creation of value (e.g., Lusch and Vargo 2006a, 2006b), topics that have central roles in S-D logic and that have also found significant resonance in the marketing literature. We later (Lusch and Vargo 2006b) reserved the term coproduction for participation in the development of the core offering itself, whereas co-creation of value was intended to capture the collaborative nature of value creation. The last ten years have seen a major change in industrial companies: they have gone from offering products to offering products/services and then to offering solutions to improve their competitive position and to protect their profit margins (Sawhney, 2006). G-D logic compels us to limit the field of view to firm activities. Although, in the past 50 years or so, mainstream academic marketing has broadened its vision somewhat to include “supply chains” and customers, the former has been modeled primarily as a provider of needed operand resources and the later as something like operand resources themselves— targets, to be acted on by the firm. S-D logic broadens the role of all of these actors by viewing them primarily as operant resources, active participants in the value- creation process (Vargo and Lusch 2004a). This is captured in S-D logic jointly in the contentions that value is always co-created and the characterization that all actors are resource integrators (Vargo and Lusch 2006, 2008b). The firm cannot unilaterally create value but can only offer value propositions (Vargo e Lusch 2008b). “Value creation is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch 2008b, p. 8). Coupled with the resource-integrator characterization, it implies that the customer also has a “supply chain,” a network of public, private, and market-facing Service providers, in which the focal firm is only one actor. This in turn implies a network-to-network perspective. The consumer is involved in this process of co-creation as a result of an emotional connection that comes as a result of positive consumer experiences that it is generally considered the engine of an active commitment. According to other research streams (Cova and Dalli 2009), the topics briefly discussed put in evidence that the role of the consumers is hugely changing because they are - cognitively, emotionally and behaviorally - increasingly involved in the consumption experience. The concept of engagement has several overlaps with other ones like the love brand and brand attachment in which a key element is the commitment that the consumer put toward the brand and that involves an active commitment to the brand. The conceptualization of the engagement is seminally rooted in multiple academic disciplines, such as psychology, sociology and organizational behavior (Bowden 2009; Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011). Successively, the concept has spread marketing theory and practice that explored the topic in terms of CE, CBE and COBE. According to the academic disciplines in the field of psychology (London et al. 2007), sociology (Achteberg et al. 2003) and organizational behavior (Saks 2006), the engagement is based, in

  4  

general, on a strong, individual-specific, context-specific, motivated, emotional, committed, two-way, over time relationship between a subject and an object (Hollebeek 2011, pp. 786-787). Brands are omnipresent in the everyday life of consumers. Recent research focus on understanding and explaining the type of relationships consumers have with branded products. Constructs and measures of brand sensitivity (Kapferer and Laurent, 1992), brand attachment (Thomson et al., 2005), brand commitment (Samuelsen and Sandvik, 1998), brand trust (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001), and brand loyalty (Jacoby and Chesnut, 1978), for example, distinguish among various consumer-brand relationship concepts and segment consumers into groups on the basis of the intensity of those relationships (Fournier, 1998). Few researchers postulate that love towards any object or brand includes commitment or the loyalty (Sternberg, 1986; Keh et al., 2007). Contrary to these findings few studies also show that brand love is a predictor of brand loyalty (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Whang et al., 2004). If brand love is a predictor of brand loyalty, then they must be two different concepts. If commitment is included as a dimension of love, then it becomes difficult to distinguish between love and loyalty. Commitment or behavioral loyalty can be an outcome of romantic brand love (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Whang et al., 2004). Busacca and Castaldo (2003) propose that the first stage of a consumer-brand relationship is brand satisfaction, which results from the consumer’s positive experiences with the brand (see also Ha and Perks, 2005). As the relationship continues, satisfaction may become brand loyalty as numerous studies have found (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999, Berry, 2000; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Lau and Lee, 2000). The relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty have been discussed in the literature extensively and in general they are significantly positively related as numerous studies have shown over the last few decades (Kraft et al., 1973; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983; Kasper, 1988; Bloemer and Lemmink, 1992). However, less is known about the relationship between brand loyalty and brand love. On one hand Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) or Kamat and Parulekar (2007) argue that brand love precedes brand loyalty. On the other hand we could follow Aaker’s (1991) logic where brand satisfaction leads to brand loyalty and this leads then to brand love. According to Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), brand love is an emotional and passionate feeling of an individual for a brand. According to them, satisfaction is a pre-requisite to brand love and have stated that the brand love is “experienced by some, but not all, satisfied consumers” (p 81). Albert, Merunka and Valette-Florence (2007) have used projective techniques and have investigated the underlying dimensions of brand love. Long-term satisfactory relationship with the brand is one of the dimensions identified in their study. As Thomson, MacInnis and Park (2005) have stated that post-consumption satisfaction is likely to lead to emotional attachment with a brand over time with multiple interactions with the brand. It implies that cumulative satisfaction over longer period tends to lead to the feelings of love for a brand through multiple interactions. In our view, the repetition of these interactions and satisfaction accumulated over time are symptoms of CBE. Shimp and Madden (1988) propose a conceptual model of “consumer-object relationships” inspired by the triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986), in which Sternberg’s three components of love (intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment) become liking, yearning, and decision/commitment in a consumption context. When these three components exist, they strongly contribute to loyalty toward the object. In our opinion, these three dimensions overlap strongly with three dimensions that characterize the construct of CBE (cognitive, affective and behavioral). In the strategic management and marketing research streams the concept of engagement is not a newness (Bowden 2009; Voyles 2007; Mitussis et al. 2006), although the empirical researches supporting the theoretical frameworks are still relatively few. Therefore, on the base of seminal theoretical background of the other academic disciplines, CE, CBE and COBE are part of a rapidly evolving behavior process investing consumers and business customers. These engagement constructs are able to predict and/or explain the customer behaviors better than some conventional

  5  

metrics, such as, customer satisfaction and perceived quality (Van Doorn et al. 2010). In addition, consumer engagement is a primary driver of business performance, sales growth and enhancement of profitability (Voyles 2007). However, one of the most critical difficulties for the companies to effectively manage the consumer engagement, and capture the emerging opportunities, is that the touch points of the interaction between brands and consumers are increasingly pervasive across several parts of the organizations. The postmodern consumer, in fact, is available to both emotional and rational involvement in his choices of consumption (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982) but he has more mobile, disenchanted, disoriented, and more difficulty than in the past to build a stable bond with the brand (Firat and Venkatesh 1995; Firat and Shultz 1997; Fabris 2003). The customer, today, is pragmatic and "neo-concrete", critical toward unrealistic and hyperbolic promises, at the same time very determined in the negotiation and exchange with market participants to maximize the value of their consumption experience (Bosio 2011, 2008, 2006; Resciniti 2005; Brown 1993; Prahalad and Ramaswami 2000; Fabris 2009). The brand has to communicate with the kind of consumer in a stimulating and engaging way, offering symbolic value (style, personality, sociability, affectivity) and pragmatic one (value/price/performance). The brand is itself a relational communicative territory based on a logic of equity exchange (Fiocca, Marino and Testori 2006). Hence the need for companies to put the consumer at the center of marketing processes (Schmitt 1999) and to establish "conversational relations" (Stokes 2000) that can stimulate engagement of the individuals, the socialization and the peer exchange, exploiting all possible touch-points (Brioschi 2005). In conclusion, the engagement of the consumer towards the brand (consumer-brand engagement) which appears a central reference in the literature as well as in marketing strategy is considered a key driver of brand equity (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Schultz and Block 2011 ; Ferrarese 2011). Thanks to the rapid spread of digital-based interactive technologies, in particular of online social network Web site (Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc.), both marketers and consumers are able to build and manage consumer-brand relationships with higher trade-off of reach and richness (Evans 2000). In particular, the brand communities (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2006) or brand tribes (Cova and Cova 2002) become the engaged relational subjects which, in a collective and social dimension, carry out an active and direct commitment towards companies, brands, products and/or services. Therefore, under this perspective, it has been possible to identify another concept of engagement in the marketing theory and practice named community or tribe brand engagement (COBE). However, as Whang et al. (2004 p. 320) noticed, “although love is an outcome of bi-directional interaction between two partners, when the target of love is replaced with an object (e.g., product or brand), love becomes uni-directional”. In other words, a brand cannot reciprocate the consumer’s love except in the consumer’s imagination. A consumer’s love for a brand resembles more to a parasocial relationship. Parasocial interaction (PSI), originally defined by Horton and Wohl (1956), is a perceived relationship of friendship or intimacy by an audience member with a remote media persona, leading to an illusion of a face-to-face relationship. PSI describes a one-sided interpersonal relationship where one party knows a great deal about the other, but the other does not reciprocate the knowledge. The one-sided relations between celebrities and audience or fans (Caughey, 1984) are the most common forms of such relationships studies so far in the literature. Although the parasocial relationship is similar in many ways to the interpersonal relationship, the former is uni-directional compared to interpersonal relationships. Brands, like celebrities, do not reciprocate knowledge of the lover and can only participate in a uni-directional or parasocial relationship. We can say that the love between an individual and a brand is not bidirectional, but, at the same time, there are forms of involvement that are shared with other individuals, thus they take a social dimension. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 412) define the brand community as “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand. [...] Brand communities provide social structure to the relationship between marketer

  6  

and consumer”. Shared values, objectives and actions, communal rituals and traditions, sense of moral responsibility, self-sustaining among members are some common characteristics of different communities. According to the theoretical perspective of “working consumer” proposed by Cova and Dalli (2009), consumer-brand engagement has connections in multiple theoretical perspectives. These perspectives, although with different approaches and aims, have addressed the value co-production and co-creation constructs. They put in evidence that consumers, by their knowledge, competencies, skills and experience: a. are always actively involved as value co-creators (theoretical perspective of value co-creation: Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000, 2004; theoretical perspective of S-D Logic: Vargo and Lush 2004) or value co-producers (Norman and Ramìrez 1993); b. co-create consumption experience, enriching the meanings, the cultural values and the performance of brands, products and/or service during the consumption experience stage (theoretical perspective of consumption experience: Carù and Cova 2007; Holt 1995, 2002; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004); c. have an active role during the phase of service production (service co-production), interacting with operational resources (i.e.: front office employees) of the company (theoretical perspective of co-production in service encounter: Eiglier and Langeard 1987; Lovelock and Wirtz 2007; Bitner et al. 1990); d. perform “immaterial work” that co-creates cultural and affective added value for brand, products and services This creative value is mainly shared between consumers through direct social relationships (theoretical perspective of “working consumer”: Cova and Dalli 2009); e. are collectively engaged in consumer communities or tribes, brand communities or consumption communities (theoretical perspective of consumer/brand communities or tribes: Cova and Cova 2002). This collective engagement underlies any collective action regarding the interest for which the community was born: a brand, and/or a product, and/ or a company, and so on. In our idea, the C(B)E theoretical perspective has a fundamental difference in respect to all theoretical perspectives which look at the consumer as value co-creator or co-producer. In fact, the co-creation or co-production process is grounded on an aware and stimulated co-operation between companies and consumers, which interact through their operant resources (skills, knowledge, competencies, experience, physical and immaterial spaces, etc.) to co-create value about brands, products and/or services of the same companies. The C(BE), instead, mainly, is a spontaneous involvement of the consumers towards brands, products and/or services of the companies. This consumer involvement - spontaneous (engagement) or aided by the company (collaboration) - has its antecedent in the brand attitudinal loyalty of the customers. Brand attitudinal loyalty has a linear relation with the following antecedents: the behavioral loyalty that, in turn, arises from the trust, which, in turn, is elicited by the customer satisfaction. The consumer brand engagement and consumer collaboration work on four brand interacting blocks (BIBLOs) that represent practices spaces in which the actors (company and/or customers) actively participate to create brand equity. These BIBLOs, in the perspective of the consumers, are the following: 1. production (execution) of the operational activities related to components of current products (i.e.: ready for use product assembling) or services (i.e.: product delivering; e-ticketing, etc.) or their mix (i.e.: defining the PC configuration; defining an holiday package), closely designed by the company and not alterable by the consumers; 2. brand offering system improvement (product, service, experience related), which added value in terms of benefits (functional and psychosocial) and attributes (tangible and intangible) for the consumers; 3. brand offering system innovation (product, service, experience related); 4. defining the core brand values and meanings, which concerns the rooted cultural (symbols, images, texts, codes, meanings, etc.) and affective (feelings, judgments, personality, history, heritage, experiences, etc.) elements of the brand equity. The consumer collaboration is generally stimulated and designed by the companies and takes place on all the BIBLOs. The customer, instead, spontaneously promotes the engagement that, only at a later stage, could evolve towards a collaboration. Therefore, the engaged consumers towards brand can have a collaborative role only when recognized and stimulated by the company, and are deployed the right processes to enabling this co-operation. However, when the brand values, the strategic and operative market

  7  

approach, and, as consequence, the choices about the performance of the brand product and/or service are radically transforming the rooted cultural and affective elements of brand, and the highly engaged consumers strongly dissent from that, the engagement assumes the form of resilience conflict, resistance. It could generate initiatives of “anti-brand communities” (Hollebeek and Zinkhan 2006), “alter-brand communities” or “counter-brand communities” (Covà and White 2010).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION ON ACADEMICIANS

Research Design

As pointed out in different studies (Cantone et al. 2013; Cantone et al. 2014), to date, the topic of brand engagement has been under investigated and conceptualized to a certain extent. The meaning given to this term is not always clear, nor is it used in an unambiguous way. The empirical study, proposed in this paper, adopts a qualitative marketing research approach (Carson et al. 2001; Gummesson 2005; Moisander and Valtonen 2006; Cantone and Testa 2011) to explore the topic CBE at a brand level and under a theoretical perspective. We think this paper has a contribution to make mainly under two main aspects. Firstly, positioning brand engagement topic in brand equity creation literature. Secondly, positioning brand engagement topic in brand feeling literature. The research questions investigated in this paper are the following: RQ1: How is it perceived among marketing academicians CBE respect to extant research streams (working consumers, SDL) and pre-theoretic paradigms (co creation, co-production, consumer agency, consumer resistance, consumer tribe, etc.) considering an active role of consumers in creating brand equity? RQ2: How is it perceived among marketing academicians CBE respect to extant research topics related to consumer feeling toward a brand (emotional bonding, attachment, love, loyalty)? In order to investigate the RQ1 and RQ2: 1. It has been carried out a critical review of relevant contributions existing in marketing literature

on the active role of consumer engagement in creating brand equity; 2. It has been carried out a critical review of relevant contributions existing in marketing literature

on consumer feelings (emotional bonding, attachment, love, loyalty) toward a brand; 3. They have been carried out 5-10 open-ended interviews to marketing renowned Academicians

researching on the CBE topics and/or Brand Equity. This paper presents the main evidences of the first step of ongoing research project on consumer engagement. During qualitative phase data were collected for a four-month period (January-April, 2015) involving in 1 hour each personal interview to seven Professors of Marketing and Management Science at Italian and international universities.2 Those informants have been selected as renowned researchers in the field of brand theory and/or co-creation.

                                                                                                               2  The  informants  are:  Roderick  J.  Brodie,  Professor  of  Marketing  -­‐  University  of  Auckland  Business  School;  Antonella  Carù,  Full  Professor  of  Management  Sciences  -­‐  Bocconi  University  in  Milan.  Michele  Costabile,  Full  Professor  of  Marketing  –  University  of  Calabria;  Bernard  Covà,  Full  Professor  of  Marketing  -­‐  Kedge  Business  School;  Rossella  Chiara  Gambetti,  Assistant  Professor  of  Management  Sciences  -­‐  Cattolica  del  Sacro  Cuore  University  in  Milan;  Linda  D.  Hollebeek,  Professor  of  Marketing  -­‐  University  of  Auckland  Business  School;  Cristina  Mele,  Full  Professor  of  Management  Sciences  –  Federico  II,  University  of  Naples;  

  8  

During next month it will be administered a quantitative research conducted by the means of a questionnaire sent to marketing academicians in national and international scientific community (PHD, Researchers, Professors) in order to measure the perception of CBE emergent positioning drivers arisen during the previous qualitative research phase. Qualitative data emerged during interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a text mining software. It is part of an established social science research methodology. The objective was to identify interesting patterns and relationships in textual data (Feldman and Sanger 2007), by completing three tasks: classification, clustering and associations. Cluster analysis in particular is a powerful procedure that is used to represent the contents of the text corpus through a few significant thematic clusters. They are also identified on latent semantic axes, described by lexical units that characterize (in terms of chi2) the sentences/posts submitted to the analysis. Moreover, the cluster analysis identifies the macro (semantic axes) and micro (clusters) latent concepts, or, in other terms, the axes and drivers of consumers’ brand engagement concerning its positioning in marketing literature. In giving interpretation to the clusters the researcher is aided by several sentences that the software identifies as very inherent with the meaning of the specific thematic cluster. The association of the sentences to the cluster is expressed in terms of a decreasing score. The cluster analysis is based on K-means algorithm (Steinbach et al. 2000). Those individual statements are reported blindly in order to avoid the identification of the individual informants that have expressed them. In other words, as always happen in qualitative research, it is not relevant for the analysis the name of individual informants but the cumulative knowledge that the qualitative method has permitted to explore.

Findings As stated above, the main purpose of the empirical research is to explore how academicians have spontaneously defined CBE during qualitative research phase and positioned it within the brand theory. Therefore it aims to highlight significative insights for the next step of the research. The following sections report the main findings of the empirical research. The procedure of cluster analysis conducted by the text-mining software, has allowed us to identify eight cultural repertoires, defined “thematic clusters”, distributed within a three-dimensional graph, as described in Figure 1.

======================== Insert Figure 1

======================== Starting from cluster 1 (11.16% of the total cultural space), the most important keywords explaining this cluster evidence the attention that consumers pay to the decision to love and be attached to a specific brand acting or criticizing toward the same in a univocal way. The most important keywords explaining the cluster are the following ones: relative; choice, love, behavior, emotional, showing, attachment, consider, to involve, to get, relationship, develop, etc. The most expressive statements that explains the cluster are the following ones: • While for the brand attachment or the brand love the emotional bond of consumer with the

brand derives from an emotional involvement, in my opinion, the brand engagement implies a rational and secondary decision of the consumer that follows a cognitive process, which does not exist in the other concepts explaining the link between a consumer and a given brand;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

  9  

• The love toward a brand, the brand attachment and brand engagement can be different steps but which have to be not in competition, but possibly linked with each other. It might be interesting to show the connections of these three feelings toward a brand as different parts of the same process, which begins with the brand attachment, follows with the brand love and ends with the brand engagement;

• Behind the word (brand) engagement lays a decision (consciously and rationally evaluated engagement) while behind the concepts of brand love and brand attachment is not a decision but an instinctive attitude;

• I think the key requirement by the international marketing review is to show that the brand engagement nourishes brand love and does not destroy it. Brodie with his articles, presents this construct as a great innovation, and for this he has been criticized a lot;

• Brodie’s articles were much criticized, because he tried to show that the construct of brand engagement was better than others, but in my opinion, it would be better to show that this construct is distinguishable from others, for avoiding heavy criticism;

• In my opinion, therefore, is the output of the process related to the nature of brand engagement that is the real interesting aspect of the research on CBE. In fact, the components of diversity compared to brand attachment and brand love constructs are related to the output as psychological, psychosocial and social behavior state;

• Currently we are not yet able to propose a different definition of CBE and then we adopt what in literature is considered dominant. The constructs for which, in my opinion, there is a need to formulate appropriate distinctions, are those of brand love and brand attachment.

In accordance with all the statements analyzed, it is clear that the posts expressed brand engagement feeling as a “rational decision of someone to be engaged with a brand” and acting coherently, that is the name given to the Cluster 1. Cluster 2 (8.04% of the total cultural space) refers to the emotional bonding that links a consumer to a given brand. In fact the keywords better explaining the cluster are the following ones: emotional, bonding, search, conceptual, decision, thought, dimension, respect, role, management, relationships, traditional. In accordance with the descriptions suggested by several keywords and sentences reported in the following and explaining the cluster 2, it can be labeled as “Emotional bonding with a brand”. • The engagement is a durable psychological state of mind, and therefore is something

completely different from the emotional bonding toward a brand. But despite the obvious differences in concepts, there are obviously different contact points between these two constructs (brand engagement and emotional bonding), concerning and including the same cognitive, emotional and behavioral consumer’s state of mind;

• These (brand love and brand attachment) are the most overlapping constructs from a conceptual point of view compared to the concept of CBE. They implies a concept of bonding very similar to that of engagement, and indeed they underlie an emotional bond between brand and consumer. Also, there is the brand experience concept, which in my opinion is very close to CBE, especially as developed by Schmitt;

• To engage myself is a voluntary and cognitive act means that my mind that decides to do something. Instead, the relationships that develop between consumers and brands might be emotional relationships and are not always the result of a conscious decision designed and weighted to be engaged with a brand;

• This interpersonal dimension is a very contemporary and postmodern one, is typical of nowadays consumer, and is more innovative than the simple dyadic dimensions present in the other brand constructs. It is still present in the concept of engagement but it is not its defining characteristic;

  10  

• So personally I would focus on the behavioral dimension that qualifies this CBE construct, while the other (cognitive and affective) dimensions, qualify other existing constructs, that in a chronological view have a role of antecedents;

• In my view, the concept of consumer engagement has nothing to do with other constructs to which almost always it is associated. It is a relational construct which concerns the bonding, that develops between a brand and a consumer;

• I believe that quantitative studies about CBE are necessary for the construction of a scale that measure the concept, but I also believe that a qualitative research is a priority and not instrumental as often happens.

The cluster 3 (12.50% of the total cultural space), is characterized by keywords highlighting issues related to customer spontaneous participation to brand experience. In fact the keywords high correlated to the cluster 3 are the following ones: to participate, BMW, experience, to live, modern, to affirm, engaged, web site, to decide, to distinguish, etc.. The sentences that describe this cluster are consistent with the voluntary participation of the consumer, and not necessary client, to the experience of a given brand, to its event, contexts, etc. Therefore, this cluster 3 can be labeled as “Brand experience voluntary participation”. The sentence that explain better the meaning given to the cluster are the following ones: • So the value for the consumer is not a using value, because it is not using the product, he

participates in creating value for BMW and for BMW customers, engaging himself while not being a BMW customer, but only for the desire to participate to the event and to show his skills. Perhaps after he could also become a BMW customer, but this is not a certain consequence.

• I am not able to say in what engagement differs from the experience, perhaps the experience is something that the consumer lives in a specific moment in which he uses the resource, product or service, while the engagement is a situation that alive even after;

• Reading the interviews with “Alfisti” of a research, they never say to be engaged with the Alfa Romeo, they claim to be lovers, passionate, fanatics, sick, excited but not engaged. Their experience is not be bounded to the brand by any kind of contract, this cannot be called engaged.

• An individual decides to subscribe to a web page or a web site operated by a brand and decides to actively participate on this site experience. You must have a decision making process, in which the consumer decides to engage and to get engaged with the brand to speak of brand engagement. What bothers me with regards to the concept of engagement is this decision making process requirement;

• In the value co-creation under SDL perspective I believe that the stimulus to the involvement may come from multiple parts. Very often, especially in innovative contexts, the stimulus is coming from the consumer or even from a non-client, for example, he may decide to participate in a contest BMW even not being a BMW buyer.

The thematic cluster 4 (7.14% of the total cultural space) is characterized by the presence of keywords highlighting the attention that consumers pay to community, or other consumers in engaging to the brand. In fact, the keywords high correlated to the cluster are the following ones: group, values, community, actions, consequences, relationships, activities, huge, operational, individuals. In accordance with all the statements analyzed, it is clear that the posts expressed differences towards the social dimension of brand engagement. The cluster is labeled “brand values and meaning”. In fact the statements that explain better the meaning given to the cluster are the following ones. • The term CBE should be brought back to the original meaning of marriage, which is strongly

related to values, to the cognitive and emotional relationship between two members. If I should have a perfect pyramid, where at the base are the operational actions and on the top instead the involvement of consumers on the values components, the engagement would be at the top.

  11  

• The Alfisti, for example, put into action initiatives towards the social group of Alfisti and for Alfa Romeo as a brand, but not for the Fiat Group. The hearth of CBE concept, consists to deepen it not in terms of content (as it is) but in terms of destination (who is the recipient of certain voluntary activities of consumers: the Alfisti community? The brand? Or the company?).

• ..You can add a third aspect, which consists in activism for other individuals, and in this case we talk about “community engagement”. In this latter case we can talk about values as commitment, mutual-aid, engagement towards other individuals, the activism of these people turned to the community. There is a distinct difference between community engagement and brand engagement.

• For community engagement we mean to do something for ourselves and for those who are part of the same social group, with which we share a common passion. For brand engagement we mean instead actions taken for the brand and not for the group of individuals who share the same passion.

• The brand experience is at the basis of the brand engagement. It is necessary to have an experience with the brand to become engaged. Engagement is closely linked to the experience to trigger the development of the consumer-brand relationship. This experience, in fact, can have various effects: (emotional) bonding, affection and trust, and, ultimately, can then give rise to actions and activities by the consumer towards the brand.

The thematic Cluster 5 (9.38% of the total cultural space) is characterized by the presence of keywords related to the confusion existing among some concepts in brand theory related to feelings and brand equity creation. In fact the keywords explaining the Cluster 5 are the following ones: induced, terms, commitment, distinction, simple, overlaps, experience, involvement, creation, detailed, spontaneous, etc. Some key sentences, that better represent the cluster profile, have allowed this cluster to be labeled as “overlapping and confusion in brand theory constructs”. • I believe that the difference between the two concepts goes back exactly to the origin / source of

the phenomenon, that can be spontaneous or induced. I think the experience is to be considered induced while the engagement is spontaneous, with the engagement there is also a search for experience;

• …In light of this, I am not able to make a distinction between (brand) experience and (brand) engagement. What CBE says more than the brand experience construct? …Many concepts in Marketing theory are overlapping, and what we should understand is this, that is, how many new terms are really useful to better understand the phenomena?

• We Italians tend to understand the differences between the terms, because we are very analytical, while Americans do not dwell on these details. They believe those to be only form matters, and usually use the terms that are typically affirmed by schools of belonging, without no particular reasons;

• A concept that I believe is strongly overlapped to CBE is that of brand involvement (CBI). In fact, I find hard to identify a marked distinction between these two concepts. Although I think there are more contact points between the concepts of CBI and co-creation, I believe that these two constructs (CBE and CBI) overlap much;

• The brand experience is the involvement of consumers in a particular kind of atmosphere and moment of life lived with the brand, memorable, unique and distinctive thanks to a series of environmental stimuli.

The thematic Cluster 6 (20.54% of the total cultural space) is explained by a series of issues related to the following keywords: love, to explain, relationship, brand, term, episodes, attachment, variable, active, global, to understand, concepts, think, band, idea, etc. The sentences that better describe this cluster, coherently with its profiling content in terms of keywords, has allowed to label

  12  

Cluster 6 as “Brand Love and consumer brand relationship”. In fact the statements that well describe the meaning assigned to the Cluster 6 are the following ones. • The brand love and brand attachment constructs measure emotional, instinctive and

comprehensive meaning that pertains to the relationship between brand and consumer. Instead, the brand engagement construct pertains a more formal meaning. Under the concept of engagement is the idea of intrinsic activity and action, while under the concept of brand love could be a totally passive behavior;

• If we stay within the concept of consumer brand relationship, the consumer agency is also a theory that looks at what a consumer can do within this relationship. The concepts that compete with each other are the brand attachment, brand love and brand engagement;

• Reading the latest articles of Parker (….) or other authors, you can notice that there is a strong debate in literature on brand attachment and brand love constructs, but it is not considered in any way the brand engagement construct. All these concepts can be considered under the co-creation literature, more precisely they pertains to value co-creation and co-creation of brand;

• In America there is a strong debate between Parker (brand attachment) and Ahuvia (brand love). The two Authors argue over which of the two concepts encompasses the other. The shared meaning is their relational nature. Concepts such as involvement, love, attachment, engagement are all based on building a relationship between brand and consumer.

• It isn’t a concept that I use a lot, for its too managerial nature. In fact, it is the result of a study which was made by consultants and managers of online communities. If you look at the A-ranked Journals, You see that this concept is almost never treated, unlike concepts such as brand attachment and brand love;

• You have to explain if the concept of brand engagement is better than others, that is able better to explain the relationship that is established between the brand and the consumer (as shown by Brodie in his paper) or that is completely different than the other constructs.

The thematic Cluster 7 (16.52% of the total cultural space) is explained by a series of issues related to the following keywords: approaches, emerge, item, permission, allows, literature, managerial, academic, positivists, definitions, references, happens, downstream, etc. The sentences that better describe this cluster, coherently with its profiling content in terms of keywords, has allowed to label Cluster 7 as “CBE positioning in marketing literature”. In fact the statements that well describe the meaning assigned to the Cluster 7 are the following ones. • The first authors (Brodie and Hollebeck) who have studied the concept of CBE, given a very

positivist approach, which put the terms in relationship with the previous literature, tend to look at the construct compared to the concept of brand loyalty, it often happens that they speak of loyalty and then they rename it engagement;

• It not yet clear their position. It hasn’t been emerged initially in them the socio dimensional implication of CBE construct. They (Brodie and Hollebeck) adopt a typical American, positivist approach, searching for the one best way, but at the same time, are also gradually opening to a more phenomenological approach;

• It is not a general theory on consumer-brand relationship because they have not clarified the epistemological bases and the ethical basis of that theory, in many approaches they are still positivists. They say they get away from the positivist tradition, but in what they write is not perceived at all this away, and say to adopt a phenomenological approach which is, perhaps, not evident at all;

• There are many definition of CBE, and I do not think there is one able to grasp fully all the features of this complex phenomenon. Many definition seeking to take inspiration from other constructs and try to adapt them, I do not believe much in this approach;

• I think, however, what is new to the CBE, which emerged from the data derived inductively under the approach that we used to observe the phenomenon, is its strong interpersonal nature and construction of the social value, as the consumer is engaged not only when he develops a

  13  

certain type of bond with the brand but even with other consumers and stakeholders (opinion leaders, etc.).

The thematic eight cluster (14.73% of the total cultural space) is explained by a series of issues related to the following keywords: benefits, processes, enterprise, push, thrusts, creation, brand, communication, innovation, get yourself, worth, engagement, recruiting, hired, hired, active, capacity, individuals, regards, concern, company, interaction, thanks, etc. The sentences that better describe this cluster, coherently with its profiling content in terms of keywords, has allowed to label Cluster 8 as “Consumer Brand Involvement”. In fact the statements that well describe the meaning assigned to the Cluster 8 are the following ones. • In fact, the affective dimension of CBE has a strong overlap with the concept of consumer

brand involvement (CBI), in which the individual is stimulated to the interaction by the firm or to reduce a high perceived risk or because benefits of various nature are expected to derive through brand interaction;

• This consumer-brand interaction has two dimensions, namely becoming the consumer part of two processes that were once only firm related: innovation and communication processes. The CBE, instead, is a construct that expresses a behavioral manifestation, that we measure with the classic variables of voluntary interaction;

• I believe that this is a concept that relates to a dimension of fun and interaction with the brand, which can reach a higher involvement that drives consumers to collaborate with the company working on its supply system, but I do not think we can relate this (CBI) construct to the co-creation by the consumer of brand value;

• For me the concepts of co-creation is wider then CBE one. Because the ultimate goal of co-creation is to increase the experience of involvement and the processes of creating value for the actors who participate. The consumer has the pleasure of being involved because from this bond derive tangible or intangible benefits;

• I found that the engagement cannot be induced, the brand has an important role in the creation of engagement but will never be induced, rather we could say facilitated. The ability to communicate with the consumer in a certain way can only create the premise be easier for the consumer to become engaged with the brand.

Starting from the evidence arising from the cluster analysis, it was possible to give an interpretation to the meaning of the three factors (axes x, y, z) in the cluster map, as well as described in Figure 1. The x-axis is explained positively by the cluster 8 (Consumer Brand Involvement ), 5 (confusion in brand theory constructs), 4 (Brand values and meanings), 3 (Brand experience voluntary participation), 1 (rational decision of someone to be engaged with a brand ) and negatively by the clusters 7 (CBE positioning in marketing literature), 2 (Emotional bonding with a brand) and 6 (Brand Love and consumer brand relationship). Therefore, we decided to assign meaning of “Brand engagement meaning impact related (social-individual)” to the x-axis. In fact, there are some statement expresses by the informants that clarify that CBE has a social relevance implication to be considered a “rational decision of someone to be engaged with a brand” (cluster 1), impacting on the higher part of brand equity creation block, contributing to create a social values and meaning for the brand (cluster 4), is often overlapped and confused with some other brand theory constructs (cluster 5), and brings sometimes brand experience voluntary participation of consumer to initiatives, events and web site experiences (cluster 3). CBE has some individual consumer implication in that it has been positioned in marketing literature with a positivist approach as a loyalty consequence (cluster 7), is a kind of emotional bonding with a brand (cluster 2), and has to be allocated respect some relevant brand love and consumer brand relationship constructs (cluster 5).

  14  

The y-axis is explained positively by the clusters 6 (brand Love and consumer brand relationship), 1 (rational decision of someone to be engaged with a brand), 4 (Brand values and meanings), negatively by the clusters 7 (CBE positioning in marketing literature), 2 (Emotional bonding with a brand), 5 (overlapping and confusion in brand theory constructs), 3 (Brand experience voluntary participation), 8 (Consumer Brand Involvement). Therefore, we decided to assign to y-axis the label of “Brand engagement meaning consumer response related (cognitive/affective vs behavioral). In fact, CBE is a cognitive/affective state of mind like some relevant brand love and consumer brand relationship constructs (cluster 5), is a “rational (cognitive) decision of someone to be engaged with a brand” (cluster 1), and to contribute (affectively) to create a social values and meaning for the brand (cluster 4), but it has been allocated in marketing literature stressing its behavioral component as a consequence of brand loyalty (cluster 7), as a kind emotional bond with the brand (cluster 2) that has some overlapping with other construct in marketing literature that generate confusion (cluster 5), and particularly has to be distinguished by the voluntary participation of consumer to brand experience (cluster 3) and consumer brand involvement (cluster 8). Finally, the z-axis is positively explained by the clusters 8 (Consumer Brand Involvement), 4 (Brand values and meanings), and 1 (rational decision of someone to be engaged with a brand ) and cluster 3 (Brand experience voluntary participation), 5 (overlapping and confusion in brand theory constructs), 2 (Emotional bonding with a brand), 6 (Brand Love and consumer brand relationship), 7 (CBE positioning in marketing literature). Therefore, the meaning of “Brand engagement related to the nature of consumer involvement (spontaneous vs induced)” is assigned to the z-axis. In fact, CBE is spontaneous state of mind that consumer develop toward a brand like the positioning that has been given in marketing literature as a consequence of brand loyalty (cluster 7), is an emotional bonding with a brand (cluster 2), is a spontaneous feeling toward the brand like brand love and some other feeling construct (cluster 5), is a spontaneous participation to a brand events and initiatives (cluster 3), and determines on this aspect some confusion and overlapping in marketing theory. Otherwise, CBE is seen as induced by the brand as a rational decision to be engaged toward it that requires a formal agreement (cluster 1), by the means of digital devices the consumers are induced to produce values and cultural meaning for the brand (cluster 4) and is often confused, especially under a managerial perspective, with consumer brand involvement (cluster 8).

DISCUSSION POINTS

Various discussion points emerge from the analysis. We can distinguish four areas in the tridimensional graph (Figure 1) identified by a dotted circle. The first (blue dotted circle) that comprises clusters 2 and 6 can be labeled “Search for a coherence in brand theory”. The informants interviewed have stressed the importance to search a coherence between CBE and consumer-brand relationship theory. As is well known during the last decade have been developed some important constructs implying a feeling of consumer towards the brand (among the others: Parker, Ahuvia). The CBE can be considered an outcome of brand love. Indeed, we can believe that can be assumed a life cycle of the relationship between the consumer and the brand characterized by the following stages. The consumer first is emotionally involved toward a brand that obviously has very strong experiential features. As a result of this as the brand reinforces the attitude to excite him, the consumer may experience a brand attachment. Such attachment over time due to the constant confidence and trust of consumer in the attitude of the brand to emotional involve him/her. The perception of equity would lead the consumer, within a reasonable time, to a state of falling in love towards the brand. The CBE would require a further condition: it must be added to the cognitive-affective state of mind of the consumer a behavior externalization by the consumer of its relationship with the brand. Only then it could be assumed existing a condition of consumer brand engagement. At this stage the consumer is considered linked to the brand so inseparable.

  15  

The second (red dotted circle) that comprises clusters 7, and 5 can be labeled “search for a systematization in marketing and brand theory”. From the most part it is evident that the scientific community is proposing the development of constructs not always really new and useful to the advancement of a general theory on the relationship between brand and consumer. It seems urgent a reflection in the scientific community to assess the consistency of the constructs that have already emerged in a general framework of synthesis. The difficulty of positioning the CBE is an alert in this sense. One of the objectives of this work will be, far from proposing a definitive systematization, to stimulate a reflection in this regard. It appears very difficult to propose new constructs in a theoretical framework, for the great part not systematized yet. As it emerged from the interviews to the key informants, CBE positioning in the literature was very fast and approached according to the canons of a positivist culture. The assimilation to the loyalty of the CBE, in fact, can be considered hazardous if one takes into account that the engagement is not always manifested by consumers, customers of the brand. The participation to social media of consumers engaged towards the brand often takes place precisely by not customers or former customers of the brand that are not share new values communicated by the brand (exemplum: Alfisti case study). Sometimes, in fact, a consumer can go through the stages of emotional involvement towards the brand described above without ever being customer. It is exceptional situation: a consumer that loves the brand Ferrari, and heavily involved with the web in manifesting his unbreakable bond to the brand, characterized by values of sportsmanship and cult relevance. Therefore, more than the loyalty could be regarded as a premise of the CBE only the affective part of the same. Therefore, as indicated above the attachment and love are the right premises of the CBE and not so much loyalty. Furthermore, there are marked differences between CBE and value co-creation. Co-creation is often triggered by the firm that predisposes tools for customer involvement on components of brand equity more concrete. Not infrequently, the customer is involved in or optimization / improvement of the offer system or in the generation of innovative ideas. In this case, the company takes a leading role in the innovation process by providing the tools and skills to bring the contribution of the customer to have a positive impact on brand equity. The third (green dotted circle) that comprises clusters 8 and 3 can be labeled “distinguish by them”. The distinctive position in the literature of the CBE requires an effort to clarify the differences between the concepts of CBE, BE and CBI. The CBI is very close to the concept of co-creation as it is related to the arranging by the firm of initiatives to engage the customer in the process of generation of new knowledge useful to improve or optimize the offer system. In this sense the CBI can be considered sometimes also a tool for customer acquisition. The company through induced expedients – like “gamification”, or context, or events – may involve consumers to participate in an effort to acquire them to the brand or to let them to produce user generated content. The CBE is instead a spontaneous condition following emotional, affective, sentimental involvement, of consumer with the brand. It implies a conscious decision by the customer or consumer to that effect. The customer experience, as evidenced by some of the respondents, is a temporary situation of participation by the customer to the brand. The CE then can address one or more exchange situations, differently CBE is a situation of lasting bond to a brand and explicitly communicated by the customer, and not the consumer, to the outside. The fourth (orange dotted circle) that comprises clusters 4 and 1 can be labeled “distinctive features of CBE”. The CBE has in fact two distinctive features compared to other constructs of brand relationship. The first involves a rational decision of the consumer who decides to make clear to the brand and to other consumers to be inextricably linked to that specific brand. This is a clear difference with the other constructs of brand feelings. With the emotional bonding, the attachment, the brand love the customer is in a mental condition of affective, cognitive and sentimental, relationship with a brand, but this condition is not known outside. The brand or other clients are not able to understand that condition except through specific survey aimed at understanding the nature

  16  

and intensity of this involvement. Unlike with CBE customer makes clear to society, to other customers, to the same brand the bond that has decided to establish. As, instead, regards the second key feature of the CBE has over other constructs is the nature of the involvement. The client in fact through the tools provided by new technologies and new social media intend to contribute to the values, symbolic and cultural meanings of a specific brand. Then compared to the co-creation we are faced to a higher level of involvement in the means end chain of the brand.

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION

This study has an explorative and inquisitive propose. It aims to put in evidence the differences between CBE construct and other similar ones, such as brand love, brand attachment, brand involvement. The first stage of the empirical research, based on qualitative method, has put in evidence substantial differences among the constructs that in marketing consider the active relationship between customer and brand. In particular, brand love, brand attachment, brand experience have different meanings with the concept of customer brand engagement. Probably there is a sequential process that temporally connects these constructs: brand experience, brand attachment, brand love and brand engagement. The first empirical research puts in evidence that the linking between co-creation in the perspective of SLD and consumer brand engagement construct is the involvement of the consumer. However, the nature and the characteristics of this involvement are different in the co-creation and in the engagement. The main point of the discussion is that the engagement is spontaneous and not stimulated and designed by the company (as in the case of co-creation). Also only at a later stage, the consumer brand engagement could evolve toward the co-creation. At this stage of the research (stage 1) we can’t talk about managerial considerations. In the stage 2 we should carry out a quantitative approach developing the results of the stage 1. We are confident that the findings of the second stage will permit to do interesting considerations and argue about valuable implications for scholars and practitioners. Finally, we can consider that the findings reached to date depend on whether or not the informants shared the SDL theoretical fundamentals.

REFERENCES

Aaker D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, New York, The Free Press.

Achterberg, W., Pot, A. M., Kerkstra, A., Ooms, M., Muller, M., & Ribbe, M. (2003), The effect of depression on social engagement in newly admitted Dutch nursing home residents, The Gerontologist, 43(2), pp. 213-218.

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), pp. 1062-1075.

Arnould, E. (2005), Animating the Big Middle, Journal of Retailing, 81(2), pp. 89-96.

Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009), Luxury brand marketing-the experience is everything!, Journal of Brand Management, 16(5), pp. 338-346.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006), Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(1), pp. 45-61.

  17  

Berry, Leonard L. (2000), Cultivating Service Brand Equity, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), pp. 128-37.

Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990), The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents, Journal of Marketing, pp. 71-84.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses, Journal of marketing, Vol. 54, (April), pp. 69-82.

Bloemer, J.M.M. and J.G.A.M. Lemmink (1992), The importance of customer satisfaction in explaining brand and dealer loyalty, Journal of Marketing Management, 8, pp. 351-364.

Bosio A.C. (2006), Quando l’emergenza diventa normalità. Verso un consumatore neo-concreto, Micro & Macro Marketing, n. 1, pp. 115-138.

Bosio A.C. (2008), Esplorando il sentimento del cittadino-consumatore: alla ricerca di una nuova regolazione - privata e pubblica - del consumo, Micro & Macro Marketing, n. 1, pp. 7-30.

Bowden, J. L. H. (2009), The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), pp. 63-74.

Brioschi E.T. (ed.) (2005), La comunicazione totale d’azienda nel contesto internazionale, Comunicazioni Sociali, vol. 1, n. 1, pp. 9-52.

Brodie, R. J., Glynn, M. S., & Little, V. (2006), The service brand and the service-dominant logic: missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory?, Marketing Theory, 6(3), pp. 363-379.

Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011), Customer Engagement Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research, Journal of Service Research, 14(3), pp. 252-271.

Brown S. (1993), Postmodern Marketing?, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 19-34.

Busacca, B. and S. Castaldo (2003), Brand Knowledge, Brand Trust and Consumer Response: A Conceptual Framework, in 2nd workshop “Trust within and between organizations special session” “Trust in marketing”, Amsterdam.

Cantone L., Testa P. (2011), Customer knowledge competence, consumer insight interpretive techniques and competitive advantage of the firm, Journal of Marketing Trends, (Januray), Vol. 1, Nr. 4.

Cantone L., Testa P., Agrillo G. (2013), Consumer Brand Engagement Exploration in Digital Environment, An Empirical Research on an Italian Cult Brand, in the proceedings of 12th International Conference Marketing Trends, 17-19 January 2013, Paris-Venice, ed. Jean-Claude Andreani and Umberto Collesei, Paris-Venice: Marketing Trends Association, Paris.

Carroll, B.A., Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love, Marketing Letter, 17(2), pp. 79-89.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative marketing research, Sage.

Carù, A. and Cova, B. (eds) (2007), Consuming Experience, Oxon, Routledge.

Caughey, John L. (1984), Imaginary Social Worlds: A Cultural Approach, Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press.

Chaudhuri A, Holbrook MB. (2001), The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal Mark, (2), pp. 91-3.

  18  

Chaudhuri, Ananish and Moris B. Holbrook (2001), The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing; 65 (2), pp. 81-93.

Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), Brand Community of Convenience Products: New Forms of Customer Empowerment – the case “my Nutella the Community, European Journal of Marketin, 40(9/10), pp. 1087-105.

Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2002), Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing, European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), pp. 595-620.

Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2009), Faces of the new consumer: A genesis of consumer governmentality, Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 24(3), pp. 81-99.

Cova, B., & Dalli, D. (2009), Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory?, Marketing theory, 9(3), pp. 315-339.

Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2008), Marketing solutions in accordance with the SD logic: Co-creating value with customer network actors, Industrial marketing management, 37(3), pp. 270-277.

Cova, B., & White, T. (2010), Counter-brand and alter-brand communities: the impact of Web 2.0 on tribal marketing approaches, Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3-4), pp. 256-270.

Denegri-Knott, J., Zwick, D. and Schroeder, J.E. (2006), Mapping Consumer Power: An Integrative Framework for Marketing and Consumer Research, European Journal of Marketing, 40(9–10), pp. 950–71.

Eiglier, P., Langeard, E., (1987), Servuction: Le marketing des services, Paris, MacGraw-Hill.

Evans, P. (2000), Blown to bits: How the new economics of information transforms strategy, Harvard Business Press.

Fabris G. (2003), Il nuovo consumatore: verso il postmoderno, Milano, Franco Angeli.

Fabris G. (2009), Societing, Milano, Egea.

Feldman, R., & Sanger, J. (Eds.). (2007), The text mining handbook: advanced approaches in analyzing unstructured data, Cambridge University Press.

Ferraresi M. (2011), Brand Engagement and Brand Experience: Similarities and Differences, Micro & Macro Marketing, n. 2, pp. 245-254.

Fetscherin, M., & Conway, M. (2011), Brand Love: Interpersonal or Parasocial Love Relationship?, Harvard University.

Fiocca R., Marino A., Testori M. (2006), Brand Management. Valori e relazioni nella gestione della marca, Milano, Etas.

Firat A.F., Shultz C.J. (1997), From Segmentation to Fragmentation. Markets and Marketing Strategy in the Postmodern Era, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 31, n. 3-4, pp. 183-207.

Firat, A. F., Venkatesh, A. (1995), Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), pp. 239-267.

Fournier S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24, (March), pp. 343-73.

Franke, N., von Hippel, E. and Schreier, M. (2006), Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead-user Theory, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), pp. 301–15.

  19  

Gambetti, R. C., & Graffigna, G. (2011), Consumer Brand Engagement: lo stato dell'arte. Teoria, applicazioni, prospettive di ricerca, Micro & Macro Marketing, 20(2), pp. 199-226.

Garbarino, Ellen and Mark S. Johnson (1999), The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), pp. 70-87.

Grönroos, C. (2008), Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates?, European Business Review, 20(4), pp. 298-314.

Gummesson, E. (2005), Qualitative research in marketing: Road-map for a wilderness of complexity and unpredictability, European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), pp. 309-327.

Ha, Hong-Youl and Helen Perks (2005), Effects of Consumer Perceptions of Brand Experience on the Web: Brand Familiarity, Satisfaction and Brand Trust, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4 (6), pp. 438-52.

Hirschman E.C., Holbrook M.B. (1982), Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions, Journal of Marketing, vol. 46, n. 2, pp. 92-101.

Holbrook M.B., Hirschman E.C. (1982), The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 9, n. 3, pp. 132-140.

Hollebeek, C.R. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2006), Consumer Activism on the Internet: The Role of Anti-brand Communities, Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), pp. 479–85.

Hollebeek, L. D. (2011), Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus, Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), pp. 785-807.

Hollebeek, L. D. (2013), The customer engagement/value interface: an exploratory investigation, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 21(1), pp. 17-24.

Holt, D. B. (1995), How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices, Journal of consumer research, pp. 1-16.

Holt, D. B. (2002), Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding, Journal of consumer research, 29(1), pp. 70-90.

Jacoby J, Chestnut RTW. (1978), Brand loyalty: measurement and management, New York, Ronald Press.

Kamat, Vikram and Ajit Arun Parulekar (2007), Brand Love-the Precursor to Loyalty, in Advertising and Consumer Psychology Conference, New Frontiers in Branding: Attitudes, Attachments, and Relationships, Santa Monica, CA.

Kapferer J-N, Laurent G. (1992), La sensibilité à la marque, Paris, Ed. d’Organisation.

Kapferer, J. N. (1992) Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity, New York, USA, Simon & Schuster Inc.

Kasper, J.D.P. (1988), On problem perception, dissatisfaction and brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, 9, pp. 387-397.

Keh, H.T., Pang, J., Peng, S. (2007), Understanding and Measuring Brand Love, in Priester, Joseph R. (Ed.), Society for Consumer Psychology Conference Proceedings, Santa Monica, pp. 84-88.

Keller K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 29, n. 2, pp. 35-50.

  20  

Kozinets, R. V. (2002), The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities, Journal of marketing research, 39(1), pp. 61-72.

Kozinets, R. V. (2010), Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online, Sage Publications.

Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004), Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), pp. 691-704.

Kozinets, R.V., Sherry, J.F., Jr, Storm, D., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K. and DeBerry-Spence, B. (2004) Ludic Agency and Retail Spectacle, Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), pp. 658–72.

Kraft, F.B., D.H. Granbois and J.O. Summers (1973), Brand evaluation and brand choice: A longitudinal study, Journal of Marketing Research 10, pp. 235-241.

LaBarbera, P.A. and D. Mazursky (1983), A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, pp. 393-404.

Lau, Geok Theng and Sook Han Lee (2000), Consumer’s Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty, Journal of Market Focused Management, 4 (4), pp. 341-70.

London, B., Downey, G., Mace, S. (2007), Psychological theories of educational management: A multi-method approach to studying individual engagement and institutional change, Vanderbilt Law Review, 60 (2), pp. 455-481.

Lovelock C. and Wirtz J. (2007), Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy, 6th Ed, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Lusch R. F. and Vargo S. L. (2006a), The Service- Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, Armonk, New York, M.E. Sharpe.

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2008b), Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (Spring), pp. 1-10.

Lusch, Robert F. and Stephen L. Vargo (2006b), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Reactions, Reflections, and Refinements, Marketing Theory, 6 (3), pp. 281-288.

Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009), The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), pp. 328-344.

Mitussis, D., O'Malley, L., & Patterson, M. (2006), Mapping the re-engagement of CRM with relationship marketing, European journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), pp. 572-589.

Moisander, J., & Valtonen, A. (2006), Qualitative marketing research: A cultural approach, Sage.

Moore, R., Moore, M.L. and Capella, M. (2005), The Impact of Customer-to-Customer Interactions in a High Personal Contact Service Setting, Journal of Services Marketing , 9(7), pp. 482-91.

Muniz Jr, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001), Brand community, Journal of consumer research, 27(4), pp. 412-432.

Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2011), How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-generated content, Business Horizons, 54(3), pp. 209-217.

Norman, R. and Ramírez, R. (1993), Designing interactive strategy: From value chain to value constellation, Harvard Business Review, 71 (4), pp. 65-77.

  21  

Ozanne, J.L. and Murray, J.B. (1995), Uniting Critical-theory and Public-policy to Create the Reflexively Defiant Consumer, American Behavioral Scientist, 38(4), pp. 516– 25.

Peñaloza, L. and Price, L.L. (1993), Consumer Resistance - a Conceptual Overview, Advances in Consumer Research, 20, pp. 123-8.

Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000), Co-Opting Customer Competence, Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), pp. 79-88.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers, Harvard Business Press.

Price, L. L., & Penaloza, L. (1993), Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview, Advances in consumer research, 20(1), pp. 123-128.

Reckwitz, A. (2002), Toward a Theory of Social Practices A development in culturalist theorizing, European Journal of social theory, 5(2), pp. 243-263.

Resciniti R. (2005), Il marketing orientato all’esperienza, in Andreani J.C., Collesei U. (a cura di), Atti del IV Congresso internazionale «Le tendenze del marketing», Parigi, pp. 1-18.

Robert F. Lusch (2004a), Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), pp. 1-17.

Rosenbaum, M.S. and Massiah, C.A. (2007), When Customers Receive Support from Other Customers, Journal of Service Research, 9(3), pp. 257–70.

Saks, A. M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), pp. 600-619.

Samuelsen B, Sandvik K. (1998), Effects of customer state of commitment to service providers, in Proceedings of the 27th EMAC Conference, vol. 1., pp. 345-50.

Sarkar, A. (2011), Romancing with a brand: a conceptual analysis of romantic consumer-brand relationship, Management & Marketing, 6(1).

Sawhney, M. (2006), Going beyond the product. Defining, designing and delivering customer solutions, in R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions (pp. 365-380), Armonk, New York, M.E. Sharpe.

Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009), How brand community practices create value, Journal of Marketing, 73(5), pp. 30-51.

Schmitt B.H. (1999), Experiential Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, 15, pp. 53-67.

Schultz, D. E., & Block, M. P. (2011), Understanding customer brand engagement behaviors in today's interactive marketplace, Micro & Macro Marketing, 20(2), pp. 227-244.

Shimp TA, Madden TJ. (1988), Consumer-object relations: a conceptual framework based analogously on Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, Adv Consum Res, 15, pp. 163-8.

Steinbach, M., Karypis, G., & Kumar, V. (2000), A comparison of document clustering techniques, in KDD workshop on text mining , Vol. 400, No. 1, (August), pp. 525-526.

  22  

Sternberg, R.J. (1986), A Triangular Theory of Love, Psychological Review, 93(2), pp. 119-135.

Stewart, D. W. (1981), The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing research, Journal of Marketing Research, pp. 51-62.

Stokes D. (2000), Entrepreneurial Marketing: A Conceptualisation from qualitative Research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 3, n. 1, pp. 47-54.

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

Toffler, A. (1980), The Third Wave, New York, William Morrow and Company.

Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Chhuon, C. (2010), Co-creating value for luxury brands, Journal of Business Research, 63(11), pp. 1156-1163.

Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.E., Mittal, V., Naβ, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions, Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), pp. 253-266.

Vargo, S. L. (2008), Customer integration and value creation Paradigmatic Traps and Perspectives, Journal of service research, 11(2), pp. 211-215.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of marketing, 68(1), pp. 1-17.

Von Hippel, E. (1986), Lead users: a source of novel product concepts, Management science, 32(7), pp. 791-805.

Von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Voyles, B. (2007), Beyond loyalty: Meeting the challenge of customer engagement, Economist Intelligence Unit, (Accessed January 31, 2010).

Wathieu, L., Brenner, L., Carmon, Z. et al. (2002), Consumer Control and Empowerment: A Primer, Marketing Letters, 13(3), pp. 297–305.

Whang, Y. O., Allen, J., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004), Falling in love with a product: The structure of a romantic consumer-product relationship, Advances in Consumer Research, 31(1), pp. 320-327.

Wikström, S. (1996), The customer as co-producer, European Journal of Marketing, 30(4), pp. 6-19.

Wipperfürth, A. (2005), Brand Hijack: Marketing without Marketing, New York, Portfolio.

Figure 1. Cluster Analysis

  23  

CBE meaning related to the nature of consumer

involvement

Induced

Spontaneus /voluntary Emotional bonding

Brand Love

Brand values and meaning

CBE positioning in marketing literature

Consumer Brand Involvement

Brand experience voluntary

participation

Confusion in brand theory constructs

Rational decision of someone to be engaged