DO AGREEABLE/PLEASANT BRANDS GENERATE MORE LOVE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT? A STUDY ON SEVEN GLOBAL BRANDS
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•529 vistas
Presentation given at the 2nd International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference, www.consumer-brand-relationships.org Copyright by Imene Becheur Noel Albert Pierre Valette-Florence
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Destacado
Similar a DO AGREEABLE/PLEASANT BRANDS GENERATE MORE LOVE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT? A STUDY ON SEVEN GLOBAL BRANDS
Similar a DO AGREEABLE/PLEASANT BRANDS GENERATE MORE LOVE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT? A STUDY ON SEVEN GLOBAL BRANDS (7)
Más de CBR Conference
Más de CBR Conference (20)
Último
Último (20)
DO AGREEABLE/PLEASANT BRANDS GENERATE MORE LOVE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT? A STUDY ON SEVEN GLOBAL BRANDS
- 1. DO AGREEABLE/PLEASANT BRANDS GENERATE MORE LOVE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT? A STUDY ON SEVEN GLOBAL BRANDS Imene Becheur, Wesford France Noel Albert, Wesford France Pierre Valette-Florence, I.A.E Grenoble, France 1
- 2. RESEARCH CONTEXT Agreeableness has an impact on the feeling of love in an interpersonal context (White, Hendrick, Hendrick, 2004) Extraversion and agreeableness are the dimensions of the OCEAN model of brand personality most linked to feeling of love (Caralis and Haslam, 2004; Wiggins, 1979) Love is a mix of extroversion and agreeableness Schmitt and Buss (2000) Affection, one main love dimension is linked to agreeableness and devotion (Fehr and Broughton, 2001) 2
- 3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Study the role of brand personality in creating strong brand relationships: Determine whether agreeableness, a brand personality dimension is an antecedent of brand love, and if brand love has an impact on emotional commitment to the brand. 3
- 4. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Based on interpersonal theories Triangular Love Theory from Sternberg (1986) Shimp et Madden (1988) Keh et al. (2007) Kamat et al. (2007) Colors of Love Theory from Lee (1977) revisited by Hendrick et Hendrick (1986) Whang et al. (2004) No reference to interpersonal theories Fournier (1998) Carroll et Ahuvia (2006) Albert (2009) 4
- 5. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS Brand Love scale (Albert, 2009) Passion Idealization Dream Affection Pleasure Memory Intimacy Unicity 2 second order dimensions 6 first order dimensions 18 Items 5
- 6. Brand personality Pioneering work of Aaker (1997) Ambroise (2009) THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS 6 Introversion Introversion Agreeableness conviviality Seduction Creativity Consciousness Conscientious Sophistication Original Precious Fallacy Cheating Ascendant
- 7. HYPOTHESES & MODEL 7 Agreeableness Brand personality Brand love Brand commitment H.2. The more the consumer feels in love with a brand, the more his affective commitment to it increases H1. The more a brand is agreeable, the more the consumer is in love with it
- 8. METHODOLOGY Sample: 210 people, including 141 women and 69 men, aged between 18 and 25 years Measures: Brand personality: Ambroise (2010) Brand love: Albert (2010) Affective commitment : Fullerton (2003) Brands: Seven global brands Coca Cola, Converse, Hello Kitty, Nina Ricci, Nutella, Playstation, and Starbucks (30 persons/brand) 8
- 9. PLS (Partial Least Squares) approach procedure of systematic Bootstrap (200 replications) Model adequacy with data: GoF (Goodness of Fit) index proposed by Tenenhaus and al. (2005) 0.995 for internal GoF and 0.872 for external GoF Our model is satisfactory since GoF is close to 1 METHODOLOGY 9
- 10. RESULTS Affective commitment EAF1, EAF2, EAF3, EAF4 Conviviality ATA, SYP, PLT Seduction CH, SEDC Creativity IMG, CRV Idealization Id1, Id2, Id3 Dream REV1, REV3 Pleasure PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4 Memory SO1, SO2, SO3 Intimacy IT1, IT2, IT3 Unicity UN1, UN2 Significant effect Non significant effect 10 Global model
- 11. RESULTS Affective commitment EAF1, EAF2, EAF3, EAF4 Conviviality ATA, SYP, PLT Seduction CH, SEDC Creativity IMG, CRV Idealization Id1, Id2, Id3 Dream REV1, REV3 Pleasure PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4 Memory SO1, SO2, SO3 Intimacy IT1, IT2, IT3 Unicity UN1, UN2 Significant effect Non significant effect 11
- 12. RESULTS Affective commitment EAF1, EAF2, EAF3, EAF4 Conviviality ATA, SYP, PLT Seduction CH, SEDC Creativity IMG, CRV Idealization Id1, Id2, Id3 Dream REV1, REV3 Pleasure PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4 Memory SO1, SO2, SO3 Intimacy IT1, IT2, IT3 Unicity UN1, UN2 Significant effect Non significant effect 12
- 13. RESULTS Affective commitment EAF1, EAF2, EAF3, EAF4 Conviviality ATA, SYP, PLT Seduction CH, SEDC Creativity IMG, CRV Idealization Id1, Id2, Id3 Dream REV1, REV3 Pleasure PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4 Memory SO1, SO2, SO3 Intimacy IT1, IT2, IT3 Unicity UN1, UN2 Significant effect Non significant effect 13
- 14. RESULTS Affective commitment EAF1, EAF2, EAF3, EAF4 Conviviality ATA, SYP, PLT Seduction CH, SEDC Creativity IMG, CRV Idealization Id1, Id2, Id3 Dream REV1, REV3 Pleasure PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4 Memory SO1, SO2, SO3 Intimacy IT1, IT2, IT3 Unicity UN1, UN2 Significant effect Non significant effect 14
- 15. CONTRIBUTIONS Results show links between the agreeableness dimension of personality, and all the love dimensions for a brand. These links differ from a brand to another depending on the brand characteristics (personality) In order to strengthen feelings of brand love among consumers, brands should communicate friendly characteristics (pleasant, attaching, funny, etc…) 15
- 16. LIMITATIONS & NEXT STEPS Our work focused on agreeable brands Need to compare with brand relationships of exciting or sincere brands Use Aaker’s (1997) classification of brand personality (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, Ruggedness) Collect more data on larger samples Study the effects of good or bad emotions on brand relationships 16
- 17. DO AGREEABLE/PLEASANT BRANDS GENERATE MORE LOVE AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT? A STUDY ON SEVEN GLOBAL BRANDS Imene Becheur Noel Albert Pierre Valette-Florence 17
- 18. 18 Affective commitment EAF1, EAF2, EAF3, EAF4 Conviviality ATA, SYP, PLT Seduction CH, SEDC Creativity IMG, CRV Idealization Id1, Id2, Id3 Dream REV1, REV3 Pleasure PL1, PL2, PL3, PL4 Memory SO1, SO2, SO3 Intimacy IT1, IT2, IT3 Unicity UN1, UN2
Notas del editor
- For the first time, we demonstrate in marketing the impact of brand personality on brand love. for Starbucks and Nina Ricci, seduction has more impact on brand love, whereas for Converse, creativity has a stronger impact and for Coca Cola, conviviality is the personality dimension that affects more brand love Des recherches en marketing indiquent que les deux dimensions majeures de la personnalité d’une marque sont excitation vs sincère (SWAMINATHAN et al. 2009). Dans notre recherche, une dimension majeure s’avère être le caractère agréable de la marque. Seule dimension à avoir une une influence sur toutes les dimensions de l’amour => ICI il faudrait donner une application managériale => les managers doivent ne pas omettre la dimension agréable de leur marque (dire comment est-ce que l’on peut générer un caractère agréable. Demander Haythem. Car j’en sais rien). Recherche qui met en évidence qu’il existe que l’origine de l’amour des consommateurs varient grandement en fonction des caractéristiques (ici la personnalité) de ces marques. (Ce que je souhaite dire ici c’est que l’on teste des modèles globales en ne distinguant que rarement les marques entre elles. Or cette recherche démontre qu’il existe de très grandes différentes entre marques sur un même modèle. Il faudrait arriver à le dire clairement) Quelle est la facette (de la perso) qui a le plus faible impact sur Brand Love (modèle global) ? Quelle est la facette de l’amour la moins impacté par la personnalité ? En répondant à ces questions, je crois qu’on pourrait rajouter qques contributions.
- Especially that other researchers showed that the two major dimensions of brand personality are exciting and sincere (SWAMINATHAN et al. 2009). A brand can possibly generate positive or negative emotions in individuals as a result of a good or bad experience with the brand or perception of brand personality. These emotions and their effects should be studied in future research.