THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING

Transcription

1 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING BRAND LOVE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF SAATCHI & SAATCHI S THEORY OF LOVEMARKS JESSICA LYNN ERB SPRING 2013 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Marketing and Psychology with honors in Marketing Reviewed and approved* by the following: Lisa Bolton Associate Professor of Marketing Thesis Supervisor Honors Adviser Jennifer Coupland Paiste Fellow in Teaching and Learning Clinical Associate Professor of Marketing Secondary Thesis Reader * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College.

2 i ABSTRACT The key objective of this research study is to apply a theory of brand love developed by the advertising agency, Saatchi &Saatchi, to consumer-brand relationships. The study will verify the validity of Saatchi &Saatchi's theory as a means of assessing brand love and if components of this framework prevent changes in consumer attachment when this loved brand fails the consumer. I tested the relevance and applicability of Saatchi &Saatchi's theory as a tool to assess brand love. Because it was created by an advertising agency, I question its empirical significance. If a particular component protects a brand better than others, I could make the argument that advertisements should highlight this component if they are looking to achieve such a high level of attachment with their consumers. Results from the study showed that some dimensions of the theory, but not all, can be considered predictors of brand love and protectors of a brand s reputation in the mind of the consumer after a time of crisis.

3 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables. iii Chapter 1: Introduction.. 1 Chapter 2: Kevin Robert's Lovemarks Theory... 5 Chapter 3: Literature Review Chapter 4: Methods 23 Chapter 5: Results.. 25 Chapter 6: Discussion Chapter 7: Future Research & Managerial Implication Appendix A: Extra Survey Data.. 37 Appendix B: Survey Instrument Appendix C: Pre-Test Report REFERENCES... 51

4 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Love as a Function of the Lovemarks Dimensions Table 2.1. Emotional Attachment as a Functions of the Lovemark Dimensions..27 Table 2.2. Cognitive Attachment as a Function of the Lovemark Dimensions Table 3. Behavioral Intentions as a Function of Lovemark Dimensions...28 Table 4. Behavioral Intentions Post-Failure as a Function of Brand Attachment.29 Table 5. Means for Response Rate as a Function of Priming Condition Table 6. Means for Dependent Variables as a Function of Lovemark Dimensions..38 Table 7. Means as a Function of Mystery Condition.47 Table 8. Means as a Function of Intimacy Condition 47 Table 9. Means a Function of Sensuality Condition..47

5 1 Chapter 1 Introduction The vast majority of the population consumes and shops with their mind and their heart, or if you prefer, their emotions. They look for a rational reason but make an emotional decision: I like it, I prefer it, I feel good about it Making people feel good about a brand, getting a positive emotion, is key. This is what makes the difference Emotions are more rewarding, both in the short and long-term. Maurice Levy, Chairman of Publicis Group (owner of Saatchi & Saatchi), Paris Brands originated as a means to differentiate between similar products. They may have been only types of laundry detergent, with each brand symbolizing one particular trait or quality. Perhaps it differentiated between the shopping experience at two different department stores. Nonetheless, the point of brands has always been to change the perception of a particular item, service, or good in the mind of the consumer. These are the people that firms have always been trying to attract, and without them and their support, firms cannot survive. We need to entice them, to pull at their heartstrings, show them that we understand their needs almost better than they do themselves. However, this can only be done through a strong understanding of how our actions and our product attributes come through to them and what they truly believe. To get at the heart of the consumer, it is not about jamming an idea or an emotion down their throat. It is about

6 letting them tell us why they love our brand, why they cannot get enough. This is the key to brand management and the key to strong brand relationships. 2 Today, we are in a very different ball game. Marketers today face unprecedented challenges when trying to communicate with their consumers. The over abundance of brands coupled with multiple, new communication channels can make it difficult to truly get in touch with their clientele. With this kind of obstacle at hand, it is more important now than ever before for brands to develop that connection that allows them to win over the competition within the consumer s consideration set. Pricing wars will not generate loyal consumers; it takes a dive into their emotions, what is important to them to ensure they will continue to come back to your brand over and over again. So, how does a brand do this? Even if a brand understands that they need to get into the mind of their consumers and make them true emotions towards their products and their core essence as a brand, understanding what exactly leads to these feelings is the difficult piece of the puzzle. Questions about consumer-brand relationships and what contributes to this relationship have become a pressing issue for brands, especially in a marketplace where it seems as though the lowest price is what tends to win. How does a brand develop a strong enough relationship with their customers to break through the clutter? How do you ensure that your consumer will choose you more consistently than any other brand? How does a brand become something beyond another label for a product in the mind of the consumer?

7 3 Both academics and business executives have searched for a better understanding of this concept, and we are still at a loss for a concrete framework to ensure these connections. In this research, one of the many theories is tested; the concept at the focus of this paper is the coined term of brand love. What quality does a brand or product need to possess in order for a consumer to express that they love brand A or they could not live without brand B? These initial phrases and interactions that people have with brands every day provoked the origins of this research. Kevin Roberts, CEO of the renowned advertising agency, Saatchi & Saatchi developed a theory in 2004 that speaks to these exact questions. He proposed that brands that possess particular qualities in the mind of the consumer become something beyond just a brand; they become something called a Lovemark. It is at this state that a brand can make those connections with a consumer and build a sustainable consumer-brand relationship. This thesis puts the elements of his theory to the test. According to Roberts, the ideas of mystery, sensuality, and intimacy are the key components that lead to a consumer falling in love with a brand. However, because the academic literature has yet to empirically test and verify a similar set of components that are the keys to a strong consumer-brand relationship, this thesis brings this Lovemarks framework into testing. Ultimately, the following study aims to answer the following key research questions: 1) From a consumer s perspective, what constitutes love for a brand?

8 2) Per the Lovemarks theory, how do mystery, sensuality, and intimacy contribute to brand love in a consumer-brand relationship? 4 3) Can these elements of brand love support or protect the brand in a time of failure or crisis?

9 5 Chapter 2 Kevin Robert s Lovemarks Theory Stop racing after every new fad and focus on making consistent, emotional connections with consumers. If you stand for nothing, you fall for everything. Kevin Roberts, Lovemarks, 2004 Before discussing the literature that informed the hypotheses for this research, the Lovemarks Theory developed by Kevin Roberts needs to be explained. This is at the core of this thesis, and a good understanding of his claims is pivotal to an overall understanding of this thesis. While serving as CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, a world renowned advertising firm, Roberts developed his own theory about brand love, insisting that brands can no longer be just brands anymore. In fact, they need to reach a more emotional relationship with consumers, reaching this coined state of a Lovemark (Roberts, 2004) instead of just a loved brand. The pattern he discovered amongst all the great Lovemarks was their ability to meet criteria within each of three dimensions: mystery, intimacy, and sensuality. This framework has remained the driving force behind all of the creative work completed at Saatchi and Saatchi for their clients, with these concepts interlaced into their campaigns and advertisements for some of the biggest brands of our time. Ultimately, this goal completely embodies the concept of brand love that we are all trying to define, so trying to understand the underlying components of these Lovemarks

10 dimensions is imperative. The elements that correspond to each dimension are explained in the following sections to better define these components. 6 Mystery According to Roberts, three general components lie at the core of this dimension: learning, surprise and anticipation. A brand that is strong in this dimension tends to leave their consumers on the edge of their seat, never able to predict what this brand may do next or truly discover everything that exists about this brand. Roberts breaks these components down into five key areas that could easily be asked or described to the consumer. 1) Storytelling: The brand prompts consumers to tell stories related to the brand, much in the way we spread gossip when something surprising or unexpected occurs. 2) Connections to the past, present, and future: The brand can speak to the past, present, and future, both from an individual s perspective and the perspective of different generations (Roberts, 2004). 3) Connections to an individual s dreams & aspirations: The brand is capable of tapping into someone s dreams and what they aspire to achieve in their lives, something that is inevitably mysterious and unknown. 4) Association with a myth or an icon: Similar to the way in which a brand can attach itself to a potential consumer s aspirations, attaching the brand to a particular symbol or icon can lead to further success in this dimension. The

11 7 myth or icon represents everything the brand stands for, and this could be completely dependent on what the consumer knows (or thinks it knows) about the brand. 5) Ability to inspire the consumer: The brand can motivate the consumer to transform their lives and navigate through the ever-unpredictable world in which we all live. Intimacy Much like mystery, Roberts breaks this dimension down into a few key areas to properly describes what he means by the word intimacy. As discussed in Lovemarks, intimacy does not just simply mean a close relationship between brand and consumer, but that the brand can embody three components: empathy, commitment, and passion. According to Roberts, these components are defined as follows: Empathy, so that we can understand and respond to other people s emotions. Commitment, which proves we are in the relationship for the long haul. Passion, that bright spark that keeps the relationship alive (Roberts, 2004, p. 136). If a brand can make the consumer effectively believe that they understand them and listens to their needs, this brand has successfully captured the component of empathy with their consumer. Consumers that do not even place other brands in the same consideration set as this brand have reached a high level of commitment, and this is the ultimate type of loyalty that can be seen if a brand is strong in this intimacy dimension.

12 8 Lastly, passion is linked to intimacy because a bond over emotion this strong can only occur when there is closeness between both parties. A consumer can unleash their passion about a particular brand if they feel they are intimately connected with it; therefore, asking them about their passion for the brand could show a link between the brand and this Lovemark dimension of intimacy. Sensuality Sensuality is a loaded word, but in Lovemarks theory relates to the five senses touch, taste, smell, sound, and sight and how they can lead to a strong consumer-brand relationship. Roberts proposes that brands that can highly stimulate their consumers through their senses can lead to higher emotional connections. As he explains, the senses are direct, provocative, immediate. Tough to fool. Even tougher to override. The senses speak to the mind in the language of emotions, not words. Emotions alert us to how important the findings of our senses are, not only to our well-being, but indeed to our very survival (Roberts, 2004, p. 105). Therefore, he proposes that a brand that is successful in the dimension of sensuality can lead to strong consumer-brand relationships. According to Roberts, these dimensions lead to Lovemark status and create a fleet of consumers that will not only use a product consistently but embrace it. Robert s 2004 book about Lovemarks provides a full explanation of his philosophy, but there is little mention of any empirical research to substantiate his elements, which is main initiative behind this thesis. Specifically, I will investigate the role of Lovemarks dimensions -

13 9 intimacy, mystery, and sensuality - as factors driving brand love and leading to greatest resilience for a brand in a time of failure.

14 10 Chapter 3 Literature Review Mystery opens up emotion. Mystery adds to the complexity of relationships and experiences. It lies in the stories, metaphors, and iconic characters that give a relationship its texture Kevin Roberts, Lovemarks, 2004 The current literature about consumer brand relationships can be broken into areas that correspond to the different hypotheses that guide this thesis. Academics focused on marketing and consumer behavior have spent the past few decades trying to gain a better understanding of this subject, and their research provides a strong foundation for trying to predict the validity of the Lovemarks framework within the context of this research. Brand Personality & Brands as an Extension of Self/Identity Before trying to understand the concepts of brand love and the deep attachment consumers develop towards their brand, it is important to understand why and how these relationships even start. At the root of this development lies the human association of certain objects with their perception of themselves. Early work from Russell Belk questions this thought that our possessions relate to our perception of a self, and proposes that this is the essential question underlying all consumer behavior. From this perspective, this is the reason why brands matter at all. Through his research in areas of self-perception, the loss of possessions, and our self-investment in objects, he concludes

15 11 that we do in fact regard our possessions as part of our extended selves, so developing a product into a brand that has attributes a consumer can associate with their own identity is a pivotal part of creating a relationship with this consumer (Belk, 1998). After analysis into all the facets of this human and possession interaction, he concludes that emphasis on material possessions remains high throughout life as we seek to express ourselves through possessions and use material possessions to seek happiness, remind ourselves of experiences, accomplishments, and other people in our lives, and even create a sense of immortality after death. Our accumulation of possessions provides a sense of past and tells us who we are, where we have come from, and perhaps where we are going (Belk, 1998, p. 160). This provides a foundation for further inquiry into how this relates to brand personality and overall consumer attitudes towards brands and ultimately explains why this idea of reaching a state of brand love is important. For the purpose of this research, Belk s focus on early theories developed by Sartre about consumers and how they bring objects into this self-conception are worth discussing. Of the three ways in which Sartre explains this process can occur, it seems that his third way, self-extension through knowing the object, connects directly to the idea of brand love (Belk, 1998). He explains that through this attempt to understand and absorb everything we can about an object we believe we gain control and possession of this same object, person, or thing. If this in fact true, then the concept of developing a brand image that a consumer can comprehend as if the brand had a personality or life of its own becomes all the more important to develop a strong connection with this same consumer.

16 12 Jennifer Aaker takes this idea of brand personality one step further in her research and outlines the different dimensions within brand personality. Even if a consumer believes they have come to know a brand, there are different ways within which a brand can portray itself to the consumer, much the way that humans have unique and differing personalities. She formally defines brand personality as the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997, p. 347), and she separates this from product-related attributes, proposing that brand personality tends to serve a symbolic or self-expressive function (Keller, 1993 as cited in Aaker, 1997, p. 347). This theorizing aligns with Belk s propositions by proposing that the reason brands need to have personality is to deepen the brand-consumer relationship on a more emotional level, not just through a rational discussion of the attributes of actual product associated with that brand. The notion that consumers form relationships with brands guides this thesis, including one that may be characterized as love. I further develop my theory through four hypotheses related to this construct, which I discuss in the following sections. Hypothesis 1: To assess whether the Lovemarks dimensions are core components that drive brand love, I first evaluated past research to determine a way to test a consumers interpretation of brand love. The research of Albert, Merunka, and Valette-Florence on brand love provided some key insights for this matter. The main objective of their paper was to investigate the feeling of love toward a brand by exploring the nature of the

17 13 construct and uncovering the main dimensions of a feeling of love for brands (Albert et. al., 2008, p. 1062). Their preliminary research showed that, consumers poorly understand the notion of love toward a brand and perhaps, for some, reject the kind of love therefore, an innovative survey method [should be] implemented to avoid consumer reluctance or unfamiliarity with the concept (Albert et. al., 2008, p. 1064). Albert et. al. continues with this theme through their research, using images as a technique to reach the underlying feelings and attitudes of their participants towards brands. They avoid using the word love in their research to avoid creating any prejudice within their participants when responding to the questionnaire. This approach seems to be an effective means of probing participants to express their feelings without simply focusing on the word love. Ultimately, their projective techniques revealed eleven different dimensions of love towards a brand. If I use their same philosophy and utilize priming techniques to make salient each of the three components of the Lovemarks framework, then the primed dimension should also have the highest prominence in participants responses to questions about brand love. This leads us to my predictions for Hypothesis 1: H1: If you prime a particular Lovemarks dimension (intimacy, sensuality, mystery), that dimension should have higher ratings in a scale that tests all of the dimensions. Hypothesis 2: If brands are capable of developing a personality for themselves, and this lies at the heart of the consumer brand relationship, we must take this one step further to

18 14 understand how a consumer goes from just simply understanding a brand s personality to feeling an emotional connection with the brand because of its traits. In response to the first general research question, What constitutes love for a brand? it is imperative to look at the work that has been conducted focused on this concept of brand love. In this category of research, academics have tried to better understand the underlying dimensions of this concept of brand love and how that contributes to the overall consumer brand relationship. This of course coincides with Robert s goals in developing his idea of Lovemarks and could enlighten us about two things: 1) Are the Lovemarks dimensions plausible drivers of brand love? 2) Which of the Lovemarks dimensions are the most prominent in the consumers interpretation of their love for a brand? To inform the first half of my second hypothesis, I turned to research from Batra, Ahuvia, and Bagozzi (2012). Currently, there is some skepticism about how past researchers have evaluated and defined the brand love construct. Typically, previous psychological frameworks for the emotions of love and/or attachment have been utilized as a substitute for exploratory research that would otherwise define brand love. However, academics like Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi believe that these frameworks are not a sufficient explanation for this concept, and a framework of brand love must be built from the ground up (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi 2012). Their three-part experiment on brand love revealed that some aspects of interpersonal love do not translate well into

19 brand love, and therefore, this idea of utilizing a psychological conceptualization of this emotion does not truly make sense for academic marketing research. 15 Batra et. al. (2012) research not only the features of brand love as defined by them, but they also take this inquiry a step further by trying to understand the connection between those features and the concepts of brand loyalty, the spread of word of mouth about the brand, and resistance to negative information. Batra et. al. developed a prototype for brand love using qualitative analysis of interviews with consumers and then quantitatively testing them with a larger consumer sample. Their work also notes that people use the word love in a different manner when referring to brands than when referring to emotional love. With that said, they reason that marketers will always need to develop a brand love prototype to understand brand love. My thesis investigates whether Roberts Lovemarks could be serve as a brand love prototype. Batra et. al. designed their study in a two-part sequence, pieces of which inspired some aspects of the methodology for this research. In qualitative interviews, they compiled ten different factors that were subsequently tested in an online survey with college students. Their survey asked participants to answer the same questions for different brands in the electronics category a brand that they highly regarded and a brand they saw as neutral. In the mindset of a college student, however, the influence of previous answers could surely alter their responses in the next section and may not be a good technique. However, their use of a pre-test to ensure aspects of their questionnaire functioned properly definitely applies to this research, since brand love often deals with abstract concepts that may or may not resonate with the participants.

20 16 Their research did in fact test a brand love prototype that they developed, and it did lead to some strong findings about underlying dimensions for brand love. Therefore, my thesis adopts a similar approach to test whether Robert s Lovemarks dimensions contribute to brand love for a consumer. Consequently, my Hypothesis 2A is as follows: H2A: Mystery, intimacy, & sensuality will independently drive consumer love in brand relationships Although I predict that these dimensions will independently drive consumer love, I also want to predict which of these dimensions will be the most prominent contributor. To give us an idea of which dimension will be the strongest, I looked at work from Shimp and Madden (1988) that tries to understand the concept of love itself. Shimp and Madden analyzed a theory about the emotion of love developed by psychologist Robert Sternberg. Sternberg s triangular theory of love includes the concept of intimacy as a component of emotional love, along with passion and decision/commitment. This paper asks some of the same fundamental questions of this research: What does it mean to love a particular product or brand? Why does brand loyalty sometimes last for prolonged periods, whereas in other cases brand switching takes over quickly? (Shimp & Madden, 1988, p. 163). The fact that Sternberg s theory has some overlap with one of the components of the Lovemarks theory allows us to predict that intimacy may have prominence in driving brand love. However, it is important to note that Sternberg s theory is focused on love in the human sense of the word, and my goal is to understand how consumers apply it to a brand relationship. Nonetheless, Sternberg does describe intimacy in a similar fashion to that of Kevin Roberts, saying that intimacy refers to feelings such as attachment to and

21 17 fondness for as well as. Closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. (Shimp & Madden, 1988, p. 163). Shimp and Madden argue that intimacy is the manifestation of liking a brand, and when coupled with the idea of commitment manifests as companionate love as well. These two forms of love fall along the same lines as the components Kevin Roberts discusses, but Shimp and Madden do not empirically test these different kinds of love or the three more broad dimensions within Sternberg s theory. Nonetheless, this paper allows us to conclude that perhaps intimacy is a strong feature underlying brand love. Additionally, Roberts notes the importance of commitment to a brand under the umbrella of the intimacy dimension. Aside from research that focused specifically on the idea of brand love, other researchers have looked at forms of attachment as a means to define and understand consumer-brand love. Instead of discussing the emotion of love, some research has focused on the idea that a consumer is attached to a brand, and this has led to work in applying attachment theory from psychology to the consumer brand relationship. This idea can also be applied to the Lovemark dimensions and help us determine which of them could appear as the most prominent contributor. Researchers like Susan Fournier have delved deeply into this area of brand relationships. She argues that brands can act as one partner within a consumer-brand relationship, concluding that these relationships can take on many different forms (Fournier 1998). Her study of brand relationships broke the types down into a number of human categories, like arranged marriages and love affairs between consumers and their brands. Her more recent work aligns itself well with psychological concepts of attachment and still relates brand relationships to

22 18 more human elements. In one of her more recent papers, Fournier looks at the anthropomorphism of brands as a means to better understand these relationships; that is, she utilizes a brands-as-people metaphor to help consumers reveal their perspective of a brand s ability or intentions through a different medium (Fournier & Alvarez, 2012). This concept could definitely help us to better define brand love, especially if further developments in the area show a relationship between how much a consumer loves a brand and the types of people that they consider relatable to these brands. The types of consumer-brand relationships (e.g., love affair, divorce) identified by Fournier seem related to Lovemarks dimensions. For example, sensuality and mystery may appeal to a consumer that is in the middle of enticing love affair with a brand, whereas someone that insists their brand love is a more intimate relationship may find themselves in a more committed relationship with that brand. As stated in Fournier s research, the affect supporting brand relationship endurance and depth was much greater than that implied in simple notions of brand preference (Fournier, 1998, p. 363). Together, prior research by Shimp and Madden (1988) and Fournier (1998) suggest that intimacy will be a strong driver of brand love. Both papers show that intimacy is an important component of the concept of brand love. If a consumer is in a committed relationship with a brand, their feelings should better align with the intimacy dimension in comparison to sensuality or mystery, which may apply more to a brand love affair. This ultimately leads us to Hypothesis 2B for this research:

23 19 H2B: Intimacy is the dominant dimension that drives consumer brand love in comparison to mystery or sensuality Hypothesis 3: Beyond understanding how Lovemarks dimensions as a theory behind brand love, I also wanted to understand the impact of these dimensions in a time when the brand has failed the consumer. That is, will brand love potentially protect and defend the brand in this type of situation? And, if so, will the dimensions be differentially effective? Fournier s research on consumer-brand relationships sheds some light on what would happen in this situation with the Lovemarks framework in mind. As I discussed, Fournier made the argument that brands could act as one partner within a consumer-brand relationship and that this relationship can take on many different forms (Fournier 1998). We could look at these different relationships as see how items like sensuality and mystery may appeal to a consumer that is in the middle of enticing love affair with a brand, whereas someone that insists their brand love is a more intimate relationship may find themselves in a more committed relationship with that brand. Again, relationship theory reminds us of how a stronger connection with their brands does lead to greater endurance within that relationship. When building upon this theory with a crisis situation in mind, it does seem that a strong consumer-brand relationship will most likely lead to better protection in a time of failure. It would make sense that a deeply committed consumer would be more willing to forgive the brand in a time of crisis based on this research. This deep commitment is tied to the Lovemark dimension of intimacy. Therefore, in terms of my hypotheses about protecting a brand in

24 20 the time of failure, one would predict that intimacy would then protect a brand better, much the way that someone will stand up for a best friend or a spouse more readily than they would a partner with whom they cheat or a mere fun acquaintance. This leads to Hypothesis 3: H3: In a situation where a brand fails the consumer, the dimension of intimacy will protect the brand better than sensuality or mystery Hypothesis 4: To explore this crisis situation further, I also wanted to look at another parallel theory to describe brand love brand attachment. Brand attachment research is interesting inasmuch as it argues for more tangible benefits for the firms, like predicting higher brand loyalty and willingness to pay a price premium (Park et. al., 2010). Park et al. (2010, p.14) argue that the more strongly consumers are attached to a brand, the more willing they are to forsake personal resources to maintain an ongoing relationship with the brand (Park et. al., 2010, p. 14). This idea seems to be at the heart of the brand love relationship as well; regardless of whether it is referred to as brand love or attachment, the goal the firm wants to accomplish is creating a consumer that is incredibly loyal and considers themselves an avid consumer of the brand. Park et. al. conducted research that tried to differentiate between brand attachment and brand attitude strength to understand their contribution to actual purchase behavior, brand purchase share (in comparison to competing brands), and brand need share (Park et. al., 2010). Their hypotheses were supported: brand attachment was a stronger

25 21 indicator of these behaviors. Park et al. also divided brand attachment into two key components: emotional brand attachment and cognitive brand attachment. Emotional attachment manifests itself through a consumer s self-connection with the brand, such as to what extent do you feel emotionally bonded to this brand? Cognitive attachment manifests itself through thoughts related to the prominence of the brand in a consumer s thoughts, such as to what extent do your thoughts towards this brand come to your mind naturally and instantly? These two components ultimately comprised the overall concept of brand attachment in Park et. al. s research. If we consider brand attachment to be a substitutable construct for brand love, the dimensions of the Lovemarks theory should correlate with brand attachment. Brand attachment should also correlate with a consumer s interpretation of their love for a brand (whether they do believe they love the brand or not), and it should also correlate with protection of a brand when faced with situation where the brand has failed them. Additionally, Park et. al. show that brand attachment leads to the consumer investing in resources. These resources are then put towards actions that relate to brand loyalty, brand defense, and other behaviors that are difficult to perform and require the use of valued resources. Again, this points to the idea that brand attachment should lead to a defense of the brand in a time of crisis, since they have invested so many resources into this relationship and it would be difficult to transfer these resources to another brand as a retaliation. Hence, Hypothesis 4 for this thesis is:

26 22 H4: In a situation where a brand fails the consumer, a consumer that believes they are attached to a brand should be more protective of the brand relationship than a consumer that has less of an attachment to a brand. To summarize: The four hypotheses described in this section will be tested in quantitative empirical research. Specifically, my experiment will focus on the Lovemarks framework, understanding how brand attachment is related to brand love, and how these two different concepts relate to protecting a brand in a crisis situation.

27 23 Chapter 4 Methods To work up a secondary emotion you need someone else around. These so-called secondary emotions are not secondary in reality. They make up the volatile mix from which human relationships are formed Dylan Evans, Emotion Researcher from King s College London An online survey was administered to 212 college students at the Pennsylvania State University in the lobby of the Business Building. Laptops were set up at a table, and students received $2 in cash as compensation upon completion of the survey. Using a priming technique, the survey randomly displayed images that represented the three different areas of the Lovemark theory of brand love: intimacy, sensuality, and mystery. To test the validity of the images selected, a pre-test was conducted. Participants were asked to evaluate one of three randomly assigned collages on the three dimensions of the framework to ensure they did relate to the items of measure. The results of the pre-test are available in Appendix C. Participants were then asked to think of a brand they believed to be special to them. Keeping this brand in mind, they were asked to respond to a series of items that related to key research questions. The first set of items tested their agreement with different statements associated with each of the three facets of the framework. The next set of items consisted of an attachment scale developed by Park, MacInnis, Priester et. al.

28 24 (2010) to test Brand Attachment. This scale, which has two components (cognitive and emotions), may be viewed as an alternative means to measure brand love since it was already verified through research to be a good predictor of brand loyal consumer behavior. The next section then asked participants to imagine a scenario where this same brand failed them in some way and elaborate on their reactions to this situation. This scenario was coupled with two likelihood scales an emotional likelihood scale and a purchase likelihood scale to test their behavioral intentions post-failure. The final section of the questionnaire then asked participants to rate their agreement with the statement that they were in love with their brand of choice as a direct question of brand love. The survey instrument is available in Appendix A.

29 25 Chapter 5 Results Businesses have always assumed that people see the brands the same way they do. This is why they can get it SO-O-O-O wrong Kevin Roberts, Lovemarks, 2004 The results of my experiments are organized and reported by hypothesis in the following sections. Hypothesis 1: ( If you prime a particular dimension, that dimension should have higher ratings in a scale that tests all of the dimensions ). To test H1, ANOVA was conducted on the measure of love as a function of dimension priming, gender, and their interaction. Results indicate no significant effects for the respective dimensions (p >.10). Therefore, the participants ratings of brand love did not differ as a function of whether intimacy, sensuality, or mystery was primed, and I did not receive support for H1. A table of the descriptive statistics for these variables is available in Appendix A. Hypothesis 2A: ( Mystery, intimacy, & sensuality will independently drive consumer love in brand relationships ). To test H2A, a regression was conducted on the measure of brand love as a function of the Lovemark dimensions: mystery, intimacy, and sensuality. Results indicate significant effects for mystery (b=.36(.1), t=3.57, p <.0001) and intimacy (b=.30(.1), t=2.94, p <.0001), but no significant effect for sensuality (p >.5).

30 26 Therefore, I do see a connection between participants response to the question, Do you agree that you are in love with the brand you chose for this survey? and their responses to questions on the Lovemarks scale that pertained to the dimensions of intimacy and mystery. Table 1: Love as a Function of the Lovemark Dimensions Variable b SE t Value p Value Mystery Sensuality Intimacy Hypothesis 2B: ( Intimacy is the dominant dimension that drives consumer brand love in comparison to mystery or sensuality ). To test H1B, a regression was conducted between each component of the attachment scale (that is an indicator of brand love) and the Lovemark dimensions. I saw partial support for this hypothesis, since results indicate significant effects with Attachment Feelings and Attachment Thoughts for both mystery and intimacy. With respect to Attachment 1, I saw significant effects for mystery (b=.55(.10), t=5.37, p <.0001) and intimacy (b=.50(.10), t=4.81, p <.0001), but not for sensuality (p >.1). With respect to Attachment 2, I saw significant effects for mystery (b=.46(.09), t=5.00, p <.0001) and intimacy (b=.19(.09), t=2.09, p <.04). No significant effect was found for sensuality (p >.1) with Attachment 2. With that said, I saw a relationship between participants ratings of brand attachment on the scale from Park et.

31 27 al., a scale that is correlated with strong consumer brand relationships, and their ratings on the Lovemark dimensions of mystery and intimacy. Table 2.1: Emotional Attachment as a Function of Lovemark Dimensions Variable b SE t Value p Value Mystery Sensuality Intimacy Table 2.2: Cognitive Attachment as a Function of Lovemark Dimensions Variable b SE t Value p Value Mystery Sensuality Intimacy Hypothesis 3: ( In a situation where a brand fails the consumer, the dimension of intimacy will protect the brand better than sensuality or intimacy. ). To test H3, a regression was conducted of post-failure behavioral intentions as a function of the Lovemark dimensions. In contrast to my previous results, the analysis revealed significant effects for sensuality (b=.45(.1), t=3.82, p <.0002), but not for mystery (b=.21(.1) t=2.14, p >.03) or intimacy (b=.06(.098), t=.66, p >.5). This result indicates

32 28 that sensuality increased post-failure brand response whereas intimacy and mystery did not. In other words, these two dimensions were not effective protectors of the brand in a failure situation in comparison to the dimension of sensuality. Table 3: Behavioral Intentions as a Function of Lovemark Dimensions Variable b SE t Value p Value Mystery Sensuality Intimacy Hypothesis 4: ( In a situation where a brand fails the consumer, a consumer that believes they are attached to a brand should be more protective of the brand relationship than a consumer that has less of an attachment to a brand ). To test H4, a regression was conducted of post-failure behavioral intentions as a function of the cognitive and emotional components of brand attachment. Emotional attachment increase post-failure behavioral intentions (b=.24(.09), t=2.5, p <.01), but cognitive attachment did not (b=.06(.08), t=.76, p >.4).

33 29 Table 4: Behavioral Intentions Post-Failure as a Function of Brand Attachment Variable b SE t Value p Value Emotional Attachment Cognitive Attachment

34 30 Chapter 6 Discussion I don t think there is anything higher than Love. I mean, I m not sure what could possibly come after Love because Love is so expansive Tim Sanders, Chief Solutions Officer, Yahoo! Generally speaking, the empirical research saw some support for the hypotheses as well as some unexpected findings. I discuss possible reasons for my results, organized by hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: Despite strong pre-test data for the priming sensuality, mystery, and intimacy via images, I did not see significant effects of priming on participants ratings of the dimensions. For example, I expected that priming the dimension of sensuality would lead to more agreement that this factor contributed to the participants love for their brand of choice. However, this effect did not emerge. One possible explanation is that the priming manipulation was inadequate. Although the pre-test confirmed that I had good image selection to prime the dimensions of Lovemarks, priming did not affect responses to ratings on the dimensions. For example, consumer primed with the mystery dimension did not report being more surprised by the brand that they love. Within the Lovemarks framework, surprise is

35 31 considered to be a factor within the element of mystery; however, a participant may not associate surprise with mystery easily. With that said, even if the images did not accurately prime the specific dimension, priming may not be sufficient to influence the type of brand love that consumers were asked to generate in the study. Hypothesis 2 (A&B): The results indicate both intimacy and mystery are independent drivers of consumer brand love. Although intimacy dominated sensuality, mystery was equally important. There is some support for mystery as a potential driver of consumer brand love. For example, the Lovemark dimension of mystery coincides with many of the components that would comprise a love affair with a particular brand in Fournier s relationship work. Prompted participants to think of a brand that is special to them leaves the options of brands to choose from quite open. Therefore, consumers may not have chosen a brand with which they had a committed relationship, but perhaps instead a brand that they love to splurge on when they want to feel dangerous or spontaneous. These are qualities that definitely correspond to mystery, and that could still evoke feelings of love as defined by this research. In hindsight, therefore, it does make sense that both of these dimensions received support as drivers of consumer brand love in this context. Additionally, it may be unsurprising that sensuality did not receive a lot of support, since this dimension focuses on materialistic aspects of a brand, such as the way a product may smell, or the images we see associated with a particular brand. These qualities may be too superficial to connect to a strong feeling of love towards a brand,

36 therefore leading to a lower response rate for this dimension as a key driver for consumer brand love. 32 Hypothesis 3: The most interesting results were observed for consumers behavioral intentions after experiencing a crisis where their brand of choice failed them in some way. Based on the literature reviewed, it seemed that a strong brand relationship would help to protect a brand in a situation where they had failed a consumer. The deep connection would supposedly lead to the same kind of forgiveness one would give a family member or close friend, making the intimacy dimension seem like the best dimension for protecting a brand in this situation. However, the results indicate that the best protector is actually sensuality, and this was something that we did not expect to see. From the consumers perspective, this may make a lot of sense: if a consumer does not care about a brand or have a feeling of love attached to it, perhaps they are relatively indifferent to failure by the brand. With that said, a special brand may not be a brand they have a strong connection with, and this lack of a connection could also lead to indifference with the intentions they have towards that brand regardless of whether they have been associated with a crisis or not. This could be an interesting area of research to explore. Indeed, a counter argument to the entire concept of brand love would suggest that a lack of a relationship with consumers could be a better protector in a time of failure or scandal. In this scenario, the brands with a strong consumer base leave themselves most vulnerable.

37 33 Hypothesis 4: Attachment to a brand did succeed in protecting the brand from failure. Specifically, strong emotional attachment to a brand led to greater resilience in a time of brand crisis. Given the correlation between brand attachment and consumers agreement with their love for the brand, it seems that only to a certain extent this relationship leads to unchanged behavior when this same brand fails them. Interestingly, cognitive attachment (the ease with which they can think of the brand or that qualities of the brand come to mind) did not protect against brand failure and yet cognitive attachment also seems akin to the more superficial sensuality dimension in terms of Lovemarks. Therefore, the findings are puzzling inasmuch as results for Hypotheses 3 and 4 seem to contradict each other. Cognitive attachment relates more to sensuality than emotional attachment, so this is the piece of brand attachment that should have led insignificant change in attitude post failure based on the results we saw in regards to Hypothesis 3.

38 34 Chapter 7 Future Research & Managerial Implications Love doesn t make the world go round. Love is what makes the ride worthwhile. Franklin P. Jones, as quoted in Lovemarks, 2004 The results of this research provide a foundation for further questions about the concept of brand love. It seems that previous research has been verified in the sense that consumers do in fact develop relationships with their brands, and there are underlying dimensions responsible for brand love. However, it seems that there is not just one simple component that can ensure this emotional connection nor are all theories about these dimensions supported. Based on the findings of this research, it may be beneficial to look further into the connection between sensuality and consumer brand relationships. This area did not receive much support in my research, and yet it is a dimension that receives a great deal of attention by advertisers. For example, brands frequently focus heavily on the quality of the products and their attributes the smell of Italian leather, the feeling of Egyptian cotton sheets but my research suggests that these qualities do not lead to an emotional connection with the consumer. Additional research into brands that speak to a consumer s senses and the consumer s consequent relationship with this brand could be an interesting path that has yet to be explored in the brand love discussion. Additionally, perhaps another version of a projective image technique to test the Lovemarks theory could beneficial. The literature reviewed for this thesis clearly gained

39 35 insights into this brand love concept through this technique despite the fact that it was not as effective for this current research. Perhaps priming different emotions, both negative and positive, could be an interesting avenue to explore. What if the participants were primed with images related to happiness or disgust? Would this change their opinions of the brand they choose or lead to a change in affect after a brand failure situation? It could also be interesting to see if priming them two different times, with opposing images, affects how they respond to the same questions about their brand. Additionally, it is important to remember that the Lovemarks framework is used to guide the creative work produced by Saatchi and Saatchi. What if the images used were advertisements they created with each of the dimensions in mind? This could help to show the effectiveness of advertisements in developing the overall brand image, as well as if creatives are truly capable of manipulating a consumer s brand perception based on the dimension they had in mind when generating the ad. The possibilities for the use of this technique are endless, so I do not feel that my research discourages the use of this method in future studies. Lastly, my research provides a good starting point for further research into brand love during a crisis situation. My scenario of brand failure was vague, but this situation could be made more specific to see how a consumer s attitudes may change under different circumstances. Perhaps the crises could pertain to different aspects of the brand, such as the management team, product design, lack of support for a related cause, etc. to see if certain aspects of the brand are more protected than others. In addition, studies could be conducted to see which dimensions within brand love allow the most forgiveness after the crisis situation. If an agency develops advertisements based on

40 36 different components, such as sensuality or mystery, the consumer s feelings about the brand could be evaluated after exposure to these different attempts to mend the brand s image. Both of these experiments could also better prepare managers from a public relations standpoint to ensure the brand s relationship with the consumer remains in tact, regardless of what situation arises. In conclusion, this thesis provides some thought-provoking implications for managers across the globe trying to build their brands. Regardless of consumers ability to describe the components behind their love for a brand, consumers are in fact developing brand relationships. They can recall brands that are special to them and attribute certain qualities to them. Even if the dimensions from the Lovemarks framework did not reflect well on consumers brand love, the relationship between the brand and the consumer still needs to be cultivated. The journey to truly understanding consumer brand love may never end, but it is still an adventure that managers should continue, for all brands should still aspire to become a relationship partner, in every sense of the term, to a consumer.

41 37 Appendix A Extra Survey Data The following table depicts the means and standard deviations for rate of response for each dimension as a function of the priming condition. It shows the average that a participant selected a top-box rate of agreement with an item that corresponded to the primed dimension. As mentioned in the results and discussion sections of this thesis, I declared that the priming technique did not work based on this data output. Table 5. Means for Response Rate as a Function of Priming Condition Priming Rate of Mystery Rate of Intimacy Rate of Sensuality Condition Responses Response Response (M, Std. Dev.) (M, Std. Dev.) (M, Std. Dev.) Mystery , , ,.5228 Intimacy , , ,.4944 Sensuality , , ,.5413 The following table depicts the means and standard deviations of the various dependent variables of this thesis as a function of the Lovemark dimensions. As seen with the priming technique, there does not seem to be a significant relationship between any particular dimension and these dependent variables.

42 38 Table 6. Means for Dependent Variables as a Function of Lovemark Dimensions Dimension Emotional Cognitive Total Affect Behavioral Attachment Attachment (M, Std. Dev.) Intentions (M, Std. Dev.) (M, Std. Dev.) (M, Std. Dev.) Mystery , , , ,.8949 Intimacy , , , ,.7031 Sensuality , , , ,.9290

43 39 Appendix B Survey Instrument Sensuality Condition

44 Mystery Condition 40

45 Intimacy Condition 41

46 42

47 Survey Questions (same across all conditions) 43

48 44