1. 0 Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway-Dato-On Crummer Graduate School of Business Rollins College

2. 1 Brand Love Interpersonal or Parasocial Relationship? Marc Fetscherin, Ph.D. & Mary Conway Dato-on, Ph.D. Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business MBA Ranking Financial Times #59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida

3. Agenda Introduction & Literature Review Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Research Method Analyses and Results Conclusion and Limitations 2

4. 3 Purpose (1) Assess the relationship between brand love and existing branding concepts (2) Assess the suitable underlying relationship theory in which brand love is grounded

5. 4 Literature Review Feelings of love towards products (Ball and Tasaki, 1995; Rozanski et al., 1999; Thomason et al., 2005; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988) Feeling of love towards brands (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998; Monga, 2002; Swaminathan et al., 2007) Brands as relationship partners (Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007) with many different brand relationship constructs (Fournier, 1998) Various types of intensities of relationships (Albert et al., 2008) Literature review indicates all empirical studies based on the interpersonal love relationship theory (Sternberg, 1986)

6. 5 Brand Love Brand love - one of the least studied brand constructs Love influences consumer’s emotion and has a strong connection to individual’s self concept and identity (Richins, 1997) Emotions are linked to product risks and purchase intention (Chaudhuri, 1998) Definition of brand love –Degree of passionate emotional attachment (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006) –Intimate, passionate, and committed relationship characterized by its reciprocal, purposive and dynamic properties (Keh, Pang & Peng, 2007)

7. 6 Few Brand Love Studies AuthorsDim. / items RespondentsAlpha Limitations Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) 1 / 10334 Adult Consumers Brand love (.91) Brand loyalty (.84) WOM (.92)  Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love  Brand love -> brand loyalty Keh et al. (2007) 3 / 11N/AIntimacy (.72) Passion (.88) Commitment (.97)  Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love  No indication of type and # respondents Kamat and Parulekar (2007) 5 / 52139 respondents N/A  Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love  No validity check (alpha) Heinrich et al. (2008) 3 / 9299 respondents Intimacy (.94) Passion (.89) Commitment (.88)  Based on Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love  Not product specific

8. 7 Limitations of Current Studies All based on same relationship theory, Sternberg (1986) triangular theory of interpersonal love Theory is robust but sole theoretical basis is challenged –Yoon and Gutchess (2006) showed consumers process brand relationships in a different part of the brain than is used for interpersonal relationships (see also Ahuvia, 2008*) * Symposium, Advances in Consumer Research, 2008, p. 177

9. Agenda Introduction & Literature Review Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Research Method Analyses and Results Conclusion and Limitations 8

10. 9 Interpersonal Love If brand love is grounded by theory of interpersonal love relationship, many other theories: –Love Attitude Scale (Henddrick and Hendrick, 1986) –Relationship Rating Form (Davis and Todd, 1985) –Passionate Love Scale (Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986) –Attachment Styles (Shaver and Hazan, 1987) Masuda (2003) in the meta-analyses of love scales shows love has two dimensions: erotic and companionate love Sternberg does not differentiate among love dimensions H1: Interpersonal companionate love relationship has a positive effect on brand love

11. 10 Parasocial Love Brand love is a one-directional relationship (parasocial) rather than a bi-directional relationship (interpersonal) Wang et al. (2004, p. 320) “when the target of love is replaced with an object, love becomes uni-directional” Parasocial interaction (PSI) is a perceived relationship of friendship or intimacy by audience with media person (Horton and Wohl, 1956) Originally assess the relationship between celebrities and audience or fans (Caughey, 1984) H2: Parasocial love relationship has a positive effect on brand love

12. 11 Brand History Fournier and Yao (1997) stressed that a brand can generate nostalgic remembrances from childhood Consumers with long history might be more brand loyal, but might also have a positive feeling towards the brand H3a: Brand history has a positive effect on brand loyalty H3b: Brand history has a positive effect on brand love

13. 12 Brand Loyalty Generally positive relationship between brand satisfaction and brand loyalty (Kraft et al., 1973; LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983; Kasper, 1988; Bloemer and Lemmink, 1992). Less known relationship between brand loyalty and brand love. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) or Kamat and Parulekar (2007) argue that brand love precedes brand loyalty We challenge, people who are loyal do not necessarily love the brand but people who love a brand are loyal to that brand H4: Brand loyalty has a positive effect on brand love

14. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love Brand Loyalty H1, H2 H3b H4 H3a Research Model

15. Agenda Introduction & Literature Review Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Research Method Analyses and Results Conclusion and Limitations 14

16. 15 Research Method Measurement items –Dependent variables: Expressed overall love for brand (Albert et al. 2008; Rubin, 1970) –Independent variables Interpersonal love: Love Attitude scale (Hendrick and Hendrick, 1986; Lee 1977) Parasocial love: Parasocial Interaction scale (Perse and Rubin, 1989) Brand history: (Albert et al., 2008) Brand loyalty: Attitudinal & behavioral brand loyalty (Quester and Lim, 2003) Product category: Cars - heavily branded products (Albert et al. 2008)

17. Data Collection Data collection: Survey among undergraduate and graduate students in the United States* Pre-Test with 20 respondents Surveyed 196; 180 usable questionnaire Unbiased brand recall of 3 car brands, select favorite as reference brand to answer survey All Questions use 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This allows consistent coding 16 * Country image scale (Martin and Eroglu, 1993), buying impulsiveness scale (Rook and Fisher, 1995), brand association scale (Low and Lamb, 2000), consumer-based brand equity scale (Yoo and Donthu, 2001)

18. Agenda Introduction & Literature Review Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Research Method Analyses and Results Conclusion and Limitations 17

19. 18 Reliability and Validity Content validity - items based on current literature and consulting other marketing professors Construct validity –Convergence validity (internal consistency, stability and reliability) Cronbach alpha. Overall with.922; interpersonal love (.905); parasocial love (.794); brand history (.840); and brand loyalty (.850) Test-retest reliability by split-half reliability (.728) and odd-even reliability (.927) –Discriminate validity by means of EFA and CFA

20. 19 Summary Results Model Parasocial Relationship Model Interpersonal Relationship Hypotheses Testing H1&2: Relationship Theory → Brand Love (+).75 *** (H2).35 *** (H1) H3a: Brand History → Brand Loyalty (+).44 ***.43 *** H3b: Brand History → Brand Love (+).06.04 H4a: Brand Loyalty → Brand Love (+).35 ***.60 *** *** p <.01; ** p <.05; * <.10

21. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 70% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.75*** 0.06 0.35*** 0.44*** Summary Results Interpersonal Love Parasocial Love Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 46% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.35*** 0.04 0.60*** 0.43***

22. 21 Summary Model Fit Model Parasocial Relationship Model Interpersonal Relationship Threshold Brand LoveR 2 = 70%R 2 = 46% Chi-square/df2.7332.525≤ 3 Normal Fit Index (NFI).744.792≥.9 Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI).770.826≥.9 Comparative Fit Index (CFI).816.860≥.9 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).098.092≤.08

23. Agenda Introduction & Literature Review Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Research Method Analyses and Results Conclusion and Limitations 22

24. 23 Conclusion Both relationship theories explain some degree of brand love but the construct based on parasocial love theory > interpersonal love theory Brand history positively influences brand loyalty but does not influence brand love What is the relationship between brand loyalty and brand love? We show that brand loyalty positively influences brand love Future research is needed to further understand the concept of brand love and the interaction with other brand constructs

25. 24 Limitations Student sample: Many studies use students still limitation and larger and more diverse pool of respondents needed (e.g., country image scale by Martin and Eroglu (1993) or consumer-based brand equity scale by Yoo and Donthu (2001)) Other countries (relate culture and brand love) Other product categories Independent variables, use other branding constructs Dependent variable, include behavioral data Improve overall model fit by adding other variables or measurement items

26. 25 Title Text…. Text Financial Times #59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida www.consumer-brand-relationship.com Rollins College Crummer Graduate School of Business MBA Ranking Financial Times #59 worldwide Business Week #23 nationally, #1 in Florida Forbes #36 nationally, #1 in Florida

27. 26 Thank you

28. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 70% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.75*** 0.06 0.35*** 0.44*** Comparison: Parasocial Love Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 76% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 52% 0.86*** 0.15 0.66*** 0.21**

29. Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 46% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 19% 0.35*** 0.04 0.60*** 0.43*** Relationship Theory Brand History Brand Love R 2 = 30% Brand Loyalty R 2 = 49% 0.53*** 0.12 0.63*** 0.23** Comparison: Interpersonal Love