Content uploaded by Luiz Moutinho
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luiz Moutinho on Oct 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand tribalism
Cleopatra Veloutsou ⁎, Luiz Moutinho
University of Glasgow, Department of Management, The Gilbert Scott Building, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom
ABSTRACTARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 1 December 2007
Received in revised form 1 March 2008
Accepted 1 May 2008
Keywords:
Branding
Brand relationships
Brand communities
Tribal brands
Brand reputation
The academic research on branding of consumer products andservices is increasingly considering the degree of
connectedness between consumers and brands as a key issue of investigation. The literature in this area
investigates the nature and the strength of the relationship that consumers develop with brands, as well as the
trend of joining brand tribes or brand communities in order to demonstrate and share with others their feelings
towards and preference to brands. However, the impact of the overall perceptions of the brands in the form of
its reputation and brand tribalism on brand relationships is so far unexplored in the existing literature. Using
data collected from 912 respondents, this paper explores the importance of the long term brand reputation and
brand tribalism on the strength of brand relationships. The findings suggest that brand tribalism is a better
predictor of the strength of brand relationships than the long term brand reputation itself.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
It is appreciated that the relational approach is a feasible strategy
in mass consumer markets (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Christy et al.,
1996; O'Malley and Tynan, 1999, 20 00), that the marketing mix could
be the base for relationship development with consumers (Coviello
and Brondie, 1998; Coviello et al., 2002; Lye, 2002) and that mental
images, “symbols and objects”, can be one of the many aspects that
can be used as a basis of a relationship (Gummesson, 1994).
Individuals may develop relationships with specific brands and to
reduce their choice set is possible (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995) and
consumers’bonds with specific brands and services seem to be
somewhat similar in nature (Johnston and Thomson, 2003).
Consumers may form relationships with brands on the basis of
several characteristics of these brands and their perceptions and
behavior towards them. Having lost all faith in unity and totality of
achievement, postmodernism has reinforced the importance of living
and enjoying the fragmented moments of consumers’life experiences
(Firat and Schultz, 1997). Consumers no longer consume products for
their utility, but because of their symbolic meaning, which represents
images. Postmodern researchers believe that image is not a priority
but a selling entity which the product tries to represent. The image
does not represent the product; it’s the product that represents the
image (Cova, 1999) and each consumer becomes an “illusion
consumer”that buys images not products (Elliot, 1999). However,
the existing research does not analyze the respective power of the
views consumers have on brands through their reputation and the
social influence they experience in terms of brand tribes when they
are forming relationships with brands.
Most research analyzing brand communities at present focuses on
luxury brands and/or products that consumers are highly involved with,
such as cars,motorbikes, jeeps, computers or personal digital assistants
(i.e. Muninz and O'Guinn, 2001; McAlexander et al., 2002; Algesheimer
et al., 2005; Muniz and Schau, 2005; Schouten and McAlexander, 2005),
and there is a very limited attempt to analyze products that target the
mass market, such as chocolate spread (i.e. Cova and Pace, 2006). Most
published research focuses on consumers who recognize their connec-
tion with a group of consumers who are also interested in a brand and
are members of the brand community. The purpose of this research is to
investigate the relative influence of the brand reputation and the
significant others in the formation of strong consumer–brand relation-
ships, for afast movingconsumer goods product; soft drinks. The paper,
first discusses the concept of brand reputation and the potential
contribution of brands in the development of relationships. It then
focuses on brand communities or tribes and their increasing role in the
formulation of brand reputation, proposes the research questions and
outlines the data collection methods. Finally, it offers discussion,
conclusion and suggestions for managers and academia.
2. Brand reputation
Both academics and practitioners believe that brand reputation is
becoming increasingly important. To be successful and hence profitable,
brands should have a positive reputation (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995).
Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: C.Veloutsou@lbss.gla.ac.uk (C. Veloutsou),
moutinho@lbss.gla.ac.uk (L. Moutinho).
0148-2963/$ –see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
The reputation is the aggregate perception of outsiders on the salient
characteristics of companies (Fombrun and Rindova, 2000), or brands.
The development of brand reputation means more than keeping
consumers satisfied, it is something a company earns over time and
refers to how various audiences evaluate the brand. Companies and
brands with a good reputation are likely to attract more customers and a
brand will lose its positive reputation—and eventually develop a
negative reputation—if it repeatedly fails to fulfill its stated intentions
or marketing signals (Milewicz and Herbig, 1994).
The various audiences recognize brands as independent market
organisms. Consumers perceive them as characters, while both
managers and the environment sustain them (Jevons et al., 2005)and
consumers can perceive brands as characters. For example, research
indicates that consumers can think of brands as if they are celebrities
(Rook,1985), or as if they have a character of their own (Blackston,1992,
1993). Brand reputation occurs primary through the signals that
producers send to the market and the degree that the organizational
tactics support the marketing signals establish it (Herbig and Milewicz,
1995). In this respect, it is an output of the brand identity that the
company proposes, the promises the company makes and the extent
that consumers experience the offer that the company promises. The
management of the brand reputation is continual. The brand’sconcept
and the brand image, and as a consequence its reputation will be
managed over the brand’s life, via the selection of a brand expression, its
introduction in the market and its further expansion, defense and
enforcement over time (Park et al., 1986).
Reputation is one of the primary contributors to perceived quality of
the products carrying the brand name. Consumers expect that products
manufactured today have a similar quality as products manufactured in
the past, since the brand is adding credibility (Milewicz and Herbig,
1994). Individuals form positive views only for the brands they perceive
credible. They assess the incomplete brand information collected over
time and companies in order to secure the development of a sound
reputation, have to try to project consistent messages.
It is not easy to drastically alter a brand's reputation over a short
period of time. People tend to classify brands in categories and have a
specific opinion on these categories. In addition, there is always a time
lag effect (Shapiro, 1983), which is expected to influence the future
opinion that consumers form on the brand. The brand's current
reputation will influence the prediction for its actions. Customers
anticipate a brand will meet their expectations, formed by its existing
reputation. In this respect, the market expects consistency from the
brand, both in terms of its projected identity and the support of this
identity. Mixed signaling (saying one thing and doing another)
damages reputation. Customers will not perceive a brand as reliable
and credible when it does not deliver what it promises (Herbig and
Milewicz, 1995).
3. Brand relationships
The early academic relationship marketing literature did not clearly
recognizethe role of brands as relationship builders,since it was arguing
that brands are primarily transaction facilitators (Grönroos, 1996;
Coviello and Brondie, 2001; Coviello et al., 2002). The literature at the
time was suggesting that producers have to decide on the emphasis
given to the brand element and the relationship element when
positioning their offerings, choosing from a continuum of low-high
emphasis for both elements (Palmer, 1996). However, popular press was
the first to acknowledge the view that consumers develop relationships
with brands and latter the dominant view in the academic literature
accepted it. The researchers recognize that the brand relationship is
some sort of bond (financial, physical or emotional) that brings the
brand seller and buyer together (Schultz and Schultz, 2004) and that
brands are entities having their own personality, which the customer
can relate to (i.e. Blackston, 1992,1993; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Fournier,
1998; Blackston, 2000; Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Buyers also develop
relationships with the product, the object (Saren and Tzokas, 1998; Lye,
2002) or with the service (Dall'Olmo Riley and de Chernatony, 2000)and
their knowledge and feelings about the brand, influences their
evaluation of the products carrying this brand (Aaker and Keller, 1990;
Dacin andSmith, 1994; Brawnand Dacin, 1997). Otherproduct or service
attributes can make the brand–consumer relationship stronger or
weaker, as—for example—the music played in a certain retail outlet
(Beverland et al., 2006).
It is now acknowledged that consumers create bonds with specific
brands, objects or firms (Daskou and Hart, 2002; Thomson et al., 2005)
to the extent that even store loyal consumers tend to switch stores as
much as the non-store loyal (opportunist) consumers when they
cannot find the product brand they require (Verbeke et al., 1998).
Companies have realized the potential of relationships with con-
sumers and often develop relevant customer relationship strategies in
an attempt to develop an actively linked consumer base (Rowley and
Haynes, 2005).
Relationship marketing in the consumer product context consists
of the management of a network of relationships between abrand and
its customers (Ambler, 1997). Although some consumers might be
unwilling to accept that they form a relationship with brands when it
is described in these terms (Bengtsson, 2003), the literature suggests
that a brand can be treated as “an active contributing partner in a
dyadic relationship that exists between the person and the brand”
(Fournier, 1995). Recent research findings support that the positive
brand and personal interaction are central to the building of successful
brand relationships (O'Loughlin et al., 2004). For the brand to
transform to a legitimate relationship partner, it has to surpass the
personification qualification stage and behave as an active contribut-
ing member of the dyad (Fournier, 1998; Berry, 2000). It is important
for consumers to feel that brands have positive behavior and attitudes
towards them (Blackston, 1992, 1993). People want to deal with
companies they see as innovative, ambitious, ingenious and hard-
working (Blackston, 1993) and they expect emotional benefits from
the brands they are purchasing (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Research
suggests that the perceived personality of brands can influence the
strength of the relationship consumers form with these brands over
time (Aaker et al., 2004). It is also been proven that when consumers
feel a brand has the desired attitude towards the issues they perceive
as important to their system of values, they tend to support and buy it
(Kates, 2000).
According to the literature, such relationships exist in various
contexts. It is evident, especially in well-defined groups of consumers
and sub-cultures. For example, gay men develop specific relationships
with their brands. They identify with some local retail businesses
(community members), they have positive emotions and reciprocity
towards some brands (political allies), while they have a negative
relationship with other brands (political enemies) (Kates, 2000). It has
also been suggested that even children develop relationships with
brands and the connections with brands are developing strong links
between middle childhood and early adolescence (Chaplin and John,
2005) and that childhood memories influence the manner in which
they relate to brands for life (Braun-La Tour et al., 2007).
The brand–consumer relationship might take a number of forms,
depending on the personality of consumers and the manner in which
these individuals develop relationships (Fournier, 1998). They describe
them as being in a point in a continuum, having as extremes the lower-
order relationships and in the other the higher-order (loyal) relation-
ships. Researchers identify five potential stages in the friendship, from
potential friends (brand trying), casual friends (brand liking), close
friends (multi-brand resurgent loyalty), best friends (brand loyalty) and
crucial friends (brand addiction) (Fajer and Schouten, 1995). A more
detailed study of the consumer’s perspective identifies at least fifteen
forms of relationship and their labels vary from an arranged marriage,
many types of friendships to enslavement, resulting in relationships
with different qualities (Fournier, 1998; Sweeney and Chew, 2002). The
315C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
association can be voluntary versus imposed, long term versus short
term, public versus private, formal versus informal and symmetric
versus asymmetric forming different types of relationships (Fournier,
1998). It can grow to a level where consumers may form a passionate
emotional attachment to brands, that some characterize brand love
(Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Brands are lovemarks that consumers are;
committed to, feel empathy and passion for as they love and respect
them (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). As in every relationship, the relation-
ship with brands can reach an end and its termination and the
dissolution of the person–brand relationship is examined (Fajer and
Schouten, 1995).
Customers may form attachments with more than one brand in the
same category (Fournier and Yao, 1997), as long as they are familiar with
them. As in the case for human relationships, bonds exist only with known
brands. Forward looking marketers and research agencies acknowledge
the importance of this approach and incorporate relationship based ideas
such as trust and bonds with brand management (Esch et al., 2006).
4. Brands and tribal behavior
Clearly, there is an interrelationship between brands and consumers
(Jevons et al., 2005). Symbols and signs are constantly changing in a
bricolage-manner to fit each specific situation. Thus, in a sense,
consumption becomes production (Christensen et al., 2005). Any
admirer that has a relationship with other admirers of a specificbrand
is a member of a brand community. There are brand communities that
are very formal and structured and others that are informal and loose,
brand tribes. In certain occasions brand communities may take greater
control over the association that characterizes the brand rather than the
brand team(Muninz and O'Guinn,20 01), to the extent that some discuss
brand hijack (Wathieu et al., 2002; Cova and Pace, 2006). For example,
when loyal consumers of Crown Pilot crackers discovered that Nabisco
had ceased production of their beloved product, citizen lobbying began
to pressure the corporation to reverse its decision. This consumer
grassroots campaign is an embodiment of a “new social movement”.
While the passion of campaign organizers and consumers for the cracker
was of paramount importance, the analysis also shed light on a complex
interplay of factors that coalesced, saving this product from extinction
(Hart et al.,2001). Consumers supporting the Apple Newtonwhen it was
discontinued (Muniz and Schau, 2005), as well as “Classic Coke”when
Coca Cola attempted to introduce the New Coke in 1985 (Harley, 1998),
to the extent that companies were forced to bring discontinued products
back on the market, are other examples of the same behavior. The use of
new communication technologies has helped create, sustain and
enhance the lobby efforts.
The recentacademic literature theorizes consumer agency (Kozinets
et al., 2004) discuss how consumers and producers negotiate consump-
tion, when the exchange mutually serves their respective interests.
Powerful agents determine who takes access and has considerable
influence over what constitutes effective co-production. These are
critical social spaces in which consumer tribes play an important role.
Consumer desire is a passion, born within the consumption process.
Consumers may develop imagination of and cravings for consumer
goods and services not yet launched on the market. Some of these
products may seem to promise a magical measuring of life. Belk et al.,
(2003) analyze the “Fire of Desire”through a multisited inquiry into
consumer passion. The consumption and emotion in the light of new
intersections with sociological issues of embodiment and study's
emotions (Boden and Williams, 2002). A variety of themes and issues
are raised: the persistence of mind/body, reason/emotion dualities in the
consumption literature, the importance of ‘disappointment’in con-
sumer culture, external factors which mediate the consumption
experience, and finally the interpretation of both Romanticism and
romantic, interpersonal relationships. It analyzes a largely disembodied
and socially disembedded account of consumption and emotion. In
making theseclaims, they highlight the need for a ‘passionate’sociology,
which would in turn integrate embodiment and emotions more fully
into the consumption agenda.
Speculation about the linkages between consumer products, con-
sumption-related attitudes, and subjective well-being is prominent in the
social sciences. Oropesa (1995) examines whether the accumulation and
anticipated accumulation of different types of consumer goods foster
subjective well-being, whether accumulation and anticipated accumula-
tion explained the well-established relationship between income and
subjective well-being and whether passions for the new were positively
or negatively related to subjective well-being. Although some results
indicate that the heavy theoretical emphasis on the importance of
consumer markets for subjective well-being and the income–subjective
well-being relationship wasoverdrawn, others provided weak support for
a market-centric perspective that emphasizes the positive consequences
of accumulating different types of consumer goods. Different types of
consumer goods fill different niches in individuals’lives as they age. Lastly,
the passion for new experiences in the marketplace and subjective well-
being have a positive link.
It is in the context of a postmodern society—and by opposition to
modern theories which conceived the society as joint social and
professional groups, categories and classes—emerges a network of
societal micro-groups (tribes) in which individuals share strong
emotional links, a common sub-culture and a vision of life. The impulse
to join others is universal and natural because wewant to belong (McGee-
Cooper, 2005). The word “tribe”refers to the re-emergence of quasi-
archaic values: a local sense of identification, religiousness, syncretism,
group narcissism (Cova, 1997). Postmodern communities are inherently
unstable, small-scale, and not fixed by any of the established parameters
of modern society (Maffesoli, 1996). In contrast to a market segment, a
tribe is a network of heterogeneous persons, in terms of gender, age, sex
and income, who have a link because of a shared passion or emotion. Its
members are not just consumers but also advocates. From a modernist
mechanist perspective, neo-tribes no longer fit into predefined cate-
gories, which makes their behavior predictable (Cova, 1997). Tribes differ
from psychographic segments in their short life span and diversity,
diverging from reference groups because they do not focus on the
normative influences of the group nor do individual group members
focusoneachother(Cova and Cova, 2002). Although conveying the same
characteristics as an “ethnic group”, tribes are of a smaller scale; however,
still greater than that of a clan.
Postmodern consumers use products and brands for their own
purposes as well as a medium to help them define themselves and
express their identities within society (Lannon, 1995). They develop
relationships between themselves, the brand, the firm, other consumers
and the product in use (McAlexander et al., 2002). They seek satisfaction
through emotions shared with others, through being with them, not
through consuming with them (Cova, 1997). The groups of consumers
created around one brand are the brand tribes or brand communities
(Cova and Pace, 2006) but some others seem to call them sub-cultures of
consumption (Fournier, 1998; Fournier and Yao, 1997; Schouten and
McAlexander, 2005). The difference between the meaning of these
terms as used in the literature is not is not always clear.
A brand community is a community of individuals formed on the
bases of emotional attachment to a product or a brand (Muninz and
O'Guinn, 1995, 2001). There is a strong connection between brand,
individual identity and culture. Therefore, and more precisely, a brand
community is as an enduring, self selected group of consumers, sharing
a system of values, standards and representations, who accept and
recognize bonds of membership with each other and with the whole.
The members of the community have some degree of awareness that
they belong to the group and a sense of obligation towards to the brand
community (Muninz and O'Guinn, 2001) and they influence each other
(Algesheimer et al., 2005). Some suggest that sub-cultural groups
based on ethnic origin can form brand communities (Quinn and
Devasagayam, 2005). Brand communities are forming not only in the
on line environment or for luxury brands but for all types of brand,
316 C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
even for fast moving consumer good products (Cova and Pace, 2006).
Because of the power brand communities have over the brand,
managers often try to create brand communities or to influence their
members (Cova and Cova, 2002).
Today consumers base their choices more on symbolic attributes.
The degree of trust the consumers feel towards the brand, rather than
assessment of its features and benefits, will determine which brand
they will select. Tribalism can also be focused on “making and living
together”applied in a collaborative and participatory sense. We are
witnessing an attempt to refuge the symbiosis of communities and
commerce (Cova and Cova, 2001). Tribal brands evolve around
products with similar values. They are the emotional result of
personalization. The process of creating a tribal brand incorporates
thousands of social interactions amongst customers with various
facets of their preferred brand, taking an extended link of time to
attain a socialized expression that constitutes a tribal brand
(Moutinho et al., 2007). To succeed in the era of trust networks,
consumers have to think differently about brand-voice expression. A
tribal brand is a consequence of socialized expressions.
Individuals can belong to more than one neo-tribe. During their
existence tribes convey signs, visible and invisible, with which
members identify: moments and locals where members come
together for cult rituals that are part of that collective imagery. In a
tribe totally devoted to its passion, members are ready to sacrifice
time and money (Badot and Cova, 2003).
5. Hypotheses development
The brand image plays a key role in the development of brand
relationships (Esch et al., 2006). When the new active, knowledgeable
and demanding consumer is analyzed, it has been proven that the
product/service perceptions could influence the consumer relation-
ship quality (Stuart-Menteth et al., 2006) The two constructs have
been examined together in other studies, but their direct relationship
has not always been investigated (i.e. Veloutsou, 2006). However,
researchers recognize that consumers tend to be more loyal to brands
they have a good attitude towards. Brand reputation seems to be one
of the antecedents of brand loyalty (Chaudhuri, 1999; Gounaris and
Stathakopoulos, 2004). Given these related findings and the lack of
research in this area, the hypothesis is that:
H1. The more positive thebrand reputation, the stronger the relationship
with the Brand.
Consumers share stories about brands, as powerful word-of-mouth
communications from influential or inspirational consumers passing
virally around communities (Pawle and Cooper, 2006). Even early
research suggests that other members of the socialnetwork they belong
to influences individuals. For example, an exploratory study on, if and
how informal social groups influence the brand preferences of their
members (Stafford, 1966) suggests that such groups and the informal
leader, rather than to the cohesiveness of the group, influence
consumers. The way reference groups may influence other consumers
is not independent from to the profile of the individuals, such as
housewives and students (Park et al., 1977). Other studies further
supported these findings (i.e. Bearden and Etzel,1982; Childers and Rao,
1992). For example, in an examination of differences in perceptions of
reference group influence on 16 product and branddecisions, differences
in reference group influence between publicly and privately consumed
products and luxuries and necessities are evident (Bearden and Etzel,
1982). In a replication of this study in the US and Thailand, and after
introducing the influence of the family and inter-generational influences
across the two cultures, there is more evidence that differences exist is
produced (Childers and Rao, 1992). Research also suggests that the
preferences for Japanese-made cars are related to networks defined
geographically and demographically (Yang and Allenby, 2003).
Recent somewhat more related research suggests that brand
relationships may be the result of imagination or actual participation
in brand communities (Fournier,1998; Fournier and Yao, 1997) and that
brands and their associated meanings emerge from the interactions
brands have in consumers lives (Braun-La Tour et al., 2007). The degree
to which a brand communicates reference group identity may influence
the relationships individuals develop with this brand (Swaminathan
et al., 2007). Consumers report higher brand connections for brands
with imagesthat are consistent with the image of ingroup and vice versa
(Escalas and Bettman, 2005). However, past research does not
investigate the effect of brand tribalism on the strength of the
relationship. Therefore the hypothesis is:
H2. The stronger the Brand Tribalism the stronger the Brand Relationship.
Fig. 1 illustrates the research model.
6. Methodology
The drafted questionnaire containing the developed statements
was pilot tested with a convenience sample of twenty individuals, a
mix of undergraduate and part-time MBA students in Scotland. The
developed final instrument uses 5 point Likert type scales. More
specifically, the final measures are as follows (see Appendix):
•Long Term Brand Reputation. This study uses two constructs to
measure the Long Term Brand Reputation. The first was Brand
Reputation and consisted of 3 items and the second Sustainable
Image and consisted of 2 items.
•Brand Tribalism. There is very little, if any, research attempting to
measure the strength of brand tribalism. Different studies are
measuring the construct of tribal brands in different ways. Cova and
Cova (2001) emphasize linking value, social interaction of the
communal type and the relationships between tribal rites and
capitalization of an offer at a brand image level. Other researchers,
such as Moutinho et al. (2007), use a factor structure, such as brand
liking, sponsor favorability, perception of fairness in sponsorship,
positive convergence in sponsorship, external manifestations and
accepted sponsorship. In this particular study, the features and traits
that the literature suggests that describe the construct are those
used to measure it. Several articles focusing on the brand tribes and
tribal behavior were content analyzed. Two dimensions (research
sub-constructs) are used, which comply with limited research
standards of other existing studies (Reference group acceptance and
Social visibility of brand with 5 and 3 items respectively). Three
other dimensions were incorporated in the measurability of tribal
brands. These are the Degree of fit with the individual consumer life
style, the contribution that the brand makes to the emotional life of
the consumer (Passion in Life) and another indirect measure of
group bonding, Collective Memory, with 4, 2 and 2 items respectively.
•Brand Relationship. Recently, some researchers attempted to mea-
sure brand relationships. The dimensions of the construct are under
debate in the literature. Some suggest that brand relationships
consist of brand satisfaction, brand trust and brand attachment
Fig. 1. The research model.
317C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
(Esch et al., 2006), while others from commitment, immediacy,
satisfaction and self-commitment (Aaker et al., 2004), or an adapted
instrument consisting only from commitment, immediacy and self-
commitment (Gaus et al., 2006). Some even attempt to measure
brand relationships through the investigation of brand love (Carroll
and Ahuvia, 2006). Brand attachment is the long lasting bond
between the brand and the consumer and it can be clearly
distinguished from other concepts, such as brand attitudes,
satisfaction and involvement (Thomson et al., 2005). The emotional
dimension of the bond, including the self-connection and the
immediacy, undoubtedly is a part of the relationship. However,
issues such as satisfaction from, trust towards and commitment to
the brand are constructs that research examined extensively in the
past. It is questionable if they are components of the relationship.
Some researchers, who excluded satisfaction from a previous
instrument when attempting to measure the strength of brand
relationships, seem to agree with this view (Gaus et al., 2006). All
these constructs are either antecedents to, or the outcomes of the
relationship. In most of the studies examining the strength of the
relationship the dimension of communication is not integrated.
However, if the approach is drawing from the paradigm of human
relationships, then what is defined by social psychology as
components of the relationship should be considered. Social
psychology suggests that communication is an important element
of the relationship (Hinde, 1979, 1981; Falk and Noonan-Warker,
1985; Hinde, 1995, 1997). Therefore, to measure the strength of the
relationship this study uses two dimensions introduced by Veloutsou
(2007).Thefirst dimension is the Two-way communications and has6
items, while the second Emotional exchange has 7 items.
In the beginning of the final instrument, respondents had to opt for
Coca Cola or Pepsi and then answered all questions having in mind the
chosen brand. These brands were the most frequently mentioned
brands during the pre-test of the instrument.
The primary data collection, took place over a period of three
months in Glasgow, Scotland. During the first two months, the research
instrument was developed and pre-tested, while in the final month the
quantitative data was collected, through a self-administrated survey.
Student volunteers acted as field researchers to collect the data. They
were asked to recruit non-student respondents, who would complete
the questionnaire independently. This process produced completed
questionnaires from 912 consumers. Given the nature of the product,
there is a good mix of men and women and a reasonable representation
of different age groups. The matching of the sampling descriptors in
terms of age and gender with the population parameters reflects with a
degree of acceptable standard deviation (approximately 2%), the
demographic profile of the inhabitants of the city of Glasgow (2005
population records). This matching between achieved sample in the
parent population is somewhat less effective in terms of the age
brackets due to two main factors. The trained interviewers were
relatively young and therefore more inclined to relate to rather young
respondents, in particular because of the nature of the non-
probabilistic sampling procedure. Furthermore, the nature and subject
of investigation was more prone to be readily accepted by younger
people selected for the study, because the respondents chose either
cars or soft drinks when completing the survey (Table 1).
Prior to executing any statistical tests, certain computations were
performed and the data was prepared for the rest of the analysis. All
the variables of the study were essentially perceptual and therefore
subject to a respondent's filtering process. Thus, Cronbach's Alpha was
used to test for internal consistency. The average value reported for
each of the variables was calculated and used for the various tests.
In addition to the descriptive statistics, this study employs other
statistical techniques. Due to the exploratory nature of this research, this
study uses stepwise linear regression analysis to identify the variables
predicting the dependent variables and calculates the variance inflation
factor (VIF) to control the variables of multi-collinearity.
7. Results
All the constructs of this study had Cronbach's Alpha reliability
coefficients in excess of .70, or Pearson Correlations in excess of .37
(Table 2). They are internally consistent and indeed measure the same
construct. To examine the interrelationships in the model, the average
value of the items describing each one of the constructs under
investigation is used.
For most of the constructs under investigation, the correlation was
significant in a .01 level (Tabl e 3). All correlations are positive, as
expected. The two constructs that are components of the Long Term
Reputation have a significant correlation. All the constructs that describe
the Brand Tribalism are significant correlation, with the Passion in Life
Table 1
Characteristics of the sample
No %
Gender Male 410 44.52
Female 503 54.61
n/a 8 0.87
Age −16 36 3.91
16–20 210 22.80
21–25 378 41.04
26–30 96 10.42
30–40 39 4.23
41–45 27 2.93
46–50 60 6.51
51–55 42 4.56
56–65 18 1.95
66+ 9 0.98
n/a 6 0.65
Total 921 100
Table 2
Accompanying reliability analysis
No of items Mean SD Reliability analysis
Long Term Brand Reputation
Brand Reputation 3 3.88 0.90 .84⁎
Sustainable Image 2 3.87 0.85 .44
#
Brand tribalism
Degree of fit with lifestyle 4 2.57 0.89 .83⁎
Passion in Life 2 3.12 0.76 .37
#
Reference group acceptance 5 1.96 0.92 .84⁎
Social visibility of brand 3 3.42 1.01 .71⁎
Collective Memory 2 4.04 0.87 .56
#
Brand relationship
Two-way communications 6 2.48 0.91 .82⁎
Emotional exchange 7 2.42 0.92 .90⁎
⁎Crombach Alpha.
#
Pearson correlation.
Table 3
Pearson inter-correlation
1 234567 8
1 Brand Reputation
2 Sustainable Image 0.37
3 Degree of fit with lifestyle 0.38 0.36
4 Passion in Life 0.05⁎0.25 0.14
5 Reference group acceptance 0.15 0.10 0.49 0.13
6 Social visibility of brand 0.14 0.23 0.17 0.28 0.09
7 Collective Memory 0.25 0.36 0.29 0.12 0.06 0.10
8 Two-way communications 0.21 0.25 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.24 0.09⁎
9 Emotional exchange 0.19 0.26 0.31 0.47 0.34 0.29 0.10 0.73
⁎Not significant at .01 level.
318 C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
having the strongest link with the remaining constructs. More
specifically, the Passion in Life has the strongest relationship with the
Degree of fit with lifestyle, while its correlation with the Collective
Memory and the Social Visibility of the Brand are also of interest. The
two dimensions of Brand relationships, although they are also highly
inter-correlated, although a principal component analysis with varimax
rotation clearly separates them.The correlationof the two dimensionsof
Brand Relationship with most of the other variables is significant and
between .19 and .47, with the exception of their correlation to Collective
Memory, which is lower and for Two-Way Communication not
significant at the .01 level. These findings indicate that there is a strong
relationship between the dependant and the independent constructs.
However, some of the independent variables where somewhat inter-
correlated. However the degree of multi-collinearity is not problematic
because all variance inflation factor (VIF) values are below 10, the
benchmark suggested by Neter et al. (1990). In the regression analysis,
only someof the proposed relationships were not statistically significant
(Tables 4 and 5). Therefore, revised models were developed, where the
links among variables not statistically significant at the .10 level were
deleted using stepwise regression. Both regression analyses showed
respectable explanatory power, since adjusted R
2
was .25 and .33
respectively. Given that other constructs can also influence the
relationships with brands, the exploratory power of the models cannot
be undervalued. Tables 4 and 5 present the results of the regression
analyses for Two-Way Communication and Emotional Exchange,
reporting both the full and the revised model as extracted, using
stepwise regression. For both dimensions of Brand Relationship, it is
apparent that the best predictors are the Brand Tribalism variables,
rather than the Long Term Reputation variables. The Passion in Life and
the Reference Group Acceptance seem to bethe most influential factors
in the determination of Two-Way Communication and the Emotional
Exchange, with Passion in Life having an even more significant role in
the formation of Emotional Exchange. The Degree of Fit with Lifestyle,
Social Visibility and Brand Reputation are also contributing to a certain
extent in the formation of Brand Relationships. The Sustainable Image
and the Collective Memory do not seem to have a statistically significant
relationship with two dimensions of Brand Relationships at a .01 level.
Even in the full model it is apparent that they do not contribute in a
manner worth mentioning to the formation of Two-Way Communica-
tion or the Emotional Exchange.
8. General discussion
Due to the changes in the manner companies market their brands
and the tactics that actually can contribute to the long term prosperity
of brands, the concept of Brand Relationship is increasingly receiving
the attention of academic researchers. On the surface brand commu-
nities resemble associations in their offers to members. Affiliations,
access and forums for sharing experiences and other considered
important trends. However, something else is taking place here,
something that many organizations have to fully comprehend and
successfully integrate in their business models. Consumers them-
selves, not by a centralized source generate the know-how and content
in these groups. They play a new role as sources of knowledge and are
potentially a new precursor of radically new ways in which they may
conduct consumption and presumption exchanges in the future.
Part of today’s brand success lays on the development of relationships
between the brands and the consumers as well as the brand’sownership
and consumption experience in informal brand communities, or brand
tribes. However the academic literature only recently examines these
concepts the academic literature and the research attempting to link the
two is extremely limited. This exploratory research investigates the role
of long term brand reputation and brand tribalism in the development of
relationships.
The results of this analysis are somewhat surprising. The existing
literature examining the development of relationships has established
that the brand itself is important for the formation and the prosperity of
relationships. However, these results suggest that brand tribalism is
more important than brand reputation in the formation of relationships.
This, on its own, is an interesting finding. Clearly there is an indication
that the producers lose the control of the manner in which their
customers see their brands.
In the academic literature there was some discussion stating that
brand communities are of importance and also of interest. Academics
and practitioners agree that brand communities may have a very
influential role in the development of the brand image. Therefore brand
teams often try to find ways to influence brand communities, in an
attempt to maintain the control of their brand in an indirect manner.
However, the results of this research highlight the importance of
customer groups and the interaction between brand fans. The foreseen
trend could mean that in the future the producers will be facing a
challenge, as they will be offering brands that will develop their own
character, over which the actual producer will have limited control.
Although one would expect that this trend will be more profound in
products and brands that consumers will be more involved with, this
could be a start of a new era for brand management. Given that the
effectiveness of the traditional brand support methods, such as mass
communication, constantly drops, brand teams might need to find new
innovative ways to keep some control over the reputation of their
brands, through brand communities. Even very creative brand identities
could be negatively affected, since the relationship consumers build
Table 4
Two-way communication
Full model Revised model
st b tTolerance VIF st b tTolerance VIF
Long Term Brand Reputation
Brand Reputation 0.08 2.47⁎0.78 1.28 0.09 2.88⁎0.84 1.19
Sustainable Image 0.08 2.26
#
0.69 1.44
Brand tribalism
Degree of fit with
lifestyle
0.11 2.98⁎0.59 1.70 0.12 3.32⁎0.65 1.54
Passion in Life 0.25 7.75⁎0.87 1.15 0.26 8.25⁎0.91 1.10
Reference group
acceptance
0.23 6.64⁎0.74 1.35 0.23 6.60⁎0.75 1.33
Social visibility 0.10 3.25⁎0.88 1.13 0.11 3.52⁎0.90 1.11
Collective Memory −0.06 −1.76 0.82 1.22
Adjusted R
2
.25 .25
F41.4⁎56.4⁎
⁎Significant at the .01 level.
#
Significant at the .05 level.
Table 5
Emotional exchange
Full model Revised model
st b tTolerance VIF st b tTolerance VIF
Long Term Brand Reputation
Brand Reputation 0.07 2.11
#
0.78 1.29 0.08 2.52⁎0.84 1.19
Sustainable Image 0.06 1.68 0.69 1.46
Brand Tribalism
Degree of fit with
lifestyle
0.09 2.41
#
0.58 1.72 0.10 2.69⁎0.65 1.55
Passion in Life 0.36 11.44⁎0.85 1.17 0.37 12.05⁎0.90 1.11
Reference group
acceptance
0.23 6.70⁎0.73 1.38 0.22 6.72⁎0.74 1.35
Social Visibility 0.14 4.46⁎0.87 1.15 0.14 4.69⁎0.88 1.13
Collective Memory −0.03 −0.98 0.80 1.25
Adjusted R
2
.33 .33
F58.3⁎80.9⁎
⁎Significant at the .01 level.
#
Significant at the .05 level.
319C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
with brands are far more influenced by other consumers, that consume
the brand, rather than what producers actually propose as character-
istics of their brand. This could be an indication of reduced confidence in
producers from the part of consumers, or it may be a trend that today
consuming and sharing the experience with others is becoming
increasingly important.
Practicing managers will benefit from some implied assumptions
that this study offers. A certain antecedent, the Passion in Life
attribute, triggers the degree of fit with specific consumers’lifestyles
and the brand itself. The same perceived brand features influence
consumers; Collective Memory of consumers, which many reflect a
reference group cohesion. Furthermore, the contribution of the brand
to the improvement of consumers’lives and their sense of emotional
authenticity enhances the Social Visibility of the Brand name.
It is clear that brand relationships can become more sustainable
when they are “bottom-up”tribal brands. The perceived contribution
of the brand to consumers, as well as their own acceptance of a
particular reference group membership, will help in the development
of true emotional exchange and true two-way communication
between brands and consumers Although, as expected, factors such
as the Degree of Fit with consumer lifestyles, the Social Visibility of the
Brand and the Brand Reputation itself all have an impact on the
formation of brand relationships, the effective contribution of the
brand to ameliorate consumer lives (Passion in Life) has a dominant
role in the formation of an Emotional Exchange with the brand. Passion
in Life can greatly enhance the consumption experience and brand
communities increasingly play a vital role in shaping the shift from
“matter to mind”in consumption. It is evident from this study that
Brand Tribalism is becoming a more prominent element to be taken
into account in marketing decision making as compared to just brand
reputation, especially when forming true and sustainable relationships
with consumers. Consumers are showing reduced confidence in terms
of trusting brands and wish to engage in co-creation of value.
9. Limitations and further research
This study has certain shortcomings. Although the data was
collected in a big city, the geographic area was limited. The sampling
procedure was not probabilistic, with no quota. A great proportion of
the respondents are younger consumers, who might have different
behavior than older consumers. However, this is acceptable due to the
type of product. The nature of the examined community is not formal.
The degree of affiliation with the community was decided on the
extent in which respondents identified with community features. It
can also be argues that they were demonstrating some degree of tribal
behavior. The respondents were forced to choose between two brands,
as supposed to spontaneous choice of a brand to which they feel they
are more affiliated. Furthermore, students collected the data and this
could have influenced the results.
This research identifies issues that merit further investigation. It
would be valuable to additionally examine the role of brand tribalism
in the development of brand relationships. The findings of this
research could be context specific. Future research should also
examine the role brand tribes play in the acceptance of brand
decisions or on constructs like brand loyalty. Other studies could use
other statistical analysis methods, possibly neural networks typology.
Appendix A
Long Term Brand Reputation
Brand Reputation
•This brand is trustworthy
•This brand is reputable
•This brand makes honest claims
Sustainable Image
•This brand has a long lasting nature
•In the past, today and in the future, the values behind this brand will
not change
Brand Tribalism
Degree of fit with lifestyle
•This brand is right for me
•Using this brand does something good for me
•This brand fits my image
•This brand is related to the way I perceive life
Passion in Life
•This brand makes a contribution in life
•There is something about this brand that goes beyond its tangible
characteristics
Reference group acceptance
•I would buy this brand because I am sure that myfriends approve of it
•I am very loyal to this brand because my friends also use it
•My friends buy this brand and I buy it too just because I want to be
like them
•I achieve a sense of belonging by buying the same brand my friends buy
•I often discuss with friends about this brand
Social Visibility of Brand
•Wherever I go, this brand is present
•I know of many people who own/use this brand
•I know that people feel good about this brand
Collective Memory
•When my friends buy this product they consider this purchase
•When my friends buy this product they choose this brand
Brand Relationship
Two Way Communications
•I want to be informed about this brand
•I am more willing to learn news about this brand than other brands
•I listen with interest to information about this brand
•If leaflets are sent to me from this brand, I get annoyed
•I will be willing to be informed about this brand in the future
•I am willing to give feedback to the manufacturer of this brand
Emotional Exchange
•This brand means more to me than other brands
•I care about the developments relevant to this brand
•This brand and I complement each other
•I feel comfortable with this brand
•This brand is like a person with whom I am close to
•Both this brand of cola and I benefit from our link
•Over time this brand becomes more important to me
References
Aaker D, Keller KL. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. J Mark 1990;54:27–41
(January).
Aaker J, Fournier S, Brasel A. When good brandsdo bad. J Consum Res 2004;31:1–16 (June).
320 C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
Algesheimer R, Dholakia U, Herrmann A. The social influence of brand community:
evidence from European car clubs. J Mark 2005;69:19–34 (July).
Ambler T. Building brand relationships. Financial Times Mastering Management.
Pitman Publishing; 1997. p. 175–83.
Badot O, Cova B. Néo-marketing. 10 ans après: pour une théorie critique de la
consommation et du marketing réenchantés. Rev Franç Mark 2003;195(5/5):79–94.
Bearden William O, Etzel Michael J. Reference group influence on product and brand
purchase decisions. J Consum Res 1982;9:183–94 (September).
Belk Russell, Ger Guliz, Askegaard Sören. The fire of desire: a multisited inquiry into
consumer passion. J Consum Res 2003;30(3):326–51.
BengtssonA. Towardsa critique of brand relationships. Adv ConsumRes 2003(30):54–158.
Berry LL. Cultivating service brand equity. J Acad Mark Sci 2000;28(1):128–37 Winter.
Beverland M, Lim EAC, Morrison M, Terziovski M. In-store music and consumer–brand
relationships: rational transformation following experiences of (mis)fit. J Bus Res
2006;59:982–9.
Blackston M. A brand with an attitude: a suitable case for treatment. J Mark Res Soc
1992;34(3):231–41.
Blackston M. Beyond brand personality: building brand equity. In: Aaker D, editor.
Brand equity and advertising. Lawrence Erlabaum Associates; 1993. p. 113–24.
Blackston M. Observations: building brand equity by managing the brand's relationships.
J Advert Res 2000:101–5 (November/December).
Boden Sharon, Williams Simon J. Consumption and emotion: the romantic ethic
revisited. Sociology 2002;36(3):493–512.
Braun-La Tour KA, La Tour MS, Zinkhan GM. Using childhood memories to gain insight
into brand meaning. J Mark 2007;71:45–60 (April).
Brown T, Dacin P. The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer
product responses. J Mark 1997;61:68–84 (January).
Carroll B, Ahuvia A. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark Lett
2006;17:79–89.
Chaplin LN, John DR. The development of self-brand connections in children and
adolescents. J Consum Res 2005;32:119–29 (June).
Chaudhuri A. The relationship of brand attitudes and brand performance: the role of
brand loyalty. J Mark Manag 1999:1–9 (Winter).
Childers Terry L, Rao Akshay R. The influence of familial and peer-based reference
groups on consumer decisions. J Consum Res 1992;19(2):198–211 (September).
Christensen L, Firat FA, Thoger TS. Integrated marketing communication and
postmodernity: an odd couple? Corp Commun: An Int J 2005;10(2):156–67.
Christy R, Oliver G, Penn J. Relationship marketing in consumer markets. J Mark Manag
1996;12:175–87.
Cova B, Cova V. Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the
conduct of marketing. Euro J Mark 2002;36(5/6):595–620.
Cova B, Cova V. Tribal aspects of postmodern consumption research: the case of French
in-line roller skates. J Consum Behav 2001;1(1):67–76.
Cova B, Pace S. Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer
empowerment—the case ‘my Nute lla is Community’. Euro J Mark 2006;40:1087–105.
Cova B. Community and consumption. Towards a definition of the linking value of
product and services. Euro J Mark 1997;31(3/4):297–316.
Cova B. From marketing tosocieting: when the link is more important than the thing. In:
Brownlie Douglas, et al, editor. Rethinking Marketing. London: Sage; 1999.p. 64 –83.
Coviello N, Brondie R. From transaction to relationship marketing: an investigation of
managerial perceptions and practices. J Strat Mark 1998;6:176–86.
Coviello N, Brondie R. Contemporary marketing practices of consumer and business-to-
business firms: how different are they? J Bus Indus Mark 2001;16:382–400.
Coviello N, Brondie R, Danaher P, Johnston W. How firms relate to their markets: an
empirical investigation of contemporary marketing practices. J Mark 2002;66:33–46
(July).
Dacin P, Smith D. The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations
of brand extensions. J Mark Res 1994;XXXI:229–42 (May).
Dall'Olmo Riley F, de Chernatony L. The service brand as a relationship builder. Br J
Manag 2000;11:137–50.
Daskou S, Hart S. The essence of business to consumer relationships: a phenomen-
ological approach. The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing;
2002. p. 499–515.
Elliot R. Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. In: Brownlie Douglas,
Saren Mike, Wensley Robin, Whittington Richard, editors. Rethinking marketing.
London: Sage; 1999. p. 112–25.
Escalas JE, Bettman J. Self-construal. reference groups and brand meaning. J Con sum Res
2005;32:378–89 (December).
Esch FR, Langner T, Schmitt B, Geus P. Are brands forever? How knowledge and relationships
affect current and future purchases. J Prod Brand Manag 200 6;15(2):98–105.
Fajer M, Schouten J. Breakdown and dissolution of person–brand relationships. Adv
Consum Res 1995;22:663–7.
Falk D, Noonan-Warker P. Intimacy of self-disclosure and response processes as factors
affecting the development of interpersonal relationships. J Soc Psychol 1985;125
(5):557–70.
Firat FA, Schultz II CJ. From segmentation to fragmentation—markets and marketing
strategy in the postmodern era. Euro J Mark 1997;31(3/4):183–207.
FombrunCJ, RindovaV. The road to transparency: reputation. Management at RoyalDutch/
Shell. In: Schultz M, Hatch MJ, Larsen MH, editors. The expressive organization,vol. 7.
Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 7–96.
Fournier S, Yao J. Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the framework of
consumer–brand relationships. Int J Res Mark 1997;14:451–72.
Fournier S. The brand as relationship partner: an alternative view of brand personality.
Adv Consum Res 1995;22:393.
Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. J Consum Res 1998;24:343–73 (March).
Gaus H, Weißgerber A, Zanger C. Brand relationships and consumer reaction to negative
media information. 35th European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC); 2006.
p. 23–6. May. Athens. Greece.
Gounaris S, Stathakopoulos V. Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: an
empirical study. J Brand Manag 2004;11(4):283–306.
Grönroos C. Relationship marketing: strategic and tactical implications. Manag Decis
1996;34(3):5–14.
Gummesson E. Making relationship marketing operational. Int J Ser Mark 1994;5
(5):5–20.
Harley R. Coca-Cola's classic blunder: the failure of marketing research. Marketing
Mistakes. 7th edition. Wiley; 1998. p. 160–76.
Hart Joy L, Stuart Esrock, D’Silva Margaret U, Werking Kathy J. David and Goliath
revisited: grassroots consumer campaign battles a corporate giant. Amer Commun J
2001;4(3):1–20 (Spring).
Herbig P, Milewicz J. The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success.
J Consum Mark 1995;12(4):4–10.
Hinde RA. Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press; 1979.
Hinde RA. The bases of a science on interpersonal relationships. In: Duck S, Gilmour R, editors.
Personal relationships 1: studying personal relationships. Academic Press; 1981. p.1–22.
Hinde RA. A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Person Relat 1995;2:1–15
(March).
Hinde RA. Relationships: a dialectical perspective. UK: Psychology Press; 1997.
Jevons C, Cabbott M, de Chernatony L. Customer and brand managers perspectives on
brand relationships: a conceptual framework.J Prod Brand Manag 2005;14(5):300–9.
Johnston AR, Thomson M. Are consumer relationships different? Adv Consum Res 2003
(30):350–1.
Kates S. Out of the closet and out on the street: gay men and their brand relationships.
Psychol Mark 2000;17:493–513 (June).
Kozinets RV, Sherry JF, Storm D, Duhachek A, Nuttavuthisit K, Deberry-Spence B. Ludic
Agency and retail spectacle. J Consum Res 2004;31(3):658–72 December.
Lannon J. Mosaics of meaning: anthropology and marketing. J Brand Manag 1995;2
(3):166–8.
Lye A. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water: integrating relational and the 4P's
concepts of marketing. The 10th International Colloquium in Relationship Marketing;
2002. p. 223–33.
Maffesoli M. The time of the tribes. Thousands Oaks and New Delhi. London: Sage;1996.
McAlexander J, Schouten J, Koenig H. Building brand community. J Mark 2002;66:38–54
(January).
McGee-Cooper A. Tribalism: culture wars at work. J Qual Partic Cinc 2005;28(1):12–5
(Spring).
Milewicz J, Herbig P. Evaluating the brand extension decision using a model of
reputation building. J Prod Brand Manag 1994;3(1):39–47.
Moutinho L, Dionísio P, Leal C. Surf tribal behaviour: a sports marketing application.
Mark Intell Plann 2007;25(7):668–90.
Muninz A, O'Guinn T. Brand community.Journal of Consumer Research 2001;27:412–32
(March).
Muninz A, O'Guinn T. Brand community and the sociology of brands. In: Corfman Kim P,
Lynch John G, editors. Advances in consumer research, vol. 23. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research; 1995. p. 265–6.
Muniz A, Schau HJ. Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand community.
J Consum Res 2005;31:737–47 (March).
Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner M. Applied linear statistical models. 3rd edition. Boston:
Irwin; 1990.
O'Laughlin D, Szmigin I, Turnbull P. From relationships to experiences in retail financial
services. Int J Bank Mark 2004;22(7):522–40.
O'Malley L, Tynan C. The utility of the relationship metaphor in consumer markets: a
critical evaluation. Journal of Marketing Management 1999;15:587–602.
O'Malley L, Tynan C. Relationship marketing in consumer markets: rhetoric or reality?
Euro J Mark 2000;34(7):797–815.
Oropesa RS. Consumer possessions, consumer passions, and subjective well-being.
Sociol Forum 1995;10(2):215–44 (June).
Palmer A. Integrating brand development and relationship marketing. J Retail Consum
Ser 1996;3(4):251–7.
Park C, Whan V, Lessig P. Students and housewives: differences in susceptibility to
reference group influence. J Consum Res 1977;4(2):102–10 (September).
Park C, Jaworski B, MacInnis D. Strategic brand concept-image management. J Mark
1986;50:135–45 (October).
Pawle J, Cooper P. Measuring emotion-lovemarks. the future beyond brands. J Advert
2006:38–48 (March).
Quinn M, Devasagayam R. Building brand community among ethnic diaspora in the
USA: strategic implications for marketers. Brand Manag 2005;13(2):101–14.
Rook D. The ritual dimension of consumer behavior. J Consum Res 1985;12(3):251–64.
Rowley J, Haynes L. Customer relationship management: the Matalan way. Mark Rev
2005;5:175–87.
Saren M, Tzokas N. The nature of the product in market relationships: a plury-signified
product concept. J Mark Manag 1998;14:445–64.
Schouten J, McAlexander J. Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new
bikers. J Consum Res 2005;12:43–61 (June).
Schultz D, Schultz H. Brand babble: sense and nonsense about branding. Thomson;
2004.
Shapiro C. Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Quart J Econ
1983;98:659–79 (November).
Sheth J, Parvatiyar A. The evolution of relationship marketing. Int Bus Rev 1995;4
(4):397–417.
Stafford James E. Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences. J Mark Res
1966;3(1):68–75 (February).
321C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
Stuart-Menteth H, Wilson H, Baker S. Escaping the channel silo: researching the new
consumer. Mark Res Soc 2006;48(4):415–97.
Swaminathan V, Page KL, Gürgan-Canli Z. ‘My’brand or ‘our’brand: the effects of brand
relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. J Consum Res
2007;34:248–58 (August).
Sweeney J, Chew M. Understanding consumer–service brand relationship: a case study
approach. Austral Mark J 2002;10(2):26–43.
Thomson M, MacInnis D, Park W. The ties that bind: measuring the strength of
customers' attachment to brands. J Consum Psychol 2005;15(1):77–91.
VeloutsouC. Identifying the dimensions of the product-brand and consumer relationship.
J Mark Manag 2007;23(1/2):7–26.
Veloutsou C. The role of the overall evaluation of brands and brand relationship in the
development of loyalty. 35th European Marketing Academy Conference (EMAC).
Greece: Athens; 2006. p. 23–6. May.
Verbeke W, Farris P, Thurik R. Consumer response to the preferred brand out-of-stock
situation. Euro J Mark 1998;32(10/11):1008–28.
Wathieu L, Brenner L, Carmon Z, Chattopadhyay A, Wertenbroch K, Drolet A, et al.
Consumer control and empowerment: a primer. Mark Lett 2002;13(3):297–305.
Yang Sha, Allenby Greg M. Modeling interdependent consumer preferences. J Mark Res
2003;40(3):282–94 (August).
322 C. Veloutsou, L. Moutinho / Journal of Business Research 62 (2009) 314–322
