CONSUMER BRAND RELATIONSHIPS: AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO
ALTERNATIVE MODELS
Einar Breivik and Helge Thorbjørnsen, Norwegian School of Economics
Published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008), Vol. 36(4).
DOI 10.1007/s11747-008-0115-z
Abstract
Many studies have proposed the use of the relationship metaphor to enhance the
understanding of the relationship between consumers and brands. However, few studies have
empirically tested consumer-brand relationship models. In this paper, the authors argue that the
success of developing empirical models of consumer-brand relationships depends on the
adequacy of the metaphoric transfer. The authors compare two models of consumer-brand
relationships-the brand relationship quality (BRQ) model and the relationship investment (RI)
model on the basis of empirical fit and model interpretation. They modify both models to better
accommodate less involving relationships and test them in two studies. The findings suggest that
the modified RI model offers a straightforward interpretation of consumer–brand relationships
that vary in intensity. The results from the BRQ model are less clear, though further refinements
of the model demonstrates the increased potential of the BRQ model compared with traditional
attitude models to explain relationships between consumers and brands.
Keywords: Consumer-brand relationships, metaphoric transfer, model comparison, habit
persistence
2
The metaphor of human relationships has long inspired research on marketing
relationships and, more recently, research on consumer-brand relationships (Blackston 1992;
Fournier 1998). Metaphors create meaning through the understanding of one phenomenon by
means of another in a way that encourages discovery of what is common (Morgan 1983); thus,
the consumer–brand relationship in itself suggests that there are relationship qualities between
consumers and brands. The transfer of the human relationship metaphor to a consumer-brand
setting represents a one-sided metaphor transfer in that the new perspective represents an
extension of the source category (i.e., marriage) to a new domain (consumer-brand relationship)
(Faconnier and Turner 1998). The human relationship metaphor of marriage functions as the
source input and provides structure and content for the understanding of consumer-brand
relationships. The mapping of these two domains may link prototypical elements such as
partners, commitment, interdependency, love, and common dwellings. To the extent that this
mapping provides new and useful meanings, the metaphoric transfer should prove successful and
thus should be considered a fertile tool in theory development (Hunt and Menon 1995) and for
generating new ideas (Seijts and Latham 2003).
The relationship metaphor is proposed to enhance the understanding of brand loyalty and
facilitates in-depth knowledge about consumers’ needs, thus assisting firms in developing better
products and improving marketing activities (Monga 2002). Furthermore, a brand relationship
perspective may enhance the understanding of the roles of brands in consumers’ lives. For
example, brands may play a significant role in people’s lives by serving as an important vehicle
to communicate and share with others through self-presentation (Aaker 1999; Swaminathan,
Page, and Gürhan-Canlie 2007) and participation in brand communities (O'Guinn and Muniz
2001). Furthermore, brand love modifies the influence of attitude strength on loyalty (Batra,
3
Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2008). The richness of a brand relationship perspective provides researchers
with increased opportunities to conceptualize and investigate ties between consumers and brands.
Although several studies have used a quantitative approach (e.g., Aaker, Fournier, and
Brasel 2004; Kaltcheva and Weitz 1999; Monga 2002; Park and Kim 2001), the dominant
approach to the exploration of consumer–brand relationships has been through descriptive and
interpretative depth interviews (Fournier 1998; Ji 2002; Kates 2000; Olson 1999). This research
focus varies from that of transferring specific dimensions of relationships, such as brand love
(Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Pawle and Cooper 2006) and intimacy (Stern 1997), to the consumer-
brand setting to that of developing comprehensive models of consumer-brand relationships
(Fournier 1998; Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2007).
The purpose of this study is to assess the metaphoric transfer of the human relationship
metaphor to the consumer-brand context and the implications of this transfer with regard to
empirical testing. In particular, we examine and compare two consumer-brand relationship
models- namely, the brand relationship quality (BRQ) model (Fournier 1998) and the relationship
investment (RI) model (Rusbult 1980a). The reasons for choosing these two specific models are
as follows: First, the two models share a similar background in that they are both based on
theories on close relationships found in social psychology. Therefore, the models are comparable
in the sense that they adopt concepts from the same source domain.
Second, the BRQ and RI models are probably the most frequently applied relationship
models in empirical brand management research. The BRQ-model has been used for
investigating brand extension success (Park and Kim 2001), online brand relationships
(Thorbjørnsen et al. 2002), and gender differences in brand relationships (Monga 2002); it has
also been applied and tested in the contexts of consumer brands (Smit, Bronner, and Tolboom
2007), restaurant brands (Ekinci, Yoon, and Oppewal 2004), and coffee chain stores (Chang and
4
Chieng 2006). Similarly, the RI model has been used for investigating consumer brands (Geyer,
Dotson, and King 1991; Sung and Campbell 2007) and online settings, for predicting brand Web
site usage (Li, Brown, and Wetherbe 2006) and for explaining effects of mobile services
(Nysveen et al. 2005). Moreover, Sung and Campbell (2007) explicitly tested the applicability of
using the RI model in brand settings through both survey based, and experimental research
approaches. They argued that the study results provide strong support for the RI model in
predicting consumer-brand relationship ties.
Third, although the degree of specification varies between the models, both models are
comprehensive, intending to provide an overall structure of consumer-brand relationships. As
such, they offer and integrate several different constructs that are proposed to assess the quality
of consumer-brand relationships.
Fourth, there are several noticeable differences between the BRQ and the RI models,
making them viable candidates for comparison. The BRQ model was developed specifically to
assess the strength of consumer-brand ties (Fournier 1998), whereas the RI model was originally
developed to understand satisfaction and commitment in romantic relationships (Rusbult 1980a)
and friendships (Rusbult 1980b). Although the models originated in theories of interpersonal
relationships, they vary both with regard to model structure and how the relationship metaphor is
transferred to a consumer-brand setting. As we argue subsequently, this could influence both the
conceptual and the empirical assessment of these models.
Fifth, although both models have been subjected to empirical tests, several concerns with
regard to the empirical assessments of consumer-brand relationship models might have prevented
these models from living up to their full potential. Explanations for the limited success of
consumer-brand relationship models are as follows
1
:
5
1. Typically, consumer-brand relationship models do not provide clear guidelines for
empirical testing or in terms of model specification. For example, conceptual models include
several relationships among constructs, but the direction of the various paths is often not
specified (see Fournier 1998).
2. Consumer-brand relationship models are typically derived from social psychological
theories advanced to explain close relationships, such as those between married couples. These
models may not be directly applicable to less involving relationships (Tynan 1997). Although
consumer-brand relationships can be important and nontrivial, in most cases, they will not qualify
as the most important part of people’s lives. Thus, consumer-brand relationships models should
also preferably address less involving relationships, and the empirical studies must be designed
accordingly.
3. The transfer of interpersonal relationship concepts to marketing might be problematic if the
content and meaning of these concepts in the source domain deviate too much from the target
context (Bengtsson 2003). In turn, this could result in constructs that are difficult to interpret in a
consumer-brand setting and/or questionnaire items that are difficult to interpret and thus are
ambiguous.
These three points reflect problems associated with metaphoric transfer (Hunt and Menon
1995), and the use of the human relationship metaphor to understand consumer-brand
relationships is not undisputed (Bengtsson 2003; O'Malley and Tynan 1999). O’Malley and
Tynan (1999) argued that the use of the metaphor of “marriage” as the source domain to
understand consumer-brand relationships narrows rather than broadens the conceptualization of
exchange. Furthermore, several of the concepts borrowed from interpersonal relationship theory
do not appear to be directly transferable to the consumer-brand context (Bengtsson 2003).
