1. Alexander Blandina, M.A. Ellen Cohn, Ph.D.
Fair consumer‐brand relationships: Analysis of combined effects toward increased consumer trust
Alexander Blandina, M.A.
Ellen Cohn, Ph.D.
An example of this research recently was in the news.

2. Director of the Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation
United was recently in the news
Response was largely panned by PR experts and consumers, however there is one response that I would like to focus on:
As unfortunate as this incident is, it highlights two areas of research.
“The United response ‘looks uncaring and it [apologizes] for the incident without really addressing the core issue of how they deal with customers.”
-Rupert Younger
Director of the Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation

3. “The United response” Consumer-Brand Relationships
“People now expect companies to understand what type of relationships they want and to respond appropriately—they want firms to hold up their end of the bargain.”
-Avery et al., 2014, p. 72 %
However, an unintended side effect of relationship marketing is the brand is viewed as a relationship partner. It was not considered the CEO’s response but the united response.
In a piece on helping brands navigate successful CBR Avery et al said ^
Mishandling CBR by deviating from the brand’s established relationship norms produces revenue loss, increases negative consumer behaviors, such as buying from a competitor out of vengeance and undermines consumer satisfaction, trust, and commitment
Violation of relationship type leads to consumers holding a grudge against a business indefinitely
Forming a high quality consumer-brand relationship means a business must now be aware that consumers expect actions and relationship norms that remain congruent with the consumers expectations.
Between 65 to 85% of satisfied consumers defect from a brand to their competitor despite positive interactions. Such high amounts of consumer attrition may be due to businesses misunderstanding the full effect relationship marketing and advertising has on consumers psychologically.
What is it that consumers pay attention to?
reduce consumer trust and purchase intentions through poor outcomes (i.e., distributive justice), unfair policies (i.e., procedural justice), or disrespectful treatment (i.e., interactional justice).
Aggarwal, 2004; Bechwati & Morrin, 2003; Grégoire, Tripp, & Legoux, 2009; Reichheld, 1996; Sitkin & Roth, 1993

4. “how they deal with customers” Perceptions of Justice
Unfair CC BY-SA 3.0 Nick Youngson
Instances within an interaction which portray fairness towards a consumer
Received Outcomes (Distributive Justice)
Apologizing and fixing a product
Customer Treatment (Procedural Justice)
Allowing a passenger to stay on the plane
Distributive
successful maintenance of distributive justice ensures several positive benefits, such as increased consumer loyalty, trust, satisfaction, and reduced negative word of mouth (Blodgett et al., 1993; Tax et al., 1998).
If outcomes are distributed unfairly then people become motivated to perform behaviors which will restore equity to the relationship in comparison to others such as complaining to management, spreading negative word of mouth, or buying products from a competitor (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003; Blodgett et al., 1997
distributive justice seems to be the strongest predictor of consumer trust and satisfaction (Santos & Fernandez, 2008)
suggesting that a consumer’s main concern when interacting with a brand is receiving a fair outcome for themselves.
Procedural
perception of the process in which the decision was made (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tax & Brown, 1998; Tyler, 2005).
Awareness of consumer complaints and listens to their problems, reported increase in consumer outcomes
Researchers began incorporating voice to understand changes in consumer satisfaction, trust, and loyalty after a service failure. allowance of voice increased consumer satisfaction (Clemmer, 1993; Goodwin & Ross, 1992).
Adams, 1965; Bechwati & Morrin, 2003; Blodgett, Hill, & Tax, 1997; Clemmer, 1993; Folger & Bies, 1989; Goodwin & Ross, 1992; Lind & Tyler, 1988; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Santos & Fernandez, 2008; Smith & Bolton, 1998; Tax & Brown, 1998; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998; Tyler, 2005

5. Research Questions
Do different consumer-brand relationships affect consumer perceptions of justice? Can procedural justice affect consumer outcomes independent of distributive justice?
Credit: Professional Images
Unfortunately, no researcher has studied the effects of both consumer-brand relationships and perceptions of injustice.
Is it possible to combine these perspective to understand consumer behavior?
Currently, all consumer justice research intuitively focuses on the discreet interaction a consumer has while complaining to a brand about a service failure. Researchers believe these interactions represent instances where perceptions of justice will be most recognized. However, service failure scenarios do not represent every interaction a consumer may have with a brand. Furthermore, consumer-brand relationships account for consumer and brand behavior across several different interactions (e.g., advertising, social media, and usage of products) and not only through consumer complaints (Dwyer et al., 1987; Gosline, 2015).
Customer service to control for perceptions towards the brand and not a representative

6. Methods & Procedure
Participants (N = 198) were randomly presented with a CBR description identified through previous research (Miller, Fournier, & Allen, 2012)
Provided a regularly used brand that fit the description
Identified if the description was negative or positive
e.g., Abusive or Committed
73.7% Female, 93% Caucasian, Average age (SD = 1.27)
Mainly freshman (45.3%) & sophomores (35.9%)
abusive, adversarial, committed, communal, dependent, exchange, master/slave, or secret affair (Miller, Fournier, & Allen, 2012)
Brands supplied by participants were used to ensure previous relationship knowledge

7. 7 point-Likert Survey Items
Procedural justice, 13 items (M = 4.64, SD = 1.27, α = .95)
[Brand] provides consumers with fair treatment
Distributive justice, 11 items (M = 4.24, SD = 1.22, α = .92)
If consumers need something from [brand], they will get it
Consumer trust, 4 items (M = 3.21, SD = 1.58, α = .92)
I can count on [brand] to do what is best for me
Consumer loyalty, 8 items (M = 3.34, SD = 1.62, α = .89)
I tell others about my positive experiences with [brand]
Customer service, 10 items (M = 4.18, SD = 1.40, α = .97)
[Brand]'s customer service is a place consumers can get solutions to their problems

8. Correlational Relations between Predictors & Dependent Variables
Consumer Service
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Trust
.216**
0.064
.663**
.289**
.617**
.559**
Loyalty
.345**
.577**
.500**
.652**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Almost all variables were significantly related to each other
Customer service not related to PJ
Perceptions of justice were highly related to consumer trust and loyalty
Customer service was only moderately related to remaining variables
Supports our hypothesis that consumers may be using brand experiences, such as perceptions of justice, beyond customer service to influence their loyalty and trust

9. Consumer-Brand Relationship Perceptions
Every participant (N = 198), regardless of the relationship, could think of a brand that fit within the description that was presented indicating that individuals do consider their relationship with businesses.
Participants rated committed, communal and exchange relationships as significantly more positive than abusive, adversarial, master/slave, and secret affair relationships

10. Manipulated Effects Due to CBR Type
Every variable was significantly different based on negative or positive perceptions of CBR
All t(196) > 7.86, p < .001
Supports previous research that positive relationships will increase trust and loyalty but also shows that CBR causes an effect on one’s perceptions of justice. Consumers are aware of the outcomes and treatment that a brand provides.
However, from this result it is unclear how procedural justice may relate to consumer loyalty or trust.
DJ: t(196) = 8.51, p < .001
PJ: t(196) > 8.52, p < .001
Trust: t(196) > 7.86, p < .001
Loyalty: t(196) > 12.78, p < .001

11. Predicted changes in consumer loyalty*
Positive CBR (R2 = .17, F(3,100) = 6.81, p < .001)
Positive relationships and customer service were significant predictors of consumer loyalty
Negative CBR (R2 = .24, F(3,96) = 9.50, p < .001)
Only distributive justice was a significant predictor of consumer loyalty * *
Within positive relationships, consumers rely on previous accounts of brand relationship and how the brand can solve the problem
Negative: Already know the service, relationship, and treatment is terrible and only want to ensure the problem is fixed fairly (supporting previous research that only looks at times that are perceived as negative such as service recovery)
Consumer-Brand Relationship

12. Predicted changes in consumer trust
Positive CBR (R2 = .26, F(3,100) = 11.29, p < .001)
Customer service was a significant predictor of consumer trust
Both perceptions of justice also significantly predicted changes in trust
Negative CBR (R2 = .36, F(3,96) = 17.43, p < .001)
Both perceptions of justice significantly predicted changes in trust * * * * *
Distributive
Justice
Trust reflects the ability of the Brand to change its behavior in the future
Procedural
Justice
Customer
Service
Consumer-Brand Relationship

13. Theoretical Implications
First research to highlight a relationship between CBR and justice perceptions
Specific relationship types establish norms which allow consumers to form brand interaction expectations
Previous research focused on brand personality and relationship strength
Some norms could be expectations of fair outcomes and treatment which vary upon CBR type
Positive brand relationships could be inadvertently providing unfair perceptions
Unclear how perceptions of justice may directly affect consumer trust within consumer-brand relationships
Some aspects of procedural justice may be more relevant to consumers
Respectful treatment may be more applicable than fair procedures
These results provide the first piece of evidence that consumer-brand relationships cause different perceptions of procedural justice.
Positive relationships predict increased loyalty regardless of perceptions of justice
Relationship type interacts with consumer perceptions of justice to influence increased consumer trust
Result are independent of customer service and direct consumer engagement
Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Aggarwal, 2004; Alvarez & Fournier, 2012; 2016; Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2011; Fournier, 1998; Miller et al., 2012; Lind & Tyler, 1988

14. Managerial Implications
Relationship maintenance is an active process for separate outcomes
Positive relationships should provide fair outcomes and fair treatment
Deliver a quality product and listen to consumer responses with respectful treatment
Negative relationships should focus on fair outcomes
Deliver a quality product and not worry about consumer treatment
Results suggest that firms must pay attention to the norms the consumer prefers
Lastly, research establishes a trajectory for firms to change from negative to positive CBRs
United should show that they understand the consumer perspective
Change their policy to avoid a similar situation
United actually changed their policy to only remove passengers

15. Thank You!
Questions?
United actually changed their policy to only remove passengers before they have boarded
Effects could be different depending on culture (Japanese CEOs are expected to apologize and be personable whereas American CEOs are lawsuit averse)