is your brand a one-night stand? managing consumer-brand relationships

Is Your Brand a One-Night Stand? Managing Consumer–Brand RelationshipsCompanies strive to establish a relationship between brands and consumers that is as intensive and long-lasting as possible. However, the multifaceted relation-ships which consumers develop through a range of brand experiences are not adequately captured by existing research approaches. To this end, the consumer–brand relationship approach is a valuable addition.

Niels Neudecker, Oliver Hupp, Alexandra Stein, Harald Schuster

22 Marketing Review St. Gallen 6 | 2013

Schwerpunkt | Markenerlebnisse managen

Loyal consumers are profitable consumers: they know the brand, it is famil-iar to them and consequently they prefer it and buy its products more often. Ideally they even recommend their favorite brands to others. These para-meters are all monitored and measured by many companies today using ap-proaches such as the purchase funnel or customer value. Although these ap-proaches provide an initial overview of key economic indicators, they are of-ten one-dimensional in their perspective. Brand relationships should be understood as similar to relationships between people. They are not always rational or linear but often multifaceted and complex (Aaker/Fournier 1995, p. 393). “People form relationships with brands in much the same way in which they form relationships with each other in a social context” (Aggar-wal 2004, p. 87). Some brand relationships can be impulsive and passionate like a one-night stand, while others are characterized by being rather habit-ual and cognitive, as with a colleague. Strong dependencies can develop, which can be maintained for a lifetime, as in a marriage, or result in con-flicts and end abruptly, as between ex-friends. The complexity of brand re-lationships becomes apparent in Fournier‘s research (1994, 1998, 2009), which distinguishes between more than 50 different relationship types.

The reason why consumers develop relationships with brands can be sum-marized as follows: brand relationships involve both emotional and ration-al benefits. Relationships with brands are a reflection of personality, and they shape identity. They help to distinguish between what a person would and would not like to be. Personal values can be expressed through brands, and by means of brands, consumers can feel complete and happier. Ultimately, brand relationships contribute towards fulfilling the needs and motivations of consumers and therefore help to achieve individual goals (Reimann et al. 2011, p. 411).

Similarly to interpersonal relationships, the depth and quality of brand re-lationships are determined by the experiences with these brands. Only if the brand relationships relevant to consumers are identified, can brand experi-ences be used in a targeted way to generate success for the brand.

So far, however, there had been no suitable research approach which makes it possible to reliably measure the full depth and (emotional) quality of brand relationships. The consumer–brand relationship (CBR) approach fills this gap. The benefits of this approach in comparison with traditional market-ing tools will be systematically presented below. The following case study will demonstrate how brand relationships can be measured in different cat-egories (diagnosis) and be used for the identification of relevant experience points (strategy).

Measuring Brand Strength in a Comprehensive, Emotio-nal and Non-Linear WayConsumers’ brand knowledge plays a key role in measuring brand strength and can be operationalized through brand awareness and brand image con-structs (Aaker 1991). Brand awareness is processed in a relatively rational way and can be well measured using traditional tools as these aspects are

Dr. Niels NeudeckerSenior Research Consultant, GfK SE.E-Mail: [email protected]

Dr. Oliver HuppDivison Manager, GfK SE. E-Mail: [email protected]

Alexandra SteinHead of Brand & Customer Experience Germany, GfK SE.E-Mail: [email protected]

Harald Schuster Research Manager, GfK SE.E-Mail: [email protected]

23Marketing Review St. Gallen 6 | 2013


consciously perceived. However, a comprehensive picture of a brand’s strength can only be obtained if the brand image and its associations are also captured. “Brand image refers to the set of associations linked to the brand that consumers hold in memory” (Keller 1993, p. 2). Measuring brand asso-ciations presents one key problem: they are strongly shaped by emotions and are therefore processed intuitively and subconsciously (Damasio 1994; Lind-strom 2008, p. 128 ff.).

For this reason, there are limitations both to existing quantitative meas-urement approaches (e.g., rating scales) and to qualitative methods (e.g., in-depth interviews) for measuring brand strength. Subconscious memory con-tent cannot be verbalized. The use of non-verbal stimuli is also limited when dealing with this difficulty and therefore an indirect measurement concept is necessary. This is where the CBR approach comes into play. By applying interpersonal relationships as metaphors for brand relationships, the per-sonal attitudes of consumers to different brands can be captured indirectly (Fournier 1998; Aggarwal 2004).

Intuitive understanding of complex relationships is the main advantage of applying metaphors for measuring brand strength. Surveying the same con-tent using traditional rating scales would be impossible to implement be-cause of the resultant survey length. “Metaphors can help bring consumers’ important – but unconscious – thoughts and feelings to the surface … and conscious awareness” (Zaltman 2003, p. 38). For example, the mind’s eye quickly conjures up an idea of what the “one-night stand” relationship type means, much faster than it can be verbalized: a one-night stand is a loose, short-term relationship with great appeal. From the start, it is clear that this is a one-off encounter for the time being, without responsibilities and con-cessions. Economic consequences are also clear: there is greater willingness to pay a high price for a one-night stand. This brand relationship often ap-plies to newly launched products and brands, e. g. the smoothie products of the brands “innocent” and “true fruits”. In this case consumers may not have the initial intention to create a lasting relationship; therefore it is the brand manager’s role to develop the relationship with the consumer, be it into a longer “secret affair”, a “star–groupie” relationship or into being “best friends”. If consumers feel attached to a brand as they do to their “marriage partner”, lifelong brand loyalty may be the result (Miller et al. 2012, p. 30).

Brand managers are therefore relationship managers for their brand. This new approach expands on the traditional linear and one-dimensional con-sideration of the purchasing decision-making process (e.g., using the pur-chase funnel) to answer the question of why a consumer is in a particular funnel stage. Different brand relationships that are multidimensional and associated with the possibility of diverse, non-linear (sometimes also nega-tive) developments provide the answers. These developments can happen through positive or negative brand experiences, but also through changes in the consumers’ living circumstances. Based on myths and legends, a Harley Davidson may initially be considered a “star”, but after many long rides the motorbike becomes a “best friend”. Following the birth of a first child, liv-

Main Proposition 1Strong consumer–brand relationships lead to high market share and price premium.



ing circumstances suddenly change and the Harley Davidson becomes a “for-mer friend”. This relationship might be resumed many years later with the bike as an “old friend” (Fournier 2009, p. 17).

Validation of Internationally Uniform Relationship TypesBased on Fournier’s research (1998), we developed an approach for compre-hensively measuring CBR. It essentially meets two criteria: •It covers the entire range of possible relationship types.• The traits associated with each relationship type are the same around the

world. To guarantee these two aspects, a three-stage cross-cultural baseline sur-

vey was conducted to develop a comprehensive classification system for CBR.

Study 1: Building on Fournier’s work (1998), focus group interviews were carried out in the USA that identified 53 different relationship types (e.g. marriage partners, colleagues, ex-friends, one-night stands, complete stran-gers, etc.) and a total of 48 associated relationship traits (e.g. flexible – in-flexible, intense – weak, etc.)

Study 2: In the first quantitative phase, these 53 relationship patterns and 48 traits were presented in three different cultures (Western, Asian, Latin, approx. 1,000 respondents each) to ensure that they were similar with regard to their associations and that there were no culture-specific differences. Re-lationship types for which interpretations differed between the cultures were excluded from the model.

Study 3: In a further quantitative survey, approximately 1,200 respondents in different culture groups (China, Germany, Spain and the USA) were asked to evaluate a series of 66 product brands belonging to eleven product cate-gories, and to assign relationship types to each one of them. Some of the 53 relationship types were used relatively frequently to describe a brand rela-tionship, others were less common. Through an additional consolidation process it was possible to reduce the theoretically derived relationships to 27 different relationship types, for which the meanings did not overlap and marketing relevance was indisputable. This established a basis for a global-ly stable relationship map in which all relationship types have a fixed posi-tion. This relationship map spreads out across all the relevant relationship traits. However, to be able to maintain a clear overview, a simplified two-di-mensional map was created on the basis of two dominating trait pairs, “warm – distant” and “intense – weak” (see figure 1).

Survey and Practical ApplicationsEvaluating consumer–brand relationships with this system is a two-step pro-cess. In the first step, respondents describe their relationship with each brand by picking the most relevant metaphors from the set of 27 in an intuitive drag & drop process. In the second step, respondents are asked to choose the one single dominating relationship type from their previous selection for each brand.

Management SummaryConsumers develop various relation-ships with brands because they benefit from them in emotional and rational ways. Using brand experiences, brand managers can strengthen the consum-er–brand relationship systematically, but only if the relationship can be quan-tified and managed. The consumer–brand relationship approach is a tool that can be applied globally to compre-hensively assess the consumer–brand relationship and derive strategic areas of action.

Main Proposition 2Brand relationships are multilayered, non-linear and address a range of different emotions.



Source: GfK SE

The manifestation of each of the 27 relationship types across the brands can be directly visualized in the globally stable relationship map on the ba-sis of frequency distribution. As part of a specific research project, this pro-vides an initial overview but further analysis quickly becomes complex due to the high degree of detail. For this reason, a two-step cluster analysis has to be carried out (step 1, hierarchical; step 2, k-means) to condense the 27 relationship types into overarching relationship segments, typically between five and eight. Each relationship segment includes the relationship types that respondents clubbed together most often for a given industry or country. This segmentation makes it possible to take industry-specific consumer–brand relationships into account. For example, when analyzing automotive brands, the relationship types “teacher” and “teammate” can both be pooled under the relationship cluster “mentoring mates” (see figure 1). This could apply to brands that are perceived as innovative but are at the same time seen as equals of the consumer, such as VW or Hyundai.

Which relationship types and relationship clusters show up in a defined competitive environment depends on the analyzed industries and product types. For products with relatively low involvement, such as milk and show-er gel, relationship types with low emotional engagement are evident (fling, one-night stand, online friend) because the change barriers are relatively low. In contrast, relationships with high involvement products, such as smart-phones and automobiles, are often closer (marriage partner, guru), but can

Fig. 1 Globally Stable Relationship Map with Category-Specific Relationship Clusters

Marriagepartners

Old friends

Close siblings

Teammates

Colleagues

Ex-friends

Fling

Online friend

Complete strangers

Guru / Disciple

Victim

Buddy

Fleeting acquaintance

Star / Groupie

Former friend

Next -door neighbors

Teacher / Student Best friends

Annoying acquaintance

Enemy

Secret affair

Stalker /Prey

One -night-stand

Casual acquaintance

Love -hate relationship

Marriage on-the-rocks

Dealer /Addict

Fleeting Fling

Complete Strangers

Casual Acquaintances

Seducing Star

Close Friends

Next -Door Friends

Divorced Friends

Mentoring Mates

Colleagues

Online friend

Buddy

Next -doorneighbors

Teammates

Teacher /Student

Casualacquaintance

Completestrangers

7%

12%

17%

9%

Marriagepartners

Old friends

Close siblings

Best friends

19%

Fling

Fleetingacquaintance

Star /Groupie

Secret affaffff ir

Guru / Disciple

14%Formerfriend

Ex-friends

Love -haterelationship

Marriageon-the-rocks

10%

12%

Specific relationship clusters per product category and region.within a globally stable map.27 different relationship types

Intense

Weak

Warm

Dis

tant

Main Proposition 3Traditional measuring tools fall short of capturing consumer–brand relationships and it is necessary to apply metaphors to allow indirect quantification.



also slide into negative relationships (marriage on-the-rocks, love–hate). In both cases, the CBR approach provides valuable diagnostic and strategic sup-port for brand management (Hupp/Wittenbraker 2012).

Diagnosis of Consumer–Brand RelationshipsThe relationship patterns created by the cluster analysis form the basis for diagnosing consumer–brand relationships. The frequency of the respective brand’s allocation to the individual segments can be determined, i.e., how many consumers have which kind of relationship with each particular brand. Data from an international automotive study were used for the following case study. The results were made anonymous for confidentiality reasons.

Figure 2 shows that the relationship with car brand C was relatively often described as a “fleeting fling” (17% compared with 12% average for the cat-egory). Two methods are suitable for analyzing the relevance of this relation-ship cluster:

1. Integrative approach. When traditional key performance indicators (KPIs), for example of the purchase funnel, are collected in addition to CBR data, they can be linked to each other. Consequently, specific performance indicators can be determined for each relationship cluster. To demonstrate this approach, four relevant relationship clusters have been linked to data from the purchase funnel in figure 2.

2. Stand-alone approach. This approach is particularly suitable when CBR has been assessed and no further KPIs are available for comparison purposes. In this case, the different relationship types of a cluster (e.g. fleet-ing fling) are evaluated with respect to their potential for generating market share and price premium. The potential of each relationship type is derived from a global database which combines the actual price premium and mar-ket share of brands with their relationship structure (figure 3).

Both the integrative and the stand-alone approach generate comparable results. Figure 3 illustrates, for example, that the relationship types “fling” and “fleeting acquaintance” in the “fleeting fling” cluster (see figure 1) have a high potential for generating a price premium, but at the expense of mar-ket share. In the integrative approach, the “fleeting fling” relationship clus-ter also shows a low correlation with market share as derived from its fun-nel performance, with a first choice of 0%. No one in this relationship clus-ter would actually choose to buy this car. Although the brand has already aroused some interest among potential customers, possibly by its compel-ling exterior, this relationship must be further strengthened by relevant brand experiences. Taking into consideration potential development pros-pects for a “fleeting fling”, aiming for the “next door friends” cluster would not be the best option for brand C because of the below-average funnel per-formance (first choice 4%). More appropriate strategic options would be the development from a “fleeting fling” to a “seducing star” or to “close friends”.

Lessons Learned•Brand managers must understand the diversity and depth involved in con-sumers forming relationships with brands. •It has been proven that strong con-sumer relationships have a positive im-pact on the key drivers of financial brand value: market share and price premium. This applies to all industries and product categories. •The general rule that “you can’t man-age what you don’t measure” also ap-plies to consumer–brand relationships. These need to be comprehensively as-sessed to be able to successfully target consumers via experience points.

Main Proposition 4Based on consumer–brand relationships, brand strength can be diagnosed and strategic recommendations for action can be developed.



Developing a Strategy for Strengthening the Consumer–Brand RelationshipTwo different development paths are worth considering when determining the areas in which to take action for car brand C: “seducing star” and “close friends”. The decision on how to proceed should be based on brand identi-ty and market situation. Brands A and B quite clearly dominate the “close friends” relationship cluster in the relevant market segment (figure 2), while the relevant criteria for the “seducing star” relationship have been consider-ably less fulfilled by competitors to date. A further factor supporting this de-velopment path is that brand C is already perceived as a “fling”, which may be explained by its to-date positioning on the basis of the brand identity. Evolving the relationship to that of a “seducing star” therefore seems the most appropriate pathway. When focusing on this relationship segment, it is crucial to take into account that in this segment the positive opinion of a brand is higher than its familiarity. In this respect, consumers appear to ad-here to the principle: to like is more important than to understand. Market-

Source: GfK SE

Fig. 2 Comparison of Relevant Relationship Patterns and their Funnel Performance

RT10

RT16

Next-door Neighbors

RT02

RT15

RT11

RT09

Fleeting Acquaintance

RT13

Close Siblings

Guru

RT05

RT14

RT17

Buddy

FlingRT03

RT04

RT06

RT01

RT18

RT07

RT13

RT08

Old FriendsRT12

-8,000 -3,000 2,000 7,000 12,000 17,000Market Share Potential (R2=.67)

Pric

e Pr

emiu

m P

oten

tial (

R2 =

.52)

Close FriendsSeducing Star

Next-Door FriendsRT = Rela�onship Types (blinded)

Flee�ng Fling



ing campaigns should therefore particularly aim to stimulate enthusiasm for a brand and not simply explain the product.

Whether car brand C is able to establish the relationship of “seducing star” with consumers depends on the perceived brand experience. Thus, as a next step it has to be determined which brand image has the greatest relevance for the “seducing star” relationship cluster and which experience points will lead to it. For comprehensively evaluating the quality of experience points, it is recommended to record both how memorable they are (vividness) and the impression (positive/negative) they leave behind. To this end, drag & drop processes have already been established in practice, offering consider-able benefits over traditional rating scales. Based on a regression model, the relevance of brand images and experience points for the “seducing star” re-lationship can then be determined. Ordered in a ranking, these can then be set against the “close friends” relationship. This then allows the selection of appropriate adjustment levers (figure 4).

Source: GfK SE

Fig. 3 Influence of Relationship Types on Market Share and Price Premium

19%16%

18%

13%

22%

A B C D E …

Next - Door Friends

28%

34%

17%

10%

15%

A B C D E …

Close Friends

∅19%

14%16%

14%

24%

7%

A B C D E …

Seducing Star

7% 6%

17%

11%13%

A B C D E …

Fleeting Fling

15%

50%

73%

77%

First choice

Consideration

FavourableOpinion

Familiarity

Awareness

Close Friends(brand C)

17%

12%

43%

65%

59%

First choice

Consideration

FavourableOpinion

Familiarity

Awareness

SeducingStar(brand C)

4%

27%

45%

51%

First choice

Consideration

FavourableOpinion

Familiarity

Awareness

Next -DoorFriends(brand C)

0%

12%

31%

37%

First choice

Consideration

FavourableOpinion

Familiarity

Awareness

FleetingFling(brand C)

∅14%

14%

∅17%

18%

∅12%

17%

91% 93% 77% 83%



For car brand C, the driver analysis provides a clearly differentiated stra-tegic starting point. For the selected “seducing star” relationship cluster, out-door posters, new media (e.g., social media) and ads on mobile phones are all highly relevant experience points. The positioning communicated via these experience points relates to “perfection in every detail”, “excellent craftsmanship”, “elegance” and “interior design”. The task of stimulating con-sumer enthusiasm for brand C may be achieved by means of attention-grab-bing viral campaigns on Facebook (PC or smartphone) that generate a high number of “likes”. Star designers may be used for the communication, arous-ing interest in the “interior design”, “elegance” and “perfection” of the car. This should be done in harmony with the general drivers that strengthen both the “seducing star” and “close friends” relationships. The key issue of “unique design” may be communicated via the brand‘s own website and should be integrated on its Facebook page.

Source: GfK SE

Fig. 4 Brand Image and Experience Point Drivers for „Seducing Star” vs. „Close Friends”

Distinct Drivers forClose Friends

Distinct Drivers forSeducing Star

Experience PointsBrand Image

Superior drivingexperience

Control of the car

Reliable

Safety

Userfriendlytechnology

Responsive

High performance

Premium

Interior Design

Excellent craftmanship

Unique style

Unqiue design

Intuitive

Environmentally friendly

Leading technology

Customerservice

Hassle -free driving

Adequate ownership costs

Elegance

Perfect in every detail

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20Driver of “Close Friends” (ranking)

Driv

er o

f “S

educ

ing

Star

“ (ra

nkin

g)

General Drivers

Outdoor poster

Magazine ads

Reports/ Reviews

Ads on mobile phone

Internet ads

Manufacturer website

Blogs/ Forums

Social media

TV commercial (national)

TV commercial (cable)

TV sponsorship

Radiocommerical

Cinema commercial

Sponsorship events



As a rule, the success of the brand experience adopted according to the CBR should take a long-term view and the alignment according to the brand identity should be regularly checked and adjusted through comprehensive brand and communication tracking.

Further Research Fields and Areas of Application for CBRThe portrayed CBR approach provides a sound basis for measuring and managing consumer–brand relationships. In parallel with practical applica-tions, further interesting areas of investigation have been developed on the research side. Hypotheses include the following:• CBR is a logical supplement to the analysis of customer lifetime value and

share of wallet (Wirtz/Mattila/Lwin 2007; Fournier/Avery 2011).• There are clear dos and don‘ts when appealing to particular relationship

types (Fournier 2009). • CBR can also be effectively applied in the B2B sector (Heide/Wathne 2006;

Breazeale/Fournier 2012, p. 398).• Strong consumer–brand relationships cushion the blow of brand crises,

e.g. product recall by Toyota (Donovan et al. 2012).• Brand socialization in childhood has a positive effect on relationships with

a brand later on, e.g. Ronald McDonald (Connell/Schau 2012).• Human attributes, e.g. the M&M characters, strengthen brand relation-

ships (Kim/McGill, 2011).

Main Proposition 5The consumer–brand relationship approach is a globally applicable method that takes into account the heterogeneity of markets: various industries, target groups, and countries.



Festschrift zum 60.Geburtstag von Christian Belz

Sven Reinecke / Emil Annen / Otto Belz / Michael Betz / Michael Reinhold / Christian Schmitz / Marcus Schögel / Torsten Tomczak / Dirk Zupancic

Marketing-Kaleidoskop Akzente und Suchfelder für ein realitätsorientiertes Marketing

Was bedeutet Marketing für mich? Welcher zentrale Lernprozess im Marketing bestätigt sich immer wieder? Was stört mich, wenn ich die heutige Marketingszene betrachte? Wo sehe ich destruktive Pro-zesse? Welcher inhaltliche Marke tingakzent sollte in Zukunft verstärkt werden? Was wird meiner Meinung nach in Zukunft für die Marke-tingwissenschaft und -praxis wichtig sein?

Diese und weitere Fragen beantworten 60 Weggefährten von Christian Belz aus Wissenschaft und Praxis in dieser Festschrift zu seinem 60. Geburtstag. Die vielfältigen Antworten regen zum Nachdenken und manchmal auch zum Schmunzeln an. Wie bei einem Kaleidoskop kommt dadurch das faszinierende (Farb-)Spektrum des Marketing zum Ausdruck, das unterschiedliche Perspektiven ermöglicht und immer individuell-subjektiv durch den Erfahrungshintergrund der jeweiligen Autoren interpretiert, vertieft und akzentuiert wird.

St.Gallen: Thexis 2013, 242 Seiten, gebunden, ISBN 3-905819-22-9, CHF 54.– /EUR 37.– (zzgl. Versand)

www.thexis.ch

The most important area of application for CBR in corporate practice is without doubt the support of traditional brand research. In addition to the strategic positioning analysis described in the above case study, brand rela-tionship evaluations are also likely to establish themselves in brand and com-munication tracking. The changes in consumers‘ relationships with brands that emerge over time due to the brand’s and the competitors’ marketing ac-tivities can be revealed through brand tracking. This helps to identify op-portunities and risks in time. In addition, communication tracking and post-tests make it possible to assess specific campaign elements with regard to their effectiveness for relationship success.

With regard to comprehensive relationship management, this research ap-proach can also be usefully applied in advertising pre-tests. The research question here is whether an ad has the potential to effectively appeal to and strengthen the relationship segment it is targeting. Consequently, there is also a direct crossover to innovation research, which analyzes the potential of new products or packaging. Here, too, brand relationships as dependent variable can be used as indicators of purchasing and behavior intentions.

In automotive research, the impact of the exterior and interior of new car models on consumers can be analyzed in car clinics: do the new models have the potential to effectively strengthen the relationship with this vehicle man-ufacturer?

For individual qualitative exploration, the metaphorical relationship ap-proach is a projective technique that offers “deep dive” information on the personal connection to a brand, especially at an emotional level, and the background of relationship types and developments over time.

ReferencesAaker, D. A. (1991): Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, New York.

Aaker, D. A./Fournier, S. (1995): A Brand as a Character, a Partner and a Person: Three Perspectives on the Question of Brand Personality, in: Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 1, pp. 391-395.

Aggarwal, P. (2004): The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Atti-tudes and Behavior, in: Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1, pp. 87-101.

Breazeale, M./Fournier, S. (2012): Musings and Meditations: Where Do We Go from Here?, in: Fournier, S./Breazeale, M./Fetscherin, M. (Eds.): Consumer–Brand Rela-tionships, Theory and Practice, New York, pp. 395-411.

Connell, P. M./Schau, H. J. (2012): Exploring Childhood Consumption Relationships, in: Fournier, S./Breazeale, M./Fetscherin, M. (Eds.): Consumer–Brand Relationships, Theory and Practice, New York, pp. 97-114.

Damasio, A. R. (1994): Descartes‘ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, New York.

Donovan, L. A. N./MacInnis, D. J./Priester, J. R./Park, C. W. (2012): Brand Forgive-ness: How Close Brand Relationships Influence Forgiveness, in: Fournier, S./Breaze-ale, M./Fetscherin, M. (Eds.): Consumer–Brand Relationships, Theory and Practice, New York, pp. 184-203.

Fournier, S. (1994): A Consumer–Brand Relationship Framework for Strategic Brand Management, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida.

Further Reading•Fournier, S./Breazeale, M./Fetscher-in, M. (2012): Consumer–Brand Rela-tionships, Theory and Practice, New York.•MacInnis, D. J./Park, C. W./Priester, R. (2009): Handbook of Brand Rela-tionships, New York.



Fournier, S. (1998): Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, in: Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 3, pp. 343–373.

Fournier, S. (2009): Lessons Learned about Consumers‘ Relationships with Their Brands, in: MacInnis, D. J./Whan Park, C./Priester, R. (Eds.): Handbook of Brand Relationships, New York, pp. 5-22.

Fournier, S./Avery, J. (2011): Putting the „Relationship“ back into CRM, in: MIT Slo-an Management Review: The New Business of Innovation, 52, 3, pp. 63-72.

Heide, J. B./Wathne, K. H. (2006): Friends, Businesspeople, and Relationship Roles: A Conceptual Framework and a Research Agenda, in: Journal of Marketing, 70, 3, pp. 90-103.

Hupp, O./Wittenbraker, J. (2012): Fling or Marriage? The Emerging Relationship Economy, presented at: ARF Re:think – Advertising Research Foundation Congress, New York, 27 March 2012.

Keller, K. L. (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, in: Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, pp. 1-22.

Kim, S./McGill, A. L. (2011): Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine? Po-wer, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception, in: Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 1, pp. 94-107.

Lindstrom, M. (2008): Buyology: Truth and Lies about Why We Buy, New York.

Miller, M. F./Fournier, S./Allen, C. T. (2012): Exploring Relationship Analogues in the Brand Space, in: Fournier, S./Breazeale, M./Fetscherin, M. (eds.): Consumer–Brand Relationships, Theory and Practice, New York, pp. 30-56.

Reimann, M./Castaño, R./Zaichkowsky, J./Bechara, A. (2011): Psychological and Neurophysiological Investigations of Close Consumer–Brand Relationships, in: Ad-vances in Consumer Research, 39, 1, pp. 411-413.

Wirtz, J./Mattila, A. S./Lwin, M. O. (2007): How Effective Are Loyalty Reward Pro-grams in Driving Share of Wallet?, in: Journal of Service Research, 9, 4, pp. 327-334.

Zaltman, G. (2003): How Customers Think: Essential Insights Into the Mind of the Market, Boston.

a Zusätzlicher Verlagsservice für Abonnenten von „Springer für Professionals | Marketing“

Zum Thema brand relationship Suche

finden Sie unter www.springerprofessional.de 93 Beiträge Stand: Oktober 2013

Medium

☐ Zeitschriftenartikel (5) ☐ Buchkapitel (88)

Sprache

☐ Deutsch (60) ☐ Englisch (33)

Von der Verlagsredaktion empfohlenEichen, F.: Implikationen für das Management und die Erforschung von Marken-Konsu-menten-Beziehungen, in: Messung und Steuerung der Markenbeziehungsqualität, Eine branchenübergreifende Studie im Konsumgütermarkt, Wiesbaden, 2010, S. 285-355,

www.springerprofessional.de/1833490

Tolboom, M./Bronner, F./Smit, E.: The Potential Danger of Negative Free Publicity for the Consumer-Brand Relationship, in: Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. III), Current In-sights and Future Trends, herausgegeben von Eisend, M./Langner, T./Okazaki, S., Wies-baden, 2012, S. 391-402,

www.springerprofessional.de/3523956



is your brand a one-night stand? managing consumer-brand relationships

Documents