Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships

International Journal of

ELSEVIER

Research in Marketing Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships Susan Fournier *, Julie L. Yao Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field, Boston, MA 02163, USA

Abstract

This paper uses the perspective of interpersonal relationship theory to critically examine, reposition, and extend the notion of brand loyalty. Depth interviews among eight coffee-consuming adults who qualified as brand loyal by traditional criteria provide the data. The result is a deeper appreciation of the character of loyal consumer-brand relations and a sharper awareness of the limitations to understanding that current theoretical frameworks impose. Specifically, the authors suggest that: (1) not all loyal brand relationships are alike, in strength or in character; (2) many brand relationships not identified as 'loyal' according to dominant theoretical conceptions are especially meaningful from the consumer's point of view; and (3) current approaches to classification accept some brand relationships that, upon close scrutiny, do not possess assumed characteristics of 'loyalty' or 'strength' at all. Ideas stemming from a reframing of loyalty as one component in a multifaceted construct of relationship strength are put forth, encouraging a move from the metaphor of 'loyalty' to the broader notion of 'relationships' that encompasses it. © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Brand loyalty; Consumer-brand relationship

1. Introduction

After a long hiatus on brand-building activities, marketers have once again placed the development of consumer brand loyalties at the heart of their business plans (Aaker, 1996; Morris, 1996). The need to understand and leverage consumer-brand bonds has become especially critical in a marketplace characterized by increasing unpredictability, diminishing product differentiation, and heightened competitive pressures (Shocker et al., 1994). As marketing is redefined in relationship terms (Blattberg and Deighton, 1991; Reichheld and Sasser, 1990; Webster, 1992), the need for effective man-

* Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].

agement of consumer brand loyalties becomes paramount once again. It is interesting to juxtapose the centrality of brand loyalty in marketing practice against research activity in the academic discipline. While the construct is over seventy years old (Copeland, 1923), few would disagree that scientific progress in understanding, measuring, and leveraging brand loyalty assets has been lacking. Published research on brand loyalty has slowed to a virtual trickle over the past ten years. Cries for relevant theoretical perspectives that can breathe new life into brand loyalty research have been raised (see, for example, Lehmann and Russo, 1996; Lutz, 1987; Sherry, 1987; the current special issue of the International Journal o f Research in Marketing). The present research responds to this need by providing an account of brand loyalty

0167-8116/97/$17.00 © 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Pll S0167-8116(97)00021-9

452

s. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

that is (a) grounded in the realities of consumer experience, and (b) informed by interpersonal relationship scholarship that has had little prior influence on empirical or theoretical work in the loyalty field. This research addresses the basic question of why and in what sense consumer brand loyalties exist, and in so doing, suggests an alternate, expanded conceptualization of the loyalty notion within the framework of consumer-brand relationality. The framework offers actionable implications for the leverage of consumer-brand bonds in the marketplace in addition to power in stimulating innovative agendas in the brand loyalty research domain.

2. Existing research on brand loyalty Brand loyalty research has undergone much evolution, with three primary philosophical tensions organizing the field over time. The first tension split researchers according to their assumptions regarding the stochastic versus purposive nature of repeat purchase processes. Those interested in modeling aggregate repeat purchase patterns formed one camp (cf. Ehrenberg, 1988), while a second group sought theoretical explanations of loyalty as a biased expression of individual preference (cf. Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). A second dividing line concerned the best way to operationalize the brand loyalty concept. Behaviorist definitions valued for their measurement objectivity were built on proportions or sequences of purchase assumed to reveal underlying brand preference (e.g., Cunningham, 1966; Kahn et al., 1986). As these measures were criticized for their lack of explanatory power (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978), a group recommending attitudinal or hybrid attitudinal/behavioral construct definitions emerged (cf. Day, 1969). A third tension separated researchers according to their primary theoretical and philosophical research orientations. Psychological and anthropological/sociological camps formed, with the latter interested in the meanings and hedonic/emotive aspects of brand loyalty, and the former concerned with the cognitive processes supporting the development of brand attitude strength. This movement toward questions of theory, goals of explanation versus prediction, and diagnostic power over simple description reflects a mounting concern for a concep-

tual framework that can guide not only brand loyalty research, but managerial action as well (Dick and Basu, 1994). Despite these advances, our understanding of the phenomenon of brand loyalty remains lacking. While there is general agreement that brand loyalty refers to a "biased behavioral response expressed over time by some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands" (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978, p. 80), nuances regarding the basic concept of loyalty have not been explicitly articulated nor truly appreciated. Variations of form and shades of meaning with likely significance to researchers and practitioners have been obscured in definitions that are so general as to be non-diagnostic. While this is particularly apparent in revealed preference measures that fail to distinguish thoughtless habits from felt loyalties, random purchases from purposive repertoires, and flagrant disloyalties from situationally-driven brand use patterns, even attitudinal and hybrid measures are lacking. Abstract concepts such as liking or preference are assumed sufficient; no attempt is made to dimensionalize the types or sources of affect that may comprise and distinguish loyalty responses. Though claiming to reveal the 'soft side' of the loyalty phenomenon, attitudinal measures seem somehow 'flat': it is hard to argue that a simple liking score captures the full emotional character implied by the notion of 'loyalty' in the English language. Amplifying these conceptual deficiencies is a tendency to overlook the contextual character of brand loyalty qualified in the basic definition. By ignoring the brand set within which loyalty is expressed, or acknowledging this simply through the availability or unavailability of competing brand alternatives, researchers dismiss the importance of the dynamic interplay among brands within a person's usage portfolio. The uninspired, non-diagnostic, and sometimes conflicting operationalizations of the construct that result are at least partially to blame for the reactions of those who debate either the very existence of brand loyalty in the consumer marketplace or its theoretical significance in the marketing field. Our understanding of the processes governing brand loyalty also suffers significant shortcomings. Though Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) clearly identify brand loyalty as " a function of psychological (deci-

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

sion-making, evaluative) processes exhibited over time", little insight into the process condition has been obtained. Explanations of loyalty formation have been drawn primarily from cognitive psychology, with theories of attitude formation guiding most of the work (Dick and Basu, 1994). Our understanding of the temporal aspects of brand loyalty have been largely afforded in studies of nostalgia and the intergenerational transfer of brand preferences (O1sen, 1993, 1995), or in descriptive inquiries that assess the durability of brand bonds over time (Guest, 1964). In short, our theories and investigations have not fully appreciated the dynamic quality of the brand loyalty phenomenon (Sherry, 1987). Prevalent one-shot measures essentially treat brand loyalty as static in nature. Behavioral measures, while adopting a wider window on construct definition that acknowledges loyalty in temporal perspective, still fail to capture the dynamic, evolutionary character of the phenomenon itself. Much remains to be learned about the temporal processes governing brand loyalty development and the changes in brand loyalties that occur over time. Several factors have perhaps contributed to our lack of advancement on these fronts. First, the theoretical foundations brought to bear on questions of brand loyalty have been limited. As mentioned above, orientations have been overwhelmingly cognitive, with the attitude literature providing most of the fodder. While some contemporary accounts have tried to explain loyalty patterns by drawing upon theories of symbolic interactionism (Solomon, 1986, 1995), cultural anthropology (McCracken, 1993; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995), and consumer socialization (Muniz and O'Guinn, 1995; Olsen, 1993, 1995), these investigations are relatively rare. The lack of attention to interpersonal relationship theories is especially noteworthy given obvious conceptual connections to the notion of 'loyalty' per se. Interestingly, the practitioner world escapes this criticism. Qualitative researchers, especially those who work for advertising agencies and consulting firms, commonly organize their research under a relationship umbrella (Blackston, 1992; Schlueter, 1992). Practitioners are not hesitant to apply relationshiprelevant concepts such as bonding (Cross and Smith, 1995), advocacy (Griffin, 1995), and intimacy (Vavra, 1992). Explicit attention to and development

453

of the relationship-theoretic underpinnings of these metaphorical applications remain limited, however, appearing only in a few selective academic writings dedicated to the task (see, for example, Fournier, 1994 for general applications of relationship theory in the brand domain and Hess, 1995, for adaptation of interpersonal trust and commitment theories to the loyalty domain). The tendency to adopt experimental and modeling approaches to the loyalty problem has also restricted the nature of insights obtained (Sherry, 1987). These methods, while valuable for their predictive capacities, obscure the deep meanings that can enrich construct definitions and theoretical frameworks. Recent qualitative works on consumer-brand interaction (McCracken, 1993; Olsen, 1995; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995) reveal rich phenomenological insights into the nature and process of brand loyalty unavailable through dominant approaches. These studies add consumer relevance to our interpretations of brand loyalty phenomena by highlighting the personal significance consumers invest in the brands to which they pledge their loyalties. They open the mind to dynamic versus static aspects of the loyalty construct, contributing to the actionability of research findings. Moreover, they sensitize the researcher to the importance of context in understanding the nature of loyalty phenomena. Unfortunately, primary insights from these studies have not been explicitly applied to the advancement of brand loyalty theory per se. Second, these meaning-based approaches tend to be decidedly socio-cultural in character. Studies that combine the sociological and the psychological (Sherry, 1995) may provide a level of insight into brand loyalty process and structure not yet revealed. Lastly, we have perhaps unknowingly restricted our learning by the very concept of brand loyalty we assume to be operative in the consumer behavior domain. Three main assumptions implicitly guide our investigations. At best, these assumptions impede our understanding of brand loyalty phenomena; at worst, they preclude scientific advancement through the misleading nature of the construct they imply. The first assumption is revealed in brand loyalty measures that tend to focus on share of purchase requirements as a central defining characteristic. These measures implicitly presume that there

454

s. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

is 'one unit of attachment' to be divided among all brands in the usage portfolio, and that smaller shares of loyalty are somehow less valid from the consumer's point of view. The second but related assumption is that loyalty possesses a 'black and white' quality. Consumers are classified as loyal or disloyal based upon some arbitrary cutoff in purchase-share qualifications. This tendency toward dichotomy not only precludes attention to loyalty levels and types, but also blinds the researcher to the value that may exist in relationships classified as disloyal. Finally, our definitions assume a culturally-biased definition of loyalty that has not been validated in the consumer behavior domain. Our measures and commentaries imply loyalty as fidelity and exclusivity: they assume the consumer's faithful enactment of a promise or pledge to consistently purchase only one brand over time (Ehrenberg, 1988). We assume loyalty is the consequence of a decided choice process among competing brands - - an overt response of commitment driven by the consumer acting as rational being in the optimization of choice alternatives. In its focus on fidelity and commitment, our concept of brand loyalty parallels the cultural ideal of the monogamous marital relationship. As was true with applications of personality trait theories in the consumer behavior realm (Kassarjian, 1971), these assumptions have been levied without concern for the uniqueness of the consumer setting. Whether the notion of loyalty as exclusive committed partnership is relevant in a world of product proliferation, price wars, and hedonic consumption remains questionable at best. We have not yet articulated a definition of loyalty that is valid at the level of today's consumer experience.

3. Statement of study purpose The present research is discovery-oriented in nature (Wells, 1993). It proceeds on the critical observation that we have perhaps prematurely circumscribed the brand loyalty construct and our understanding of it, thereby precluding the accumulation of knowledge into a theory of brand loyalty that is valid at the level of lived experience. The research is intended to address the fact that conceptual deficiencies restrict managerial application of brand loyalty

knowledge - - a significant shortcoming for a theoretical domain with such clear practical implications as this. The present research provides a grounded account of brand loyalty. It asks the fundamental questions of why and in what sense consumer brand loyalties exist. The overall objective is to construct an understanding of brand loyalty that is sensitive not only to an active (Bourdieu, 1984), multifaceted (Kihlstrom and Cantor, 1984), and goal-oriented (Huffman et al., 1996) consumer, but to the context of other brand connections forged within the product category as well. In addressing these questions, a relationship perspective is adopted. This recognizes not only the obvious relevance of relationship concepts to the loyalty domain, but also the framework's explicit consideration of the nuances of meaning, context, and temporality (Hinde, 1995) that remain underappreciated in existing loyalty accounts. This investigation challenges implicit assumptions regarding the nature and significance of brand loyalty in today's culture, and suggests ways of measuring the construct that are more valid and actionable from the point-of-view of contemporary consumer experience.

4. Research design and informant selection The present study explores in detail the loyal brand relationships of eight coffee-consuming adults. The coffee category was purposively selected for the range of brand alternatives it contains, a condition that maximized the breadth of loyalty experiences that could be uncovered for analysis. Additionally, since coffee has been traditionally characterized as a product category with little consumer commitment to brands, the category provides a rigorous challenge for the development of insight into the loyalty phenomenon. Finally, the product class enjoys a rich empirical research history, allowing for comparison of findings and accumulation of insights toward the development of sound brand loyalty theory (Lehmann and Russo, 1996). While attention to a single product category provides a common ground on which the loyalty phenomenon can be examined, it does by definition limit the generalizability of findings obtained. The discovery-oriented goals of the

s. Fournier, J.L. Yao / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

present study put depth of insight above these generalizability concerns. Given our objective of understanding the nature and significance of loyal brand relationships, only informants with identified brand loyalties were recruited for study. Brand loyalty was operationalized using a commonly-accepted attitude-plus-behavior measure: (1) informants described themselves as 'being concerned about which particular brands they used'; (2) they identified one coffee brand that they used more than others as per an allocation-ofpurchases measure; and (3) they stated a strong liking/preference for one brand over others in the repertoire. Informants were purposively selected to span a range of coffee-related behaviors (i.e., category use duration, consumption frequency) and socio-demographics (see Table 1). This strategy was intended to maximize information regarding brand loyalty while allowing for systematic differences in relationship-related behaviors. The informant pool was set at eight in light of accepted disciplinary guidelines for uncovering insight through depth interviewing techniques (McCracken, 1988).

5. The methodology Informant-generated images were used to stimulate and probe people's stories of the brands they use (Zaltman and Higie, 1993). Ten days prior to the interview, informants were asked to collect a set of six or more images that 'described how they feel about coffee,' and another three to four images that 'captured their feelings' toward the pre-identified loyal brand. The recruiter suggested sources for the image material (e.g., magazines, personal photos, product labels, personal tokens) and stressed that images should be selected to allow the researchers to understand what coffee in general and the loyal brand specifically meant to the informant. The interviews were structured into three parts. The first segment was organized around the assembled coffee category images. Image amplification (i.e., 'What story does it tell? Why did you bring it here today?'), identification of central images (i.e., 'Which image best captures how you feel about coffee? Why that?'), and laddering on elicited picture meanings (e.g., 'You say this picture reflects

455

how coffee makes you feel awake. Why is being awake important to you?') were pursued in an effort to elicit the full context of informants' category meanings. The second part of the interview was designed to yield a temporal understanding of the informant's category usage. Here, notable changes in coffee attitudes and behaviors were identified, and triggers prompting those changes over time were specified. The final interview segment, commanding roughly half the interview time, was devoted to an explication of the informants' brand relationships, most notably that with the pre-identified loyal brand. Once again, the images chosen to represent the loyal brand were probed, and temporal specifics of brand relationship evolution examined. Informants compared and contrasted their various brand relationships using card sorts, repertory grid comparisons, and visual mapping exercises dedicated to an explication of the differences in meanings between brands. Personality themes salient to the individual were explored as revealed throughout the course of the discussion. Interviews lasted from 2 to 3.5 hours and were conducted separately by the authors. To compensate for the preparation and interviewing demands of the task, informants received $40-$60 for their participation. Audio tapes were transcribed verbatim and served as the data base.

6. Analytic approach The analysis sought identification of meaningful patterns in the data that would illuminate our understanding of the brand loyalty phenomenon. To inform these interpretations, the authors immersed themselves in two streams of literature (McCracken, 1988). Both analysts were very knowledgeable of prior work on interpersonal relationships, especially as interpreted by Fournier (1994). This includes the study of relationship forms (e.g., Hayes, 1988 on friendship; Kelley et al., 1983 on close partnerships), relationship development and change over time (cf. Levinger, 1983), relationship strength factors (Berscheid et al., 1989) and the affective (e.g., love, attachment), behavioral (e.g., interdependence, commitment) and cognitive (e.g., intimacy) dimensions along which relationships vary (Wish et al., 1976; Wright, 1974). A second literature on life themes

F

M

M

M

F F M

F

Anne

Charles

Frank

Henry

Pamela Sara Tom

Wendy

early 40s

early 30s early 20s early 50s

mid 30s

late 30s

early 30s

early 60s

Age

administrator

administrator student manager

unemployed

service provider

professional

administxator

Occupation

single mother single married, w / children single

single

single

divorced, w / grown children single

Household status

25

15 5 40

20

25

10

45

Years of coffee consumption

2

2-3 2 6

6

4-5

3

1

Cups consumed per day

50%

Star Market gourmet coffee beans, Dunkin' Donuts, Farmer's Brothers, Folgers, kona coffee, Peets, Yubans Coffee Connection Espresso beans, 1369 Coffeehouse, Peet's Expresso, Starbucks Blue Note Blend, Workplace cafeteria Chock Full O'Nuts, Christy's Green Mountain, Folgers, General Foods International Coffee, Hills Brothers, kona bean coffee, Local grocery store, Maxwell House, Various coffeehouses Dunkin' Donuts, Au Bon Pain, Chock Full O'Nuts, Coffee Connection Coffeehouse, Folgers, Starbucks, Various coffeehouses, Gevalia, Green Mountain, Peets Gevalia, Starbucks Espresso Chock Full O' Nuts, Folgers, Hills Brothers, Maxwell House, Starbucks Dunkin' donuts, Brueggers, Folgers,

80%

90% 70% 50%

100%

80%

100%

Preferred brand share usage b

Current brands used a

aBrand in italics is informant's preferred loyal brand. bShare usage based on the question, 'Of the last ten coffee purchases you made, how many were of brand X?'

Sex

Informant

Table 1 Informant characteristics

4~

tm

~a

r~

O~

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

and life projects (Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie, 1979; Huffman et al., 1996) provided a framework within which to understand the personal meanings on which brand relationships were grounded (Hinde, 1981). These literature bases stimulated concepts the authors could apply in summarizing their interpretations of the data, the relationship descriptors representing informed attempts to decipher the different meanings and experiences implied by informants' brand stories within the perspective of interpersonal relationship theory. Descriptive labels were not intended as morphological representations of reality; constructs were chosen from those available in the relationship literature for the analogical powers they were able to bring to bear in describing the experience of consumers' brand relationships. All analyses were exploratory in character, the goal one of advancing, not validating, early-stage research ideas. The data were analyzed by both authors. First, each author independently studied an informant's transcripts, interpreting the holistic meanings contained in the brand stories reported therein and capturing these insights in written memo form. Central to this holistic analysis was the development of descriptive and interpretive informant profiles (Mick and Buhl, 1992; Thompson et al., 1990; Thompson et al., 1994). These within-person analyses tell the story of an informant's interactions with his/her loyal brand within the context of: (1) significant personological/sociological themes and details; (2) coffee category meanings and interactions; and (3) the temporal evolution of brand and category attitudes and behaviors over time. Specific attempts to draw connections between the informants' socio-personological themes and their brand stories were made (Mick and Buhl, 1992). The authors then jointly negotiated their individual interpretations toward a shared understanding of informants' relationships with their brands. Central themes in these negotiated summary profiles were organized through evocative symbolic metaphors capturing the key personal meanings each participant ascribed to their brand experiences (Thompson et al., 1994). This process was conducted first for informants' loyal brands, and then for other brands used in the category. While the authors acknowledge the interviewer's role in drawing interpretations from the data, the credibility of conclusions drawn was supported by multiple sources

457

of information (e.g., pictures, screening surveys, interview transcripts) and the triangulation of that information across interviewers (Erlandson et al., 1993). The analysis generated three central insights into brand loyalty as defined according to traditional attitude-plus-behavior conceptions: (1) not all brand loyal relationships are alike, in strength or in character; (2) some brand relationships not pre-identified as loyal using dominant theoretical conceptions are especially meaningful from the informant's point of view; and (3) current approaches to loyalty accept some brand relationships that, upon close scrutiny, do not possess assumed characteristics of commitment or relationship strength at all. Case stories best illustrating these themes are revealed and discussed below.

7. Theme I: The diverse nature of brand loyal relationships 7.1. Wendy, the case of marital commitment

Of the eight informants interviewed, Wendy's Dunkin' Donuts brand relationship, with its elements of exclusivity and enduring commitment, seems most representative of the 'loyalty standard' implied in the marketing literature. Wendy has been loyal to Dunkin' Donuts since she first started drinking coffee twenty years ago, and the brand is now inextricably entwined in her daily behavioral regimen. Each and every morning at 7:00, Wendy faces the same decision: whether to get in the car and drive to the nearby Dunkin' Donuts store, or to make Dunkin' Donuts coffee from the branded beans she keeps at home. Wendy often grabs a second cup on her drive to work, drinking only half so she can enjoy the other half at her desk before the workday begins in earnest and 'everybody and their brother starts asking her for things'. Sometimes Wendy slips out during the afternoons and walks to the nearby Dunkin' Donuts shop to purchase a cup of 'iced, only iced' coffee. Dunkin' Donuts accompanies Wendy on weekends as well, a characteristic cup always at hand while she does household chores and grocery shopping. "It is a part of my life, no question about that. It's a regular habit", she explains.

458

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

Wendy's long-term preference for the Dunkin' Donuts brand was voiced several times during her interview. She has 'always drunk Dunkin' Donuts' coffee' ("Have I ever n o t bought Dunkin Donuts? Probably not"). Wendy expresses no desire to switch brands or to monitor the environment for better or more convenient alternatives. She openly claims brand fidelity. Her loyal-brand relationship is perhaps best captured with the classic long-term marriage metaphor wherein Dunkin' Donuts is seen as a 'decent,' 'trustworthy' and 'honest partner' (Levinger, 1983). W: I am definitely committed to Dunkin' Donuts. I: What does this commitment to Dunkin' Donuts mean to you? W: Well, it's almost like it's the ultimate brand. You know, like honesty, committed to each other, that you wouldn't really go to another brand. It's a hex. I: So, this commitment, is it like fidelity? W: Yes. It is something you are tied to. You are bound to it, that you have no desire to go anywhere else. I am committed to Dunkin' Donuts. I: What if another coffee shop you liked moved next to Dunkin' Donuts? W: I'd probably stick with Dunkin' Donuts cuz I ' m committed to it. I'd feel bad for them. Here's this new guy coming in and walking on their territory. They say there is nothing like your own bed, well, there's nothing like your own cup of coffee... I won't go anywhere else because I really don't need to. Dunkin' Donuts is good to me. I am good to it. I like the package I have got, why look anywhere else? Like a steady marriage partner, Dunkin' Donuts appears in many aspects of Wendy's life. The brand is an integral part of her social circle. Wendy has a 'whole clan of friends who are Dunkin' Donuts-oriented', including one who calls at 6:30 each morning to say, "well, are you making it today or are we going to the store", and a whole tribe of women that drink Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee "every day at the Cape house we rent for the summer". Wendy admits her brand relationship has a darker side of co-dependency: " I am probably addicted to it. It's something that I have always done. I've been doing it for a long period of time. Dunkin' Donuts would be 10 on a 1 to 10 addiction scale". Wendy even collects

Dunkin' Donuts paraphernalia as tokens of her relationship. She brings to the interview a branded travel mug, a set of ceramic mugs, and a calendar, complete with coupons, that she hangs in her kitchen each year. " I think you can say this brand is a part of my life", she explains. The origin of this deeply-committed relationship perhaps lies in a connection between Wendy's dominant socio-personological life theme of control and the brand's interdependent presence in her life. Wendy is a self-proclaimed 'creature of habit' who "demands order" around her ( " I like nothing better than to get up early on a Saturday and go through the house and have everything spic and span by 8 a.m."). Wendy "compulsively" tries to control her environment and revels in her ability to find a "system for doing everything", a talent that wins her accolades as an administrative assistant at work. Wendy has a highly scripted morning routine, which she deviates from only with regret and emotional difficulty. W: Every morning I splash water on my face, I stick on shorts and a t-shirt, I drive to Dunkin donuts. By that time the newspaper is delivered, I read my paper.., it's a 15 minute thing.., and then I start to make my lunch and by that time my coffee is done...Then I'll make my bed, I'll take a shower, I'll iron my clothes, I get ready to come to work. This morning I didn't do my routine because of the interview. It was not easy .... On Saturdays I go to the store at 7:30 a.m. when no one is there... I go to the cleaners at 9:00 a.m .... I eat out every Thursday night... On Tuesdays we meet at downtown .... When asked for the source of her desires for control and routine, Wendy notes: 1. W: I ' m a very organized person so therefore once I do something, I mean I have a system of doing it. I grew up in a family where there were large numbers of us and we were so disorganized. It's my compulsive behavior to seek order...Everyone around me is really unorganized, and that drives me absolutely crazy...It probably is because everybody else tries to control what I do... I could never get married, never. It would drive me nuts to have someone tell me what to do or how to organize my life. The scripted ritual of her morning Dunkin' Donut's coffee run, the power revealed in her consis-

s. Fournier, J.L. Yao/ lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

tent choice of the Dunkin' Donuts brand over other viable brand candidates, the control revealed in the predictability of the product quality and store experience, and the calming sense of order this imposes on her life collectively help to resolve Wendy's central tension between being in and out-of-control. W: You can sit there, you can drink it, you can relax with it. I come home, I drink the coffee, I look at the newspaper, I make my lunch. It's a routine and I really enjoy it. Wendy is the quintessential committed customer that brand managers most likely envision when they describe a brand loyal user. Wendy openly professes her contract with the brand ( " I am a very brand loyal person"), states her intentions for relationship continuity ( " I intend to stay with this brand torever"), implies singularity in those behaviors ( " I do not see any reason why I would use anything else"), and even conjures up feelings of guilt in the event of violation of her fidelity pledge ( " I would feel so guilty if I cheated"). Interestingly, though, Wendy does not directly express her love for Dunkin' Donuts, an element generally assumed in strong relationships. As with some long-term marriages, Wendy' s passion for the Dunkin' Donuts brand seems to have subsided into comfortable affection. Nevertheless, her 'brand marriage' remains deeply rooted, committed, interdependent, and involved. 7.2. Pamela, the case o f falling in loue

Pamela, a single mom in her early thirties, is "strongly attached" to the Gevalia brand of coffee she has bought for the past five years. In contrast to Wendy who lacked an expressed emotional element in her loyal brand relationship, Pamela's connection with Gevalia is very affectively-laden, perhaps best compared to the notion of 'falling in love' (Aron et al., 1995). She speaks of her coffee as "incredibly enjoyable", "great", and "wonderful"... " I wish I could have gotten a picture of a smiley face to show my enjoyment...It's like the whipped cream on the pie". Every aspect of the brand captures Pamela's praise. She particularly "loves the mail order delivery" and "gets a kick" out of the "pampered feeling" she derives from the brand. Pamela's feelings for the brand are so strong that she has adopted a missionary stance toward the brand, recruiting

459

others to the "Gevalia club" and "spreading the word" about its quality. P: My friend Val recently asked me about the coffee I buy because I gave her a half pound of Gevalia at one point and she brought it home and used it. She loved it too, just as much as I do. Gave some of it to her mother. Her mother said it was the best coffee that she ever had, so now she uses it too. As with Wendy, Pamela's brand partner is inextricably woven into many life spheres. Each weekday morning, she drinks a large mug of Gevalia during her one and one-half hour commute to work. At work, she relies on Gevalia as a relaxing treat complementing a ritualistic cigarette break. Gevalia is a "required prop" enjoyed during many of her social interactions. It "finishes a meal or a Sunday family dinner", "keeps her company when (she) is chatting on the phone", and demonstrates her respect when served to guests. For Pamela, rarity makes the heart grow fonder. Pamela's everyday coffee consumption has waned from ten cups to two on advice from a doctor, rendering an even greater appreciation for her "scarce cups of coffee indulgence". Gevalia holds a special place in Pamela's heart. P: It is special. I love it. It's my Gevalia. I: What's unique about it? What does it do for you that other brands don't? P: Probably a combination of things. It's delivered. That's special. I also like the choices. I mean I love to sit down and look at the catalog that they send and see all the kinds they have... To look at the pretty different things. It all looks so special in the catalog. I just love it. The strong bond Pamela has with the Gevalia brand is at least in part rooted in its personification of 'special qualities' that collectively build Pamela's self-worth and esteem. During the interview, Pamela spoke several times of her need to 'treat' herself and reaffirm the self-respect she has gained despite obstacles of poor health, weight problems, single-parent status, and financial constraints. P: I think when you do something special for yourself like this it is good for you. I mean, you got to like yourself, you got to love yourself, and you got to treat yourself well. If you don't make yourself happy on occasion, you miss a lot. Quite frankly I think that we make ourselves happy, and

460

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao/ Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997)451-472

if you don't, you are going to be an awful person to be around. Similar to personal relationships in which those 'in-love' enjoy increased self-efficacy and selfesteem (Aron et al., 1995), the Gevalia brand reinforces Pamela's self-worth through its identification as a 'high quality, classy' coffee. Gevalia's mailorder-only distribution strategy contributes greatly to these feelings of affordable self-indulgence: "They deliver my coffee to me every six weeks. They automatically charge my AMEX card for it. I don't have to go out and buy coffee. It comes to me! Talk about a treat!" Pamela has even purchased dinnerware through the Gevalia catalog they include with her monthly shipments: "They were really pretty. The dishes are very elegant; they are classy. I just love using them and showing them to my friends. I want to buy some other things they have in the catalogue". As a single parent constantly challenged with work and child responsibilities, Pamela is always searching for ways to rest and recharge for another demanding day. Gevalia connects with her by addressing these current concerns as well. P: (describing her Wednesday night 'coffee connection' club with her three 'good female friends') I think it is the relaxing issue again when you go with a cup of coffee and a cigarette in your hand and you are sitting there completely relaxed surrounded by a bunch of people who care about you. Another treat I guess. I mean, that certainly is a really terrific way to treat yourself good. While Pamela dwells on her passion for Gevalia when discussing the brand, her intentions reveal only a circumscribed commitment to the brand. Unlike Wendy, who would feel guilty using other brands, Pamela is accepting of other brand partners. She is "in love with Gevalia, but not married to it." She is " v e r y happy with Gevalia," however, and "sees no point in changing". Her faithfulness lies in her emotional bond with the brand, and not in formal pledges of fidelity or anticipated future commitments. 7.3. Sara, the case o f the adolescent best friendship

Sara is a 23-year-old Midwesterner who has recently relocated to the East Coast to pursue graduate school. Like others her age, she is preoccupied with

the task of forging a distinct identity: " I want to establish (myself) as an independent adult person who is doing very different things from my farmer family". Sara faces the difficult task of coming to terms with a past that simultaneously attracts and repels her. While she displays evidence of her farm upbringing, with early rising hours, long hair tied simply back, and country images brought to the interview setting, she openly rebels against her roots. Sara sees her roots personified in the 'farmer coffee' she grew up disliking. S: Coffee is something that people where I came from drink ubiquitously but it's this awful, weak, rebrewed farmer coffee. I don't like to drink this scary homegrown Midwestem coffee. I used to serve that stuff every day, day in and day out in the diner where I worked. To every old farmer with his conservative backwards views about the world. I never drank it when I lived there because I thought, oooh, I don't want to be lower middle class and a farmer myself. No, I'm going to school to get an education. Despite this initial aversion to coffee, Sara has become loyal to the Gevalia brand. High-end coffees such as Gevalia are perceived as an expensive habit and Sara enjoys the luxurious sense the brand provides. It is a sense that distances her greatly from her frugal and conservative upbringing. S: I guess luxury, beauty, elegance, all those things are kind of related in my mind. Gevalia coffee had completely opposite connotations, which is why I think I drink it. Gevalia was the complete opposite of the coffee I had experienced as a child. I: Why do you think elegance is important to you? S: I think that it's a big part of separating myself from my family. Gevalia helps Sara reinforce a positive identity at a developmentally crucial time in her life. In addition to leaving the midwestern farm that defines her legacy, Sara has recently declared her sexual orientation as a lesbian. In some sense, the overt self-indulgence implied in the Gevalia brand helps Sara explicitly maintain her sense of self-respect in the face of social challenges to her pronouncement. By being a "good thing", Gevalia reassures Sara's self-worth and supports an open declaration of a contentious identity. Through her brand usage, Sara presents a

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

desired self-image that contrasts sharply with her past while fortifying a tenuous sense of self-esteem. S: I could be saving this money I spend on Gevalia but instead I do this thing which is very obviously for myself, every single day, and so it feels like an indulgence. It's not like brushing your teeth; it's a luxury... I ' m gay. I think in the coming out process that respecting yourself becomes a very important issue because there are so many things indicating that you should not respect yourself. For me, being a woman and being a lesbian and being involved in the whole coming out process, it becomes very important for me to explicitly respect myself and explicitly reinforce that I am a good person and I deserve to be rewarded, that good things should happen to me. Beneath her cries for an independent identity lies a self that embraces the joys of belonging. These benefits are rare to someone who is physically distanced from family and culturally separated by sexual proclamation. In a small but important way, the Gevalia brand helps Sara resolve this struggle as well. It grants Sara sought-after group affiliation, but restricts membership to an 'exclusive club' far removed from the realities of her Midwestern experience. Gevalia allows Sara to enjoy the benefits of being at once both similar and uniquely different. For Sara, Gevalia invokes an 'intellectual' image radically different from the "disdainful, narrowminded, Midwestern image" she previously associated with coffee. The brand satisfies her need "to belong but not blend". With Gevalia, Sara can now openly proclaim herself " a coffee drinker", a label she shunned in her past. Pronouncements of identity, however small, seem especially valuable to Sara at this time in her life. S: I always felt I should drink coffee and stay up all night just like everyone else in school. I: So, you want to belong? S: Right, yeah, yeah. Usually my community of friends is made up of people who all want to be seen as very individualistic and yet, of course, as friends and as a community, you end up doing many similar things. Drinking coffee is associated with being social, being one with friends. I drink Gevalia with somebody that I lived with and who is really among my very, very closest of friends. I really wanted to try it because these other people

461

who I admire and who are very sure that they are individuals and yet who belong to our intellectual community are all really into this good Gevalia coffee. So, I thought, maybe I'll try it too. Sara's bond with Gevalia, first developed through its association with her close friend, goes beyond this initial connection to an independently-experienced closeness with the brand. Sara is maturing with Gevalia, and through the process of intimacy development (Clark and Reis, 1988), exposes her true and honest self in all its glory. With Gevalia, Sara seeks solace from an unforgiving world ( " w h e n I need to be comforted it seems like I drink more Gevalia coffee"). It seems appropriate here to draw an analogy between the adolescent or college friendship and Sara's Gevalia brand bond. In this sense, the brand, like a true best friend, bolsters Sara in her difficult identity tasks, offering unconditional support for all that she is and wants to become. 7.4. C o n c l u s i o n

The three stories relayed above reveal powerful bonds between consumer and brand. At the core of each of these strong relationships is a brand-self connection formed at the deeply-significant level of life themes. Wendy's loyal relationship, with its base of commitment and fidelity, is grounded in the predictability of her brand partner and the sense of order and structure it provides in her life. These virtues allow the Dunkin' Donuts brand to connect with Wendy' s life theme of control versus chaos. Pamela' s loyal relationship, grounded in feelings of love and passion, is rooted in a need for a brand of coffee that 'treats' her well, thus reaffirming a sense of selfesteem challenged by the difficult task of negotiating single parenthood. In this way, the brand connection delivers on a central life theme of marginality versus significance. Sara's loyal relationship with Gevalia, on the other hand, is grounded in feelings of intimacy and personal revelation. Through its strong brand image and 'mail-order club' character, Gevalia delivers on Sara's theme of belonging versus independence. While one might debate the pros and cons of each of these loyal brand relationship styles, each relationship shares a strong and meaningful life theme connection that adds significant value in the consumer's mind. This brand-life theme connection

462

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

proposition (Fournier, 1997) extends our understanding of the factors motivating the formation of brand loyalties beyond the brand-image-congruence theories put forth in the literature (Sirgy, 1982). While sharing a quality of depth and significance, the stories above reveal important consumer-relevant nuances in the character of loyal consumer-brand relationship forms. Wendy's loyalty, with its fidelity, commitment, and exclusivity, seems closest to the marriage metaphor assumed in traditional loyalty definitions. Pamela's loyalty, by comparison, was referenced with the metaphor of 'falling in love' in light of the passion and emotion it contains. Sara's loyalty, a process of shared intimacy development grounded in true understanding between partners, was captured by yet another metaphor: that of best friendship. These variations in character reflect differences in the locus of the relationship, with one grounded in commitment, another in feelings of love, and another in the process of intimacy. Variations in process among previously non-distinguished loyalties will likely operate as well.

8. Theme 2: The hidden value of non-loyal relationships The analysis also provides evidence that brands other than the pre-specified loyal brand add significant meaning to the everyday lives of consumers, a finding that implies premature closure on the field of valuable consumer-brand relationship forms with the loyalty qualification. Our informant Tom, for instance, identified meaningful relationships with not one, but three coffee brands. His pre-identified loyal brand, Chock Full O'Nuts, claimed 50% of his consumption, while Folgers and Maxwell House were each switched-in 20% of the time. Tom describes his multi-brand behavior as driven by the availability of coupons and price deals. Typically we would not consider this as characteristic brand loyal behavior since Tom seems to revolve non-discriminantly among his brands. On close inspection, however, we see that each of his brands is imbued with significant meaning that has been transferred holistically from

the coffee category to the brand, and that no one brand deserves to be singled out for its superior ' value' over another. Coffee is Tom's "favorite addiction". As a busy, hardworking father of five children ( " I lead an unbelievable existence"), Tom places high value on coffee for providing even momentary relief from his harried and hassled life. Coffee is an important prop for e x e c u t i n g his " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y - I r i s h hospitality". It provides the means by which he negotiates a long and stressful work day. T: I drink so much coffee. Every morning, a pot. Coffee gets me through work, the morning meetings. I have coffee at night when entertaining guests. People come to our house every day: the sisters (nuns), the friends, the aunts. You have to have coffee for the company. Irish coffees too, that's a tradition... On vacations, it is simply heaven to sit down on the porch and have a cup of coffee and look at the water with my wife... My daughter the nurse is always after me to stop drinking coffee. She thinks it's bad for me. I tell her to forget it. I just love it too much. I quit cigarettes, but never coffee. Tom feels that strict budgeting ( " m o n e y is tight") is a requisite given this heavy usage pattern. It is this financial constraint that keeps Tom from bonding exclusively to one brand. T: Oh, I like Starbucks, sure! The best coffee I ever had! But there is no way I could use that with the gallons of coffee we consume!...If the coupons are good, Maxwell House, Folgers, Chock Full, I buy the couponed coffee instead. I go broader on coffee choices because of finances. I mean if you can save a dollar, that's 33%! We use a lot of coffee and if the tastes are similar and they fulfill the need and they are enjoyable and you can save a few bucks, then you will do it. While these monetary dictates seem to imply impartiality, Tom stresses that his "in-home coffees have much more meaning" to him than the other brands he sometimes consumes (i.e., Starbucks and Hills Brothers). These brands are nostalgic remembrances from childhood and thus command respect given their familial history. Tom reveals a tendency to nostalgic attachment in other product categories as well ( " I don't buy any tea but Tetley. That's the tea my mother used; it's the only tea my sister used

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

too"), and enjoys the kinship (Allen, 1979) these brand bonds support. By connecting at the level of kinship, a portfolio of brand candidates that at first glance appears a set of interchangeable substitutes is revealed as a family of meaningful partners in the consumer-brand environment. T: My mother always had Folgers. My mother-inlaw always bought Chock Full O'Nuts and Maxwell House. We have been buying these brands ourselves for over thirty years! It's a tradition!...Chock Full O'Nuts, Maxwell House, and Folgers are all deep, intense bonds. Each has an emotional tie...That's pretty special if you think about it...It's like you have to use these brands at some level. You can't help but wonder what your mother and family would think if you used something else. Our informant Frank exhibits a second multi-brand loyalty pattern wherein different brands are adopted for divergent use occasions (Jacoby, 1971). Frank's morning coffee is undeniably Chock Full O' Nuts, his expressed loyal brand, which he has been purchasing for more than twenty years. While he drinks several other brands throughout the day, Chock Full O'Nuts is Frank's 'wake-up, daydream coffee'. Frank's mind is ingrained with Chock Full advertising slogans - an intimate level of understanding that seems to enhance the strong and 'true' bond he feels with the brand. Despite multi-brand usage tendencies, Frank's own belief in his professed loyalty to the brand stands strong. F: Chock is my a.m. coffee. That won't ever change. The ads say 'Chock Full O' Nuts is a heavenly coffee'. Not only is it 'the best kind of coffee millionaires can buy', it's cheap. It is cheaper than most brands, but it's also the best coffee. Always tastes like it's a special blend, not watered down. It's not too strong; it's not too weak. It's my coffee. I am loyal to it. I: So you've been loyal to Chock Full O' Nuts this whole time? F: Oh, yeah. I ' v e always been that way, I ' m brand loyal. If I like something, I'll always buy it. Probably because I have been buying it for so long, I feel there's a connection there for me. It's like I ' m comfortable with it, I know what it's about, I ' m never disappointed with it. It can be the true and steady friend.

463

Frank "requires a different brand of coffee during breaks at work". The Green Mountain coffee sold at the nearby Christy's convenience store is a brand that helps Frank 'cope with stress' on the job. F: I can't necessarily control what's going on around me. At times like that, you just want to go sit someplace, have a cigarette and have a cup of coffee to calm yourself and to relax, to be able to get back to dealing with what you have to deal with, to give yourself a break from all the stress around you so you can actually go back and deal with it again. My afternoon coffee is a way of being able to relax. It's part of my routine for mellowing out when I am stressed. I need to sit back, have my Christy's coffee and relax and let my mind wander. Yet another coffee brand helps Frank create a "comfortable atmosphere" during the evening, be it at a social gathering or at home alone. Hills Brothers Flavored Coffee is Frank's chosen brand for these "special evening moments". F: This is Hills flavored coffee, this is my special time. This (Hills Brothers) is my favorite coffee. This is the closest I could come. A lot of times my cozy special times are when I ' m alone at night. That's when my special coffee comes in, my flavored coffee. You know it's a little treat. It just makes a nice special mood for myself and I want to heighten that and give myself something special. While Frank admits he uses still other brands on occasion, he explicitly states that these three aforementioned brands are the preferred brands within his portfolio. I: It sounds like you've tried other brands like Folgers, Maxwell House. F: Yeah, I sometimes will do that if they are on special and I ' m feeling particularly cheap that week. I get a little variety, but Chock is always there. It's my 'Old Faithful'. Chock and Christy's are my everyday loves. Other coffees are fast but not preferred. The General Foods International Coffee may sometimes take the place of Hills Flavored if I really need a quick cup. But it's only my little cup of Hills Flavored that makes me feel special. To disregard any one of these brands would be to limit the picture of Frank's loyalties in the coffee

464

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao /Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

category. These brand relationships, though segmented and differentially identified (e.g., my "favorite coffee", " m y loyal brand"), are all meaningful. They are analogous in this sense to compartmentalized friendships (Rosencrance, 1986) such as those developed between sailing or drinking buddies. Each of these relationships attains a dominant position within a separate and distinct sphere of friendship behaviors, developing a unique value of its own. A third pattern of valuable 'non-loyal' relationality emerges with another informant, Henry, an unemployed writer/artist in his mid-thirties. Henry is 'loyal' to Dunkin' Donuts coffee, grinding beans daily at home for his involving two-hour coffee ritual. In his interview, Henry reveals several other valuable but infrequently-engaged brand relationships. These relationships are not interchangeable substitutes with one another, nor are they functions of segmented usage occasions. They are complements to the different and possible selves (Cantor and Zirkel, 1990) Henry assumes in the daily negotiation of a multifaceted identity task. Henry's Dunkin' Donuts loyalty can be traced to his embrace of a cultural narrative of an "America from a time long gone". This is a coffee culture filled with 'Hopperesque diners', 'scenes of men drinking black coffee in work lines during the Depression', ' W W I veterans drinking coffee in trenches', and 'working class men taking coffee breaks and drinking from white porcelain coffee mugs'. Henry's initiation to coffee began this way. It is an image Henry feels compelled to embrace as an active member of American society. H: I had my first cup of coffee when I was 15. It was about the same time I got my first job at the record store. If you work, you have coffee, so you can have a coffee break. It is a work related ritual here (in the U.S.). There is a work/coffee-break parallel in American culture. We went to Dunkin' Donuts. People always go to Dunkin' Donuts. It is the classic: Chrome swivel chairs, Wanda the waitress pouting coffee into white porcelain mugs, the mailman relaxing with a cigarette and cup of Joe. The perfect working class diner for the perfect working class coffee break. A second cultural narrative that Henry partakes in is that of the "artistic, bohemian counterculture" epitomized in the local coffeehouses found near and

around Harvard Square. Henry nurtures a portfolio of caf6 brands to support multiple executions of his identity theme along these lines. H: The coffee culture is all these people 'in the know' who are educated or learned about coffee. The ideal coffee culture would be with artists sitting around in a caf6 and drawing pictures on the table cloth and playing chess. I picture myself with Gertrude Stein, Picasso, Matisse. They led such wonderful lives and coffee was a big part of them. I am having a drink of coffee with them, probably talking art. H: (speaking of a caf6 he recently discovered) You expect to see somebody with sunglasses playing bongos in the corner with some mad lesbian screaming poetry. People come there and do sculptures. It just attracts that sort of counterculture people. It is even down in a basement! It's really neat; the walls are paper mache. They have a Seattle type of process there for coffee-making called Americano. I ' m really fond of the caf~. It's unique. There's another one I go to that is different from that; more a 1990s style counterculture. Yeah, I definitely pick places to get a certain kind of cultural atmosphere. If a place loses this "unique cultural atmosphere", it is quickly severed from Henry's brand portfolio. Such was the fate of Henry's relationship with Coffee Connection, a local coffee house where one "could go in and order a cup of Sumatra or Mocha Matari, talk about coffee with friends who worked there, and just watch the people". The place had an individuality to it, which Henry endeavored to support through regular visits. These bonds were broken when Coffee Connection "lost its independent, artistic flavor in a buy-out", even though the quality of the coffee served was strictly maintained. H: I don't like how Coffee Connection started to go mass production. There was a time where it was the preferred place to go and then I had feelings of 'I didn't want to go there anymore' when they changed. They started to spread everywhere after they were sold. I didn't like it. I knew the guy Peter who did all the interior woodwork there. They gutted all that beautiful woodwork and that is when they sort of lost my following if you will. It just made me so mad .... They still make a great cup of coffee.

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472 8.1. C o n c l u s i o n

The scope of current brand loyalty definitions excludes valuable consumer-brand relationships in each of the cases mentioned above. While Maxwell House and Folgers serve very significant roles in T o m ' s portfolio, these brands are discounted in a measurement process that emphasizes share-of-use over the strength and character of the brand relationship form. Similarly, Frank's significant affiliations with Hills Brothers and Christy's go unnoticed under a loyalty conception that focuses on usage quantity over the provision or richness of meaning. Finally, while Henry's numerous coffee culture relationships are uniquely meaningful to him, their importance is hidden in inquiries focused on consumption of his most frequent brand. Many of these ancillary relationships encompass category meanings that are not delivered by the designated 'loyal' brand. The significance of secondary relationships is realized only in the context of the informant' s entire brand repertoire, when a criterion of consumer relevance is levied in place of qualifications for behavioral frequency or exclusivity of use.

9. Theme 3: The deceptive character of existing brand loyalty definitions In all the cases described so far, our informants have transferred the meanings they ascribe to the coffee category to particular brand examplars. This meaning transfer process (McCracken, 1986) seems critical in creating meaningful brand bonds. For our final two informants Charles and Anne, however, the locus of meaning lies not in specific brands per se. Instead, the rich relationships these informants have developed remain at the level of the coffee preparation process or product form. For informants like Charles and Anne who lack a core of meaning around which to establish the consumer-brand bond, it is difficult to argue that valuable brand relationships of any type - - loyalty or not aside - - truly exist. Charles, a successful unmarried professional in his early thirties, has no financial limits on his choice of coffee brands, and consequently no bounds on his preferences. Despite his ability to afford " a real

465

brand love", Charles reveals a lack of brand-focused behavior. Instead, he demonstrates a rich, meaningful relationship rooted in a coffee type and process: namely, that of espresso. Charles expresses more interest in his coffee equipment than in the brand he uses in this machine. C: Espresso is the ultimate. I have tried other ways in which people make coffee over the years and I like this the best. It's a richer taste, a stronger taste. I think part of it is the process which extracts much of the coffee flavor in such a short amount of time, and part of it is the bean, which is deeper and more robust. I own three machines: two at home and one at work. I upgraded. I think the cheaper machines have different kinds of methods for how the water goes through. They don't do quite as good a job... Part of the relationship here is not just the consumption of the coffee, but this whole ritual of actually making the coffee...Each morning I tamp the grounds down, put it in, slide it in, turn on the machine, and wait with anticipation for my espresso. While Charles professes a loyalty to Coffee Connection beans in the telephone screening ( " I have bought coffee from Coffee Connection for two years now. I ' m a loyal customer. I am brand loyal"), during the interview he musters only a descriptive and functional articulation of his loyal brand: " I t ' s convenient. The shop has good coffee. It's relatively easy to get there and offers good quality". When probed about the actual relationship he has with the brand, Charles offers the following: I: So all you've got in your brand portfolio is Coffee Connection, right? C: Right. (He points to images he has brought to the interview) Coffee Connection is the bean man picture. It's also the espresso machine picture. I: Is Coffee Connection the embodiment of your ideal? C: It doesn't have to be. It just happens to be. I don't fixate on particular brands. In general, I mean. I really do not care about whether this is Coffee Connection or not. It is just good espresso. In the end, a good process can overcome limitations in any bean. In this sense, Coffee Connection has no particular meaning apart from its role as an "enjoyable" and "habitual" ingredient in the espresso-making pro-

466

s. Fournier, J.L. Yao / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

cess. While Charles values coffee for how it makes his " b o d y feel alive", contributes to a "hip lifestyle", and complements solitary activities like reading, it is espresso bean coffee and not the Coffee Connection brand that captures and holds his attention. So, too, is Anne's professed loyalty to a local supermarket's branded coffee beans grounded in the chosen coffee form (beans) over the brand. Anne's 'loyalty' to Star Market is especially tenuous, qualified by a virtual litany of circumstances constraining her purchase intentions. I: Does the Star brand enter into this at all? A: Not really. The beans just happen to be sold at my local store at a good price. It is the variety of the beans themselves really...(Buying it) depends upon whether I am close to a coffee store; whether I remember to buy beans; whether I am out of coffee; whether it is on sale; whether I am in the mood. I really don't care which it is. In the end, Anne's relationship promise to Star market is a shallow compromise: " I will be there for you if everything works out all right". This trivial brand relationship differs from the strong, affective one Anne has with Farmer's coffee, her self-declared favorite brand, which is only served at restaurants on the West Coast. Anne expresses a long-standing wish for Farmer's brand coffee: " I t ' s the brand I want the most, but it is just not available to make that desire a reality". The Star Market brand connection also contrasts sharply with a 25-year exclusive brand relationship Anne previously maintained with the Yuban brand. Yuban offered Anne stability and security during a " v e r y repetitious lifestyle period" when she was "young, married, and raising kids, and needed everything she possibly could find to bolt (her) down during a marriage that was itself very volatile". A: I am brand-specific over periods of time. There were years and years and years where I just did ¥uban and nothing else. I, out of habit, would reach for the same color can, the same image. Yuban was an upscale coffee, so I figured I was doing the maximum well-being by going for a higher-rated coffee. My distant memory of Yuban is listening to my mother-in-law's advice, I think, about 'the best coffee'. I think I ' d linked the brand to whether I wanted to be a good wife. If I wanted

that, I would give my husband Yuban. It was one of those dumb things: you just didn't give your family and friends garbage to drink, you gave them the best you could afford to give. Yuban was my way of saying " I think highly of you; I am a good wife". I fell for that story for some time. Star gourmet beans entered Anne's repertoire after a mid-life divorce that compelled her to " j a m (her) old habit patterns" and accede to "significant life changes". I: Why do you think you changed to gourmet coffee beans just then? A: Because I was going through a sense of deprivation. I had quit smoking. My last child was out of the house. I lived alone. I had gained an enormous amount of weight. I had lost my source of income. I was really desperate. I didn't know where I was going to go next. I was absolutely and utterly confused. I realized I was recycling all my same old patterns and thinking over and over again and getting absolutely nowhere. I had to get off this cycle that was going nowhere. I: And gourmet coffee was part of this big life change? A: Sure. Gourmet coffee beans are all about creativity. You won't find me going to the generic section anymore and just buying plain old coffee because it doesn't have enough schmaltz with it. I buy gourmet beans from the grocery store now because I can put them in the bag and mix them up and get a lot of variety. That's all part of the creative process. It's like I am saying: " I ' m making my own coffee selection here". My being able to choose within a range of fine coffee beans is important to me. I want to come up with my own magical flavors. I get to choose what I want now, which varies with my particular mood. In this sense, Anne's overall connection to Star coffee beans and to the Yuban brand before them stems from a personal life theme that negotiates chaos and order. It is a theme that sways between its poles as a function of life stage and life tasks. The newly-divorced, mid-life crisis Anne has a wish to offset boredom with variety. Yuban, in contrast, provided order and stability during a time where Anne was using all sorts of devices as anchors. Anne now fuels her neglected creative side with the variety provided in gourmet coffee beans. Ironically, then, it

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

is Anne's current life theme manifestation at the chaos pole that discourages the formation of brand loyalties, leaving her to declare herself as 'utterly faithless when it comes to brands'.

9.1. Conclusion At minimum, these examples lead one to challenge the definition of 'brand' as traditionally levied in the study of loyalties, and to entertain the consideration of loyalties at different levels of abstraction, as with product form, process, or type (Gordon, 1994). But, the implications of our findings are more significant than this. That Charles and Anne fail to ground their category meanings to any particular brand causes one to question the very existence of the brand loyalties assumed under traditional screening criteria. Without a stable core of meaning, Charles' loyalty to Coffee Connection emerges as no more than an emotionless, comfortable habit that lies fragile in the face of situational pressures. Anne's 'pledge' to the Star Market brand is at best a contingent 'loyalty' requiring favorable conditions for its expression. Whether structural commitments, blind habits, or convenient repeat purchase behaviors qualify as true expressions of loyalty in the consumer domain is an important debate that current conceptions fail to recognize.

10. Discussion The analyses reported above suggest that loyalty evokes such a range of meanings and individualized interpretations in the people who enact it that collective categorization of 'brand loyal relations' is rendered misleading at best. Even within a group demonstrating strong brand bonds, important nuances in the character (e.g., marriage, adolescent friendships, compartmentalized buddies, habits), depth (i.e., brand-life theme connection versus not), locus (i.e., brand versus category versus process), and consequences (e.g., exclusivity of behaviors, missionary zeal) of loyalty are found. These nuances are highly significant in that the various loyalty forms are likely governed by different process mechanisms that will require specially tailored marketing actions for their cultivation and management over time.

467

Consumer's loyalty stories also make salient the boundaries imposed by our culturally-biased assumption of loyalty as exclusive partnership. Wendy was the only participant in the study that even implied exclusivity in her loyalty. Tom and Frank felt no need to allocate brand usage occasions disproportionately to one brand. Even those that did claim brand 'favorites' saw no harm in occasional or regular brand diversions as long as the preferred brand maintained a regular and meaningful place in the person's life. As with people, expressions of loyalty need not be associated with exclusivity, but with emotional tenor and sincerity of intentions over time. Consumer's stories also call into question the assumption that loyal brand relations be engaged with the expectation for eternal connection. Brand loyalties in the present study were seen to fall between consumers and their brands as they often do between friends and partners, however well-intentioned the unions. Henry's lapsed loyalty to Coffee Connection was clearly explained in light of his displeasure with changes in the character of his 'brand partner'. Similarly, Anne's parting with Yuban can be explained by changes in personal lifestyles and identities that no longer accommodated the images of an old brand partner. Meaning transfer is a continually-evolving process that can be destabilized by changes in either relationship partner. In accepting the power of both brand and consumer to affect the relationship, loyakty is better appreciated as a dynamic phenomenon. In this way a clearer understanding is gained as to the causes precipitating brand switching or the maintenance of strong consumer-brand bonds over time. A consumer-based conception of loyalty that recognizes multi-brand relationality and the delicacy of even the strongest of consumer-brand bonds seems more aligned with both the realities of today's variety-filled marketplace, and the multifaceted nature of the postmodern consumer (Firat and Venkatesh, 1995). With a meaning based perspective, we are best able to address the contextual, temporal, and evolutionary aspects of a person's brand choices. This perspective seems to offer a more meaningful lens through which to view the lived experience of brand loyalty phenomena than that which has typically been applied. If our intention in measuring brand loyalty is to

468

s. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

single out those relationships that are strong and potentially enduring, why not move to a construct that is more sensitive to the many factors that contribute to that strength and endurance over time? The multi-faceted brand relationship quality (BRQ) construct of Fournier (1994) suggests six dimensions of emotional, behavioral and cognitive connection bey o n d loyalty/commitment along which consumerbrand relationships vary: self-concept connection, nostalgic attachment, behavioral interdependence, love, intimacy, and partner quality. Table 2 offers summary relationship quality 'profiles' for informants' loyal and other brands, as derived by the researchers' negotiated qualitative interpretations of each brand's facet-by-facet performance. These profiles are intended to suggest the types of diagnostic insight into the consumer-brand relationship that are not provided through existing loyalty conceptions. As the illustrative analysis suggests, pre-identified loyal brand relations look dramatically different from one another when viewed within this framework. As suggested above, different relationships claim different centers of gravity: Wendy's Dunkin' Donuts relationship is anchored in commitment while others are centered in self-concept attachment (Sara) or nostalgic connection (Tom). Some relationship profiles (Wendy) reflect high performance across several facets, thus approximating the marital ideal. Other relationships have profiles reminiscent of relationship forms such as casual or circumscribed buddies (e.g., Frank and Folgers) or best friends (Sara). Importantly, the BRQ profiles highlight valuable consumer-brand relationships that would be ignored under the loyal/not loyal dichotomy (e.g., Frank's relationship with Hills Brothers; Tom's with Folgers and Maxwell House). Sometimes, the relationship profiles for so-called secondary brands s u r p a s s those of loyal relations on certain dimensions (e.g., Anne's Farmer's Brothers Coffee, a brand she 'loves' more than her habitual coffee brand). While proper quantification is required to execute this task formally, delineation of the variance in relationship strength along BRQ dimensions can provide managers with sharper diagnostic tools with which to manage the assets resident in their brands. These observations suggest value in expanding our vision beyond brand loyal connections to the entire field of rich and meaningful relationships con-

sumers form with the brands they know and use. A rationale can be surfaced for why all meaningful and personally-vested consumer-brand relationships can be of interest to the marketer, and, importantly, how each should be managed differently according to the unique qualities of the brand-consumer bond. A shift from a share-based loyalty framework to a meaning-based relationship perspective grants the richness, sensitivity, and consumer-relevance that has been lacking in brand loyalty analyses from previous years.

11. Concluding thoughts The relationship perspective has been proposed as one useful approach to the conceptualization and measurement of the brand loyalty notion. Of course, the thoughts offered here must be considered in light of the context-bound exploratory study in which they were generated. The findings originate from a restricted pool of loyal informants and apply only to a single product category. As with other interpretive works in which the analyst attempts a deep, clinical understanding of informants' life worlds, (cf. Fournier, 1997; Mick and Buhl, 1992; Thompson et al., 1990), the role of the researcher has not been minor. Clearly, additional interpretations are available through alternate theoretical frameworks within and beyond the relationship paradigm or through different researchers in the analyst role. The relationship paradigm has not been rigorously tested against alternative theoretical frameworks for its comparative advantage, nor has the predictive validity of the findings presented here been established. Trustworthiness, credibility and usefulness of the interpretations offered are the only criteria that should be levied here. The tasks of validation and generalizability are left to future research where appropriate tools and designs can be applied. The ideas suggested here have application beyond improved measurement and tracking of brand loyalties in the marketplace. A move to the broader relationship metaphor can provide managers with richer information on which to conduct situation analyses and market segmentation studies. With further thought, form-sensitive strategic frameworks for relationship development, enhancement, and repara-

Brueggers

Dunkin' Donuts

Folgers

Chock Full O' Nuts

Starbucks

Gevalia

Peet' s

Gevalia

Coffee Connection

Dunkin' Donuts

Hills Brothers Flavored

Chock Full O' Nuts

1369 Coffeehouse

Coffee Connection

Farmer's Brothers

Star Market coffee beans

low low low

low low high high

medium high low low high high low medium high low high medium medium medium high low

medium-high high high low high high medium medium high low high low low high high high high high low

low

medium medium low low medium high medium high high high high low high low medium high medium high high low

medium low medium low high medium high low high low medium low high high high low

low medium low low low low high medium low low medium low high high medium low

medium medium medium medium medium high medium high medium low medium high low medium medium medium high medium high high very low

medium medium medium medium medium medium high medium high low high medium medium medium high low

interdependence passion/love partner quality intimacy

loyalty/commitment self-concept connection b nostalgic attachment

Brand relationship quality facets

aBrand in italic is informant's preferred loyal brand. b Self-concept connection considers the strength or intensity of connection, as well as level at which connection is made (i.e., life theme, life task, current concern).

Wendy

Tom

Sara

Pamela

Henry

Frank

Charles

Anne

Informant Brand a

Table 2 Loyal brand and 'other' brand relationship profiles

4~

4:*

I

xt~

t~

470

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / lntern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472

tion can be articulated. By broadening the scope of consumer's relationships with brands beyond loyal engagements, practitioners and academicians can expand their view of valuable customer-brand interactions, developing an appreciation of consumer heterogeneity rather than a tendency to ignore or simplify it. That the relationship perspective has been shown to yield insight in a category as mundane and fragmented as coffee should provide encouragement to practitioners and researchers as they go forward in these tasks. While advertisers and consultants have long used the vocabulary of relationality in their work, they have paid little explicit attention to the theoretical underpinnings of the metaphors they bring to bear. This lack of conceptual rigor has limited theory development and extension, and restricted the creativity with which relationship ideas have been applied. Many advertisers, in fact, consider the relationship metaphor only in the person-to-person context, not extending it to the person-to-brand. The much acclaimed Taster's Choice/Nescafe TV soap opera campaign, for example, focuses on personal relationships discussed over a cup of coffee, not on the relationship the consumer forms with the brand per se. Advertisements also reveal the implicit belief that brands must somehow be enlivened - - either through animated brand characters or the use of celebrity spokespersons - - for relationship analogues to apply. These somewhat blatant and fiatfooted applications of relationship-inspired thinking do not exhaust the possibilities available in the brand advertising domain. A formal consideration of the consumer-brand relationship forms developed here - - from Sara's best friendship to T o m ' s kinships - promises to inform and enrich relationship executions in more meaningful and relevant ways. Academics have long debated the vitality of the brand loyalty construct, their suspicions seemingly validated on Marlboro Friday as fatalistic pricing actions sealed the death of consumer brands. The present study provides evidence that brands can be very much a part of contemporary consumer experience, and suggests that it is perhaps our operational measures and culturally-bound definitions of loyalty that decry the value of the brand. Let us be bold enough to drop the 'brand loyalty' term in light of its imprecision, lack of clarity, and scope limitations,

replacing it with the broader and more relevant relationship framework that encompasses it. By turning our attention to how we can affect and protect meaningful consumer-brand bonds in the marketplace, we can begin to move away from the loyalty quagmire that has stymied us for so long.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Don Lehmann and the participants of 'Another Cup of Coffee: the View from Different Frames' for the 1995 ACR conference session that motivated this research, Jerry Zaltman for his guidance on research methodology, the five reviewers for their many helpful suggestions, the two special session editors for assembling this volume, and the eight informants of this study, without whom this research would not have been possible.

References Aaker, D.A., 1996. Building strong brands. Free Press, New York. Allen, G., 1979. A sociology of friendship and kinship. Allen and Unwin, Edison, New Jersey. Aron, A., Paris, M., Aron, E., 1995. Falling in love: prospective studies if self-concept change. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, 1102-1112. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., Omoto, A.M., 1989. Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptualizing and measuring closeness. In: C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, Volume 10. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 63-91. Blackston, M., 1992. Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand's relationships. Journal of Advertising Research, 79-83. Blattberg, R.C., Deighton, J., 1991. Interactive marketing: exploiting the age of addressability. Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 5-14. Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Cantor, N., Zirkel, S., 1990. Personality, cognition, and purposive behavior. In: Pervin, L. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: theory and research. Guilford, New York, pp. 135-164. Clark, M.S., Reis, H.T., 1988. Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology 39, 609-672. Copeland, M.T., 1923. Relation of consumer's buying habits to marketing methods. Harvard Business Review 1,282-289. Cross, R., Smith, J., 1995. Customer Bonding. NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Beattie, O.V., 1979. Life themes: a theoretical and empirical exploration of their origins and effects. Journal of Psychology 19, 45-63.

S. Fournier, J.L Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997) 451-472 Cunningham, S.M., 1966. Brand loyalty - - what, where, how much?. Harvard Business Review 34, 116-128. Day, G.S., 1969. A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research 9, 29-35. Dick, A.S., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22, 99-113. Ehrenberg, A.S.C., 1988. Repeat buying: facts, theory and applications. Oxford University Press, New York. Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., Allen, S.D., 1993. Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods. Sage, Newbury Park. Firat, A.F., Venkatesh, A., 1995. Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 22, 239-267. Fournier, S., 1994. A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategic brand management. Dissertation at the University of Florida. Fournier, S., 1997. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming. Gordon, W., 1994. Taking brand repertoires seriously. Journal of Brand Management 2, 25-30. Griffin, J., 1995. Customer loyalty. Lexington Books, New York. Guest, L.P., 1964. Brand loyalty revisited: a twenty-year report. Journal of Applied Psychology 48, 93-97. Hayes, R., 1988. Friendship. In: Duck, S. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research, interventions. Wiley, Chichester, New York, pp. 391-408. Hess, J.S., 1995. Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust. In: Stern, B., Zinkhan, G. (Eds.), Proc. AMA Educator's Conf. 6. Chicago, IL, pp. 20-26. Hinde, R.A., 1981. The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships. In: Duck, S., Gilmour, R. (Eds.), Personal relationships 1: studying personal relationships. Academic Press, London, pp. 1-22. Hinde, R.A., 1995. A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships 2, 1-15. Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D.G., 1996. An integrative framework of consumer goals: concepts, relations, and goal determination processes. Working Paper. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Jacoby, J., 1971. A model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research 11, 25-30. Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W., 1978. Brand loyalty: measurement and management. Wiley, Chichester, New York. Kahn, B.E., Kalwani, M.U., Morrison, D.G., 1986. Measuring variety seeking and reinforcement behaviors using panel data. Journal of Marketing Research 23, 89-100. Kassarjian, H.H., 1971. Personality and consumer behavior: a review. Journal of Marketing Research 8, 409-418. Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, A., Peterson, D., 1983. Close relationships. Freeman, New York. Kihlstrom, J., Cantor, N., 1984. Mental representations of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 17, 1-47. Lehmann, D.R.. Russo, J.E., 1996. Another cup of coffee: the

471

view from different frames. In: Corfman, K., Lynch, J. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research 23. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, p. 309. Levinger, G., 1983. Development and change. In: Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., Peterson, D. (Eds.), Close relationships. Freeman, New York, pp. 315-359. Lutz, R.J., 1987. Multidisciplinary perspectives on brand loyalty. Session chaired at the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Boston, MA. McCracken, G., 1986. Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 71-83. McCracken, G., 1988. The long interview. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. McCracken, G., 1993. The value of the brand: an anthropological perspective. In: Aaker, D., Biel, A. (Eds.), Brand equity and advertising. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 125-139. Mick, D.G., Buhl, K., 1992. A meaning-based model of advertising experiences. Journal of Consumer Research 19, 317-338. Morris, E., The brand's the thing. Fortune, March 4, 1996, pp. 34-36. Muniz, A., O'Guinn, T.C., 1995. Brand community and the sociology of brands. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Minneapolis, MN. Olsen, B., 1993. Brand loyalty and lineage: exploring new dimensions for research. In: McAlister, L., Rothschild, M. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research 20, 575-579. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. Olsen, B., 1995. Brand loyalty and consumption patterns. In: Sherry, J.F. (Ed.), Contemporary marketing, and consumer behavior: an anthropological sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 245-281. Reichheld, F., Sasser, E., 1990. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review 68, 105-111. Rosencrance, J., 1986. Racetrack buddy relations: compartmentalized and satisfying. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 3, 441-456. Schlueter, S., 1992. Get to the essence of a brand relationship. Marketing News 20, 4. Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H., 1995. Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 22, 43-61. Sherry, J.F., 1987. Cereal monogamy: brand loyalty as secular ritual in consumer culture. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Boston, MA. Sherry, J.F., 1995. Anthropology of marketing and consumption: retrospect and prospect. In: Sherry, J.F. (Ed.), Contemporary marketing and consumer behavior: an anthropological sourcebook, pp. 435-445. Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K., Ruekert, R.W., 1994. Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research 31, 149-158. Sirgy, J., 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research 9, 287-300.

472

S. Fournier, J.L. Yao / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 14 (1997)451-472

Solomon, M.R., 1986. Deep-seated materialism: the case of Levi's 501 jeans. In: Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research 13, 619-622. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. Solomon, M.R., 1995. Status, symbols, impression management, and success. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Minneapolis, MN. Thompson, C., Locander, W., Pollio, H., 1990. The lived meaning of free choice: an existential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary married women. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 346-361. Thompson, C., Pollio, H., Locander, W., 1994. The spoken and the unspoken: a hermeneutic approach to understanding the cultural viewpoints that underlie consumers' expressed meanings. Journal of Consumer Research 21,432-452.

Vavra, T., 1992. After-marketing. Richard D. Irwin, New York. Webster, F.E., 1992. The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing 56, 1-17. Wells, W.D., 1993. Discovery-oriented consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 19, 489-504. Wish, M., Deutsch, M., Kaplan, S.J., 1976. Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33, 409-420. Wright, P.H., 1974. The delineation and measurement of some key variables in the study of friendship. Representative Research in Social Psychology 5, 93-96. Zaltman, G., Higie, R., 1993. Seeing the voice of the customer: the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique. Rep. No. 93-114. Marketing Science Institute, Boston, MA.