Brand Meaning Management 9781784419318, 9781784419325

Citation preview

BRAND MEANING MANAGEMENT

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH Series Editor: Naresh K. Malhotra

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH VOLUME 12

BRAND MEANING MANAGEMENT EDITED BY

DEBORAH J. MACINNIS Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

C. WHAN PARK Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

United Kingdom North America India Malaysia China

Japan

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2015 Copyright r 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permissions service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78441-932-5 ISSN: 1548-6435 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

ix

SERIES INTRODUCTION: MEANING OF RESEARCH AND RESEARCH ON (BRAND) MEANING

xi

VOLUME INTRODUCTION: NEW PERSPECTIVES AND FUTURE RESEARCH ISSUES ON BRAND MEANING MANAGEMENT

xv

WHAT DOES BRAND AUTHENTICITY MEAN? CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONSUMER SCRUTINY TOWARD A BRAND NARRATIVE Allison R. Johnson, Matthew Thomson and Jennifer Jeffrey

1

MANAGING BRAND MEANING THROUGH CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT Jennifer Edson Escalas and James R. Bettman

29

BRAND REMIXING: 3D PRINTING THE NOKIA CASE Aric Rindfleisch and Matthew O’Hern

53

MANAGING CULTURAL EQUITY: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDING ICONIC BRANDS IN GLOBALIZED MARKETS Carlos J. Torelli and Jennifer L. Stoner

83

v

vi

CONTENTS

NOTHING MATTERS MORE TO PEOPLE THAN PEOPLE: BRAND MEANING AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Aaron C. Ahuvia IDENTIFICATION AND ATTACHMENT IN CONSUMER-BRAND RELATIONSHIPS Sankar Sen, Allison R. Johnson, C. B. Bhattacharya and Juan Wang IDENTIFYING CUSTOMER EVANGELISTS Nathalie Collins, Hanna Gla¨be, Dick Mizerski and Jamie Murphy

121

151

175

LINEAR VERSUS STEP-FUNCTION DECISION MAKING: THE MODERATING ROLE OF RELATIONSHIP NORMS ON CONSUMER RESPONSES TO BRAND TRANSGRESSIONS Pankaj Aggarwal and Megha Agarwal

207

FEELING ATTACHED TO SYMBOLIC BRANDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF BRAND TRANSGRESSIONS Eda Sayin and Zeynep Gu¨rhan-Canlı

233

CONSUMER RESPONSES TO BRAND FAILURES: THE NEGLECTED ROLE OF HONOR VALUES Frank May, Alokparna Basu Monga and Kartik Kalaignanam PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

257

293

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Megha Agarwal

Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Pankaj Aggarwal

Department of Management, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Canada

Aaron C. Ahuvia

College of Business, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, USA

James R. Bettman

Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

C. B. Bhattacharya

European School of Management and Technology, Berlin, Germany

Nathalie Collins

School of Communications and Arts, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia

Jennifer Edson Escalas

Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Hanna Gla¨be

BI Norwegian School of Business, Oslo, Norway

Zeynep Gu¨rhan-Canlı

Graduate School of Business, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey

Jennifer Jeffrey

Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Canada

Allison R. Johnson

Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Canada

Kartik Kalaignanam

Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Deborah J. MacInnis

Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA vii

viii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Frank May

Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

Dick Mizerski

School of Business, University of Western Australia, Western Australia

Alokparna Basu Monga

Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA

Jamie Murphy

Australian School of Management and Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Matthew O’Hern

Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

C. Whan Park

Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Aric Rindfleisch

College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Eda Sayin

IE Business School Madrid, Spain

Sankar Sen

Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

Jennifer L. Stoner

Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Matthew Thomson

Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Canada

Carlos J. Torelli

Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Juan Wang

Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Canada

IE University,

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Rick P. Bagozzi University of Michigan, USA

Robert F. Lusch University of Arizona, USA

Russell Belk York University, Canada

Debbie MacInnis University of Southern California, USA

Ruth Bolton Arizona State University, USA

Kent B. Monroe University of Illinois, USA

George Day University of Pennsylvania, USA

Nelson Ndubisi Griffith University, Australia

Michael Houston University of Minnesota, USA

A. Parasuraman University of Miami, USA

Shelby Hunt Texas Tech University, USA

William Perreault University of North Carolina, USA

Dawn Iacobucci Vanderbilt University, USA

Robert A. Peterson University of Texas, USA

Arun K. Jain State University of New York at Buffalo, USA

Nigel Piercy University of Warwick, UK

Barbara Kahn University of Pennsylvania, USA

Jagmohan S. Raju University of Pennsylvania, USA

Wagner Kamakura Rice University, USA

Vithala Rao Cornell University, USA

Donald Lehmann Columbia University, USA

Brian Ratchford University of Texas, USA ix

x

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Jagdish N. Sheth Emory University, USA

Rajan Varadarajan Texas A&M University, USA

Itamar Simonson Stanford University, USA

Stephen L. Vargo University of Hawaii, USA

David Stewart Loyola Marymount University, USA

Michel Wedel University of Maryland, USA

SERIES INTRODUCTION: MEANING OF RESEARCH AND RESEARCH ON (BRAND) MEANING OVERVIEW Review of Marketing Research, now in its 12th volume, has emerged as an important publication covering the areas of marketing research with a more comprehensive state-of-the-art orientation. The papers in this publication review the literature in a particular area, offer a critical commentary, develop an innovative framework, and discuss future developments, as well as present specific empirical studies. The first 12 volumes have featured some of the top researchers and scholars in our discipline who have reviewed an array of important topics. The response to the first 11 volumes has been truly gratifying and we look forward to the impact of the 12th volume with great anticipation.

PUBLICATION MISSION The purpose of this series is to provide current, comprehensive, state-ofthe-art papers in Review of Marketing Research. Wide ranging paradigmatic or theoretical, or substantive agendas are appropriate for this publication. This includes a wide range of theoretical perspectives, paradigms, data (qualitative, survey, experimental, ethnographic, secondary, etc.), and topics related to the study and explanation of marketing-related phenomenon. We reflect an eclectic mixture of theory, data, and research methods that is indicative of a publication driven by important theoretical and substantive problems. We seek studies that make important theoretical, substantive, empirical, methodological, measurement, and modeling contributions. Any topic that fits under the broad area of “marketing research”

xi

xii

SERIES INTRODUCTION

is relevant. In short, our mission is to publish the best reviews in the discipline. Thus, this publication bridges the gap left by current marketing research publications. Current marketing research publications such as the Journal of Marketing Research (USA), International Journal of Marketing Research (UK), and International Journal of Research in Marketing (Europe) publish academic articles with a major constraint on the length. In contrast, Review of Marketing Research publishes longer papers that are not only theoretically rigorous but also more expository, with a focus on implementing new marketing research concepts and procedures. Papers in Review of Marketing Research should address the following issues: • • • • • • • • • •

Critically review the existing literature Summarize what we know about the subject key findings Present the main theories and frameworks Review and give an exposition of key methodologies Identify the gaps in literature Present empirical studies (for empirical papers only) Discuss emerging trends and issues Focus on international developments Suggest directions for future theory development and testing Recommend guidelines for implementing new procedures and concepts

SPECIAL ISSUES ON CRITICAL AND EMERGING AREAS In order to focus on needed areas of research, we publish special issues. The purpose of these special issues is to bring together competitive and invited papers on the state-of-the-art of marketing research and future prospects on specific topics that are in need of cutting edge research. The first special issue, Volume 8 edited by Series Editor Naresh K. Malhotra, featured Marketing Legends and reviewed the life-time research contributions of the nine Marketing Legends (Richard P. Bagozzi, Shelby D. Hunt, Philip Kotler, V. Kumar, Naresh K. Malhotra, Kent B. Monroe, Jagdish N. Sheth, Yoram “Jerry” Wind, and Gerald Zaltman). The second special issue dealt with a better understanding of the role of value in markets and marketing, which was edited by Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch

Series Introduction

xiii

and published as Volume 9. The third special issue, Volume 11, focused on shopper marketing and the role of in-store marketing. Dhruv Grewal, Anne L. Roggeveen, and Jens Nordfa¨lt edited this volume. This volume adds to the collection of special issues by focusing on brand meaning management by establishing, expanding, protecting, leveraging, and revitalizing brand meaning and is edited by Deborah J. MacInnis and C. Whan Park. It is hoped that collectively the papers in this volume will substantially aid our efforts to understand and leverage brand meaning to foster brand differentiation and to establish strong and enduring brand-customer relationships. The area of brand meaning and brand meaning management is fascinating and several avenues for interesting research are identified in this special issue. The Review of Marketing Research continues its mission of systematically analyzing and presenting accumulated knowledge in the field of marketing as well as influencing future research by identifying areas that merit the attention of researchers. Naresh K. Malhotra Series Editor

This page intentionally left blank

VOLUME INTRODUCTION: NEW PERSPECTIVES AND FUTURE RESEARCH ISSUES ON BRAND MEANING MANAGEMENT Establishing, expanding, protecting, leveraging, and revitalizing brand meaning are critically important yet exceedingly complex issues. On the one hand, successful brand meaning management is foundational to both brand differentiation and to establishing strong and enduring brand-customer relationships. Strong brand relationships are grounded in strong brand attachment, brand love, and brand engagement. Such grounding can drive important outcomes to firms, like brand loyalty, brand advocacy, and consumers’ motivations to join forces with others in establishing brand communities. In turn, these outcomes can enhance market share, brand profitability, brand equity, brand growth, and shareholder value (see Figure). On the other hand, managing this meaning over time is complex, dynamic, and multi-determined. Moving from the point of establishing brand meaning to expanding its meaning, protecting it, and revitalizing it when necessary is influenced by meaning makers from within as well as outside the firm. Within the firm, a given brand’s meaning may emanate from marketing communications, yet this fundamental meaning is often grounded in and sometimes constrained the set of brands that comprise the company’s brand architecture. Moreover, influences on brand meaning management reside not just within the firm but also with other meaning makers such as consumers, competitors, celebrities, and regulators. Some meaning makers are favorably disposed to the brand (brand champions); others are not (brand detractors). Moreover, meaning makers from both inside and outside the firm can use social media to impact thousands at once. Brands with strong brand meanings are also subject to counterfeit brands that can either highjack/threaten or even bolster brand meaning. So too must firms be vigilant in protecting and/or recovering from brand transgressions that might threaten the meaning they have carefully cultivated xv

xvi

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

with consumers. Managing these complex and interacting forces so as to prevent dilution or distortion of brand meaning is thus critical. The papers in this special issue highlight, yet add new insights to the complex domain shown in Figure 1. The papers fall into three broad categories. A group of papers lend insight into the myriad entities involved in the meaning making process itself, such as marketers (Johnson, Thomson, and Jeffrey) celebrities (Escalas and Bettman), brand users (Rindfleisch and O’Hern), and the broader culture in which consumers live (Torelli and Stoner). A second set emphasizes the critical impact that brand meaning has on consumers and brands themselves outcomes that include brand identification and attachment (Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, and Wang), social relationship management (Ahuvia), and brand evangelism (Collins, Gla¨be, Mizerski, and Murphy). The final set addresses when and how brand transgressions can threaten these outcomes, and what brands must do to recover from lost or tainted meanings. In examining these issues, the authors identify relevant moderators that include the nature of the brand relationships (i.e., whether it is based on communal- or exchange-based relationship norms; Aggarwal and Agarwal), the nature of the brand violation (e.g., violations of brand expressiveness, expertise, exclusivity, or values consistency; Sayin and Gu¨rhan-Canlı), and individual differences in consumers (e.g., sensitivities to violations of honor values; May, Monga, and Kalaignanam). Brand Meaning Management Brand Meaning Movement Establishing Strengthening Augmenting Protecting Revitalizing Brand Meaning Makers Firms (brand architecture, brand communications) Customers Brand communities Competitors Opinion leaders, celebrities, product commentators Counterfeiters Regulators Brand Meaning Markets B2C; B2c markets Culture, countries and economies

Meaning Management Outcomes Customer Outcomes Relationship Types Relationship Strength Brand Attachment Brand Loyalty Brand Advocacy Brand Communities

Company Outcomes Market Share Profitability Brand Equity Growth Shareholder Value

xvii

Volume Introduction

What follows is a brief review of each chapter and their respective findings and contributions. We conclude by addressing important and unanswered questions that pertain to brand meaning management, and for which additional research is needed.

BRAND MEANING MAKERS The papers in this volume provide novel insights into the role of marketers, celebrities, consumers, and the culture in which they operate as brand meaning makers.

Marketer-Derived Brand Narratives and Brand Meaning In developing brand meaning, marketers often use brand narratives, which tell a story about the brand. Such narratives are powerful since they can “elevate the brand beyond the realm of a basic commodity.” Johnson, Thompson, and Jeffrey suggest that good narratives follow three rules: (1) they correspond with or are logically consistent with the world and our knowledge of how it works, (2) they are interesting and may contain elements of a brand paradox, and (3) the story flow and format correspond with what consumers can recognize as a fictional story. As long as narratives include these factors, consumers are generally uncritical in their acceptance of brand stories. Often, brand narratives are based on whimsy or fantasy. Consider for example, Dos Equis’ fictional “most interesting man in the world,” who is depicted as a suave, worldly, sophisticated Latin man. His cultured background disinclines him from drinking beer exclusively, but when he does choose to drink beer, he prefers Dos Equis. Most consumers know that the “the most interesting man in the world” is a fictional character. But they playfully go along with the narrative built around the brand. But is this always true? Johnson et al. propose that narratives can sometimes come across as inauthentic, which can in turn reduce self-brand connections and brand identification. In three studies, the authors identify narrative disruptors that reduce the perceived authenticity of the brand story. One concerns the extent to which the brand is seen as copying the narrative of another brand. The second is the extent to which the brand narrative contradicts what consumers know to be true about the brand (e.g., the brand narrative focuses on service excellence, when consumers know that the service is

xviii

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

far from excellent). Even one of these factors can significantly affect the perceived authenticity of the narrative, thus thwarting marketers’ attempts at meaning making through narrative. The authors point to some interesting research issues on brand narratives and their resonance, including the extent to which consumer sensitivity to one brand’s narrative may conflict with the narrative of other brands in the firm’s brand portfolio. In this way, the authors touch on the important issue of brand meaning management in the context of a brand’s architecture.

Celebrities and Brand Meaning As brand meaning makers, marketers have long relied on the power of celebrities as meaning makers. Indeed, Escalas and Bettman report that in the United States, some 20% of traditional media ads feature celebrities. As fascinating “modern day heroes and heroines,” celebrities are powerful drivers of consumers’ attention and identification. But the use of celebrities can be economically costly to the firm, and potentially damaging in the event of a breach of the celebrity endorser’s moral conduct. Understanding when and why celebrity endorsers are effective is therefore important to marketers. While past research has focused on celebrity attractiveness or credibility given fit with the product category, Escalas and Bettman examine celebrities as carriers and vessels of meaning that help consumers construct their own identities. Thus, the power of celebrities resides less in their ability to be an active relationship partner than in their role as meaning enablers that help consumers meet their own needs. In this way, an important outcome of celebrity endorsements may be their ability to build positive self-brand connections. Following this logic, the authors posit that brands should be most able to build positive self-brand connections when (a) the celebrity matches a consumer’s aspirations, (b) when the image of the celebrity matches the image of the brand, and (c) when consumers perceive the brand as symbolic that is, it signals something to others about the user. These predictions are borne out in an empirical study. A second study extends these findings, suggesting that the impact of celebrity endorses is also affected by the salience of consumers’ self-enhancement goals. By manipulating self-esteem, the authors found that when consumers’ self-esteem was threatened, they were mostly likely to form self-brand connections linked to the person they aspired to be like (vs. did not aspire to be like). When self-esteem was not threatened,

xix

Volume Introduction

there were no differences in the self-brand connections consumers formed to aspirational or non-aspirational celebrities. Interestingly, while many marketing consulting companies focus on celebrities that are liked (vs. not liked) and the extent to which they are persuasive, work by Escalas and Bettman suggest that an entirely different set of criteria for the selection of celebrity endorsers (their aspirational status, their match with the brand image), the products for which they might play the most powerful role (symbolic products), and the conditions under which their impact may be greatest (when self-esteem is threatened). Moreover, they suggest that marketers should give greater consideration to self-brand connections (vs. persuasion) as the criterion against which the effectiveness of celebrity endorsers is judged.

Consumers as Brand Meaning Makers While the prevailing wisdom dictates that identifying, communicating, and controlling brand meanings advantage marketers, consumers are also active brand meaning makers. Since consumer-derived brand meanings can sometimes conflict with the brand meaning intended by marketers, Rindfleisch and O’Hern suggest that involving consumers as makers of the brand and creators of personalized brand meanings can also advantage marketers. Following a review of brands as private and communal assets (vs. assets tightly protected by the marketer), the authors identify “brand remixing” as a mechanism by which consumers can create personalized brand meanings. With brand remixing, consumers start with the brand offered by the marketer, but personalize it. Through this process, meanings that are idiosyncratic to each customer are developed. The authors provide an interesting context for studying brand remixing specifically, Nokia’s use of 3D software. The software allows users to design their own Lumina 820 series smart phone case and to manufacture it using a 3D printer. In this research, the authors study 92 smartphone case designs submitted by 63 users and displayed on the Thingiverse. com website. The context allows the authors to study both what choices user-designers made in the case design (e.g., use of the brand name, font options) and which designs most resonated with viewers/consumers of these designs. Of note is that nearly 40% of designs featured some type of pro-Nokia branded message. Thus, many consumers were willing to adopt a marketer branded message, even when left to their own devices. Importantly, views and

xx

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

download data showed that these user-designed cases augmented views and downloads of the basic design template by a factor of six. The initiative garnered positive support from both the business press and consumers. It also led to a contest that allowed users to submit product prototypes, judged by a five-member panel. In this way, users became product unpaid members of the product design team. The winning cases featured novel benefits (i.e., storage spaces for a key, cash, or credit cards) that should strongly resonate with future buyers. In general, this work complements that of Escalas and Bettman. While Escalas and Bettman suggest that marketer-derived brand meanings can help consumers to form an identity, Rindfleisch and O’Hern suggest that users derived brand meaning can help marketers develop an identity for the brand. Their research also indicates that marketers can create opportunities for users to develop involvement in the brand and so create avenues for brand attachment. The potential for brand remixing raises a number of interesting questions, which the authors address in their conclusion section.

Culture and Brand Meaning Although marketers might craft brand narratives for consumers, brand meaning is also reflected by the culture in which the brand operates. Since many brands operate across cultures, it is important to see how cultural meaning associated with a brand can be identified, leveraged, and protected. Torelli and Stoner address these issues by reviewing a considerable body of research on cultural issues related to branding. They note that an important destination point for brands is the achievement of iconic brand status. Such status is realized when the brand is widely regarded as “the most compelling representative symbol of the beliefs, values, and lifestyles of a culture.” Not many brands reach this destination status, but some like Coke, Harley Davidson, and Elvis Presley are widely regarded as US brands that have achieved this iconic status. Use of such brands can symbolize allegiance to and belonging to one’s culture, resulting in positive cultural equity. Complicating matters though is that some consumers belong to two or more cultures. Their cultural heritage or place of origin grounds them in one culture, but personal history grounds them in another. For these individuals, situational cues can prime the accessibility of one culture or another, impacting how a brand’s cultural meaning is viewed. The authors articulate four factors that serve as building blocks to the brand’s cultural equity. Brands can gain cultural meaning by virtue of their

xxi

Volume Introduction

association with various countries or regions of the world associations that might be viewed as highly positive (e.g., French wine, Swiss chocolate) or negative (paint from China). Brand meaning also emanates from the extent to which the brand is regarded as global. Global brands can convey associations of modernity, cosmopolitanism, and prestige. Third is the alliance between important values of the culture (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) and the image of the brand as hedonistic versus functional. A final building block is “cultural authority,” which is realized when brands become known and accepted for telling stories that resonate with the culture’s desires, hopes, struggles, and fears. The authors posit that the more strongly brands can work in concert with these four building blocks, the stronger the brand’s cultural equity becomes. The authors also develop a conceptual model that identifies the considerations marketers face in managing cultural equity. The process involves a cultural audit, which aims to uncover the culture’s current understanding of the brand. The audit can form the basis for the selection of target markets and a brand positioning strategy in the culture. Culture-specific marketing mix activities play a powerful role in communicating the brand’s cultural equity. Deep understanding of the brand’s cultural equity also provides the basis for determining what new products the firms should develop and what markets it should enter or build so as to leverage and protect cultural equity.

MEANING MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES Brand meanings and consumers’ identification with brands impact important consumer and managerial outcomes, including the strength and type of relationship consumers have with the brand, their degree of brand attachment, brand loyalty, brand advocacy, and their investment in brand communities. Several papers in this volume highlight the powerful outcomes that can emanate from resonant brand meanings. Brands and Social Relationships According to Ahuvia, mammals are uniquely hardwired, by virtue of their well-developed neo-cortex, to experience empathy and manage social complexity. In today’s modern society, our advanced brain functioning drives us to use brands and products (including possessions) as aids to social complexity management. The use of brands and products for social complexity

xxii

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

management purposes is critical since we are “born into a world permeated with social relationships.” Social relationships are essential to managing many life tasks. Moreover, social relationships, be it with intimates, strong ties, weak ties or strangers, impact us until the moment we die. Ahuvia proposes that brands help us in a social world by their ability to contribute to two essential functions both involving social relationships. They help us (a) manage (i.e., facilitate, remind, reinforce, symbolize or, in some cases substitute for) close relationships with others. They also help us (b) maximize social status; that is to place us in a position where others will view us in high regard. Indeed, while consumers might say that they really love a brand or particular product or possession, oftentimes they might be discussing less the actual product benefits, than the role it plays in their lives; specifically it’s role in maximizing their social status and managing relationships with others. Using brands to facilitate and reinforce close relationships is important for life management. Specifically, close relationships, with their implicit norm of reciprocity, suggest that giving to a relationship partner at one point in time will prompt reciprocation in a time of need. Managing close (vs. less close) relationships is particularly critical because only some of the myriad individuals we know are intimates on whom we can consistently rely for social, emotional, physical, and economic support. Managing relationship closeness is facilitated by involvement in brand communities and gift giving. Both practices involve ritualistic behaviors and symbolic aspects that can alter (strengthen, change, weaken) the closeness of one’s relationships with others. Using brands to maximize social status is common, since status is linked to esteem, power, control, and social hierarchies; important qualities that impact well-being. Ahuvia links the use of brands for purposes of social status to the concept of materialism. While many researchers view materialism as something about the physicality of objects or how much people care about things vs. people, Ahuvia suggests that materialism is a consumption practice involving “the use of money or what it can buy to maximize social status.” Using money and what it can buy reduces the threat to self-esteem by evoking a sense of respect from others.

Brand Identification and Attachment Increasingly, academic researchers are examining concepts like brand identification and brand attachment as drivers of meaningful brand relationships. Yet, Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, and Wang note that these concepts derived from different literatures, which differed in the questions they set

xxiii

Volume Introduction

out to address. Moreover, though they are sometimes used interchangeably, these concepts are distinct. Identification is defined as the degree of congruity between the brand’s identity and that of the consumer. Attachment (as defined by Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005) refers to the strength of the emotional bond connecting the brand with the consumer. Beyond definitional differences, the constructs differ in their antecedents. Brand attachment is hypothesized to relate more strongly to one’s personal history with the brand and its impact on felt security. In contrast, identification is hypothesized to relate more strongly to impression management and the fulfillment of social identity needs. As a result, positive and meaningful brand relationships might be impacted by each construct, independently. Moreover, the authors predict that the two constructs differ in their effects on specific brand relationship outcomes. Identification is posited to more strongly predict public endorsement of the brand, whereas attachment is posited to more strongly predict brand loyalty. The authors find empirical support for their reasoning. Attachment and identification emerged as distinct constructs, and differed in their antecedents, with attachment being uniquely predicted by brand history and impression management being uniquely predicted by impression management. Interestingly, felt security predicted both constructs. The authors posit that whereas felt security might predict attachment by providing personal security and reducing personal anxieties, felt security might predict identification by providing social security, and reducing social anxieties. In terms of consequences, although both attachment and identification predicted both public endorsement of the product and loyalty, attachment more strongly predicted loyalty, whereas identification more strongly predicted public brand endorsement.

Brand Evangelism Continuing on the theme of attachment, identification, and brand promotion, Collins, Gla¨be, Mizerski, and Murphy examine firm’s most ardent devotees brand evangelists as brand meaning makers and diffusers. The importance of brand evangelists as meaning makers and diffusers cannot be discounted in light of the credibility and influence that they can have on other consumers. Remarkably, given the importance of brand evangelists to firms, the field is yet to develop a strong conceptualization of evangelists and a method by which they can be identified. Collins et al. reject the perspective that brand evangelists differ from non-evangelists in terms of their sociability, experiential focus, or

xxiv

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

knowledge-seeking tendencies as others have posited. Instead, they propose that what drives evangelists to compulsively spread positive WOM is the brand’s ability to provide them with a transcendent experience. Evangelists have had something akin to a spiritual experience, such that the brand seems right or perfect in its relationship with the customer. This feeling is captured by the term “quintessence.” Quintessence, and three other factors (the spread of positive WOM about the brand, the perception by the consumer that s/he part of a brand collective or community, and the perception that s/he is genuinely and authentically motivated to champion the brand) are posited as four formative indicators of brand evangelism. With formative measures, the construct is indicated by the combination of all component factors. In a sample of 3,995 customers of an online video entertainment rental service, 2.8% indicated agreement with all four indicators and hence were identified as evangelists. Evangelists and non-evangelists were compared on several measures that should be related with brand evangelism. Evidence that evangelists differ from nonevangelists on the four indicator variables was taken to illustrate the scale’s validity. As evidence of the scale’s predictive validity, the authors found that compared to non-evangelists, evangelists (a) were more satisfied with the brand, (b) had more positive perceptions of the product’s value, (c) had stronger intentions to use the brand in the future, (d) were less likely to consider using competitors’ products, (e) were more strongly connected to other members of the brand community, (f) were more likely to read corporate communications, and (g) were more likely to share brand knowledge. Importantly, while past research suggests that evangelists and nonevangelists differ in their use of social media, their social orientation, their tendencies for experiential consumption, and their knowledge orientation, this study did not find differences between evangelists and non-evangelists on these factors.

MEANING MANAGEMENT AND BRAND TRANSGRESSIONS Increasingly, researchers have extolled the benefits of establishing strong brand relationships with consumers. One such benefit seems to be that strong brand relationships insulate the brands from brand transgressions. By discounting the severity of brand transgressions, consumers with a

Volume Introduction

xxv

strong brand relationship can continue their brand relationship (and maintain cognitive consistency). Interestingly though, some recent research, including several papers in this volume, suggest that under some circumstances strong brand relationships can have a dark side. Specifically, in some cases, negative information about the brand can lead consumers to question their relationship with the brand and demotivate their willingness to continue their brand relationship.

Exchange versus Communal Brand Relationships Aggarwal and Agarwal develop insight into this phenomenon in their conceptual paper related to transgressions and the norms that underlie the brand relationship. Based on work by the first author and work by Clark and colleagues in psychology, the authors note that two types of norms can govern brand relationships communal and exchange. Often consumers have what is regarded as an exchange relationship with the brand. In such relationships, consumers expect relationship equivalence; such a brand will reciprocate the consumers’ relationship inputs with responses that are at least as great as that which the consumer has given. In exchange relationships, emphasis is on tit for tat exchanges. Aggarwal and Agarwal posit that in exchange relationships, the magnitude of consumers’ responses to a brand transgression will be proportional to the severity or magnitude of the transgression. As the magnitude of the transgression increases, the greater the negative impact the transgression will have on the consumerbrand relationship. However, sometimes, particularly in the case of strong brand relationships, the norms that govern the brand relationship are more communal than exchange-based. When relationships are communal in focus, individuals place less emphasis on tit for tat equivalence than on evidence that the relationship partner is sensitive to and attentive to their needs. Consumers in such brand relationships will forgive brands for minor transgressions. But as transgressions become more serious and as the brand reveals insensitivity to their needs, consumers will react extremely negatively. Thus, and in contrast to exchange-based relationships, transgressions in communal relationships are characterized by a step function (vs. a linear relationship) in their impact on consumers. The authors review evidence consistent with this logic and discuss implications for managers. One implication is that managers who violate communal relationship norms may be blindsided by extremely negative

xxvi

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

responses from their most loyal consumers. A second implication is that one’s most loyal customers may be most vulnerable to violated communal relationship norms. Hence, managers must be vigilant in avoiding transgressions that signal lack of attentiveness or concern for the consumer as a relationship partner.

Violating the Basis for Brand Attachment Sayin and Gu¨rhan-Canlı also tackle the issue of potential vulnerability of strong brand relationships, here from a different vantage point. These authors propose that consumers are often attached to brands because the brand’s meaning resonates with who they are, who they want to be, and what they need to do to satisfy everyday life issues. Thus, factors such as the expressiveness of the brand in signaling something about the consumer, its exclusivity, its expert status, or its consistency with the consumer’s values can often motivate brand attachment. If consumers are attached to the brand for any of these reasons though, they are predicted to react negatively (and more negatively than unattached consumers) to brands that violate this basis for attachment (i.e., the brand shows itself to express something different, becomes less or non-exclusive, reveals lack of expertise, and shows that it is not acting in responsibly and in a socially desirable). Going further, the authors posit that the degree to which these types of brand transgressions hurt brands is also a function of its violation of one of four different consumer needs. Each need is tied with the basis for brand attachment. For example, violations of the expressive nature of the brand are predicted to be greater for attached consumers with high (vs. low) needs for self-enhancement. Violations of the exclusivity of the brand will be greater for attached consumers with high (vs. low) needs for uniqueness. Violations of brand expertise will be greater for attached consumers who are high in need for risk avoidance. Finally, violations of the empathic nature of the brand as acting responsibly will be greatest for attached consumers with a higher need for justice.

Violations of Honor Values May, Monga, and Kalaignanam also study brand transgressions, asking when a brand failure (a situation where the brand disappoints its customers) will (or will not) enhance consumers’ desires for revenge against the

xxvii

Volume Introduction

brand. Consumers who seek revenge against the brand are not only disinclined to help the brand, they do everything they can to actively hurt it, and through whatever means are deemed most hurtful (boycotts, negative WOM, stealing from the company, damaging property). May, Monga, and Kalaignanam suggest that an important moderator between brand failures and desires for revenge concern the consumers’ adherence to “honor values.” Individuals with high honor values believe that their self-worth is impacted by what they do and what others think of them. Violating one’s honor values (e.g., by being a liar, a cheat, or an otherwise unethical person) makes a high honor individual lose self-esteem. High honor individuals also believe that others can take their own honor away. As such, high honor individuals are vigilant in their adherence to honor values. High honor individuals are also extremely sensitive to how others are treated. Being unfair or insulting to an individual is unfair and insulting to the self. Thus, high honor individuals take active offense when others are treated poorly. In light of these characteristics, high honor individuals are proposed to have a greater desire for revenge against a company for a brand failure than will low honor individuals. Four studies confirm this prediction. One potentially significant outcome of this research is that marketers are vulnerable to having high honor individuals exact revenge against them and their brand. The authors propose that firms can actively engage in several processes that will reduce high honor individuals’ desires for revenge. Specifically, the negative effect on vengeance for high honor individuals is tempered by the degree to which such customers are allowed to suggest a punishment for the person who caused the brand failure. Why? Being asked to suggest a punishment satiates consumers’ revenge-seeking desires. Apologies are also posited to be effective mechanisms for tempering the vengeance inclinations of high honor consumers. They are also predicted to be more effective than monetary compensation because they alone communicate concern and empathy to the customer who experienced the brand failure. These predictions were borne out in three empirical studies, including a large-scale panel study involving over 6,000 households.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS As notable as the contributions of this special issue are, equally of note are topics noted in the Figure for which current knowledge is limited. Several such topics deserving of research are discussed below.

xxviii

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

Brand Relationship Evolution First, we currently know little about the evolutionary nature of brand relationships; in other words, how do brand relationships begin, change and dissolve? When examining a historical review of various brands, we observe many distinct brand evolutionary patterns. Some highly successful brands take different evolutionary paths. For example, brands like Tiffany’s and Lego were initially successful and they have maintained their brand success over time. Others like Apple and Samsung struggled initially but are now globally successful. In contrast, other brands like Kodak and the Cabbage Patch Kids were not able to sustain their initial success over time. How has brand meaning and brand meaning management impacted the trajectory and relationship evolution of brands with their customers? We must also better understand how brands manage relationships with consumers in the advent of brand transgressions. What types of precipitating factors cause consumers who have a communal relationship with a brand to suddenly “switch” from ignoring brand weaknesses or negative actions to suddenly reacting violently against the brand (Aggarwal and Agarwal). Brand relationships are characterized by communal relationship norms. While some research has examined recovery tactics like apologies and compensation, have we exhausted our understanding of the role of these factors and others and the conditions under which they are effective in brand relationship recovery? The role of punishment identified by May et al. is an interesting extension to research on transgression recovery. Also related to transgressions is the issue of transgression severity, and the conditions under which brands may or may not be able to recover from transgressions. Lance Armstrong, for example, is unlikely to come back in light of his prior actions. However, others, like Paula Deen was able to fully recover. What impacts recovery prospects?

Establishing, Strengthening, Augmenting, and Revitalizing Brand Meaning Second, the field would benefit from insight into the role of brand relationships and attachment in not just in establishing brand meaning, but, strengthening, augmenting, and revitalizing it. While brand extensions are the often studied limited research studies how new brands augment brand meaning by changing the associations linked to the parent brand portfolio. Such study will require examining novel factors associated with the brand extension and parent brand. For example, Virgin’s low fit extensions from

xxix

Volume Introduction

Virgin Records to Virgin Airlines, Amazon extending its name to its offline product, digital reader (Kindle Fire), and Apple extending its name from Macintosh computers to digital music players such as the iPod back in October 2001 appear to have strengthened and augmented the meaning of these parent brands when compared to their status before these extensions. These examples counter the prevailing wisdom that brand extensions should be based on high fit. Low fit extensions may surprise customers and draw their interest and attention to the extensions, which, in turn, lead to positive feedback effects on the meaning of a parent brand such as a broader understanding of the parent brand with more favorable attitudes and greater respect toward it. Future research might examine how brand extensions or other brand naming methods can strengthen and augment (add to) the meaning associated with the brand. Beyond low fit, what other factors under managers’ control might impact brand meaning augmentation? The role of brand attachment and strong brand relationships as factors that foster brand augmentation should be examined. Relatedly, we know little about when and under what conditions brands are ripe for revitalization. Clearly, nostalgia toward a brand has proven to be a successful driver of brand revitalization. But do other factors maximize the marketplace acceptance of revitalized brands?

Drivers of Brand Attachment Third, and notwithstanding the potential vulnerabilities to firms when brands transgress against their most loyal customers, we need to better understand how firms can enhance consumers’ attachments to brands. This is so given the powerful role of brand attachment on outcomes that benefit firms. The success of brands like the Four Seasons, Starbucks, Zappos, Apple, and Nordstrom offer clues. Such brands not only provide excellent delivery on a specific benefit (say Apple’s easy to use interface), they have also captivated customers by delivering on myriad other benefits (e.g., vivid displays, excellent sound, easy to hold devices) as well as delivering benefits that enhance consumers’ lives. iPad apps, for example, ensure that consumers are consistently entertained and connected with others. They can manage daily chores like managing finances, keeping lists, tracking exercise, and monitoring health. They allow for self-expression and spiritual development (e.g., apps for meditation). Apple stores are clean, aesthetically appealing, and consistently designed. Customers are approached and effectively served by knowledgeable salespeople who also make transactions

xxx

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

efficient. Online help frees customers of technology-based problems that may prove frustrating. Starbucks, not only makes good coffee, its atmosphere is aesthetically appealing, it offers customers considerable variety in drinks, employees are friendly, it offers a consistent product anywhere around the world, and it offers a “third place” where consumers can work or connect with friends. Perhaps the brands to which we are most strongly attached and for which they develop the deepest relationship are not those that offer a single extraordinary benefit, but rather the ones that offer a set of benefits that span the functional, symbolic, and experiential benefit domains. We have also overlooked the potential interface between marketing and management in the role of employees as both entities for whom brand attachment is relevant, and as entities that are essential to the delivery of brand meaning and the development of brand passion. The previously mentioned stellar brands all have a strong corporate philosophies about characteristics and skills they seek in employees, the importance of communicating a vision and reflecting it, the importance of fun in the employee environment, the power of employee empowerment, and more. The role of employee attachment as a necessary condition for creating strong brand attachment needs to be further addressed.

Extensions to B2C Markets Fourth, the bulk of work on brand meaning and meaning management has focused on a B2C market, leaving the B2B world largely unexplored. A host of questions might be raised about brand meaning and meaning management in the B2B area, particularly since B2B and B2C customers differ in several key respects. The B2B market has comparatively fewer customers who are more easily identifiable and more accessible (Hutt & Speh, 2012). Moreover, inter-organizational interactions in the B2B market are often deeper and more long-term oriented than is true in the B2C market (Hutt & Speh, 2012). These differences may impact the process of the brand meaning formation and hence the brand meaning management activities of firms. Future research should also examine the extendibility and impact of some of the constructs discussed in this volume to the B2B world. Interesting empirical issues can examine the roles of communal (vs. exchange) relationship norms (Aggarwal and Agarwal), brand remixing (Rindfleisch and O’Hern), brand attachment versus brand identification

xxxi

Volume Introduction

(Sen, Johnson, Bhattacharya, and Wang), cultural capital (Torelli and Stoner), brand quintessence (Collins, Gla¨be, Mizerski, and Murphy), the violation of honor values (May, Monga, and Kalaignanam) and brand narratives (Johnson, Thomson, and Jeffrey) in the development of B2B brand relationships. For example, brand remixing may be vital in the B2B area in light of the need for B2B consumers to sometimes find customizable solutions to specific product or design issues. Communal relationship norms may assume an even greater role in a B2B than a B2C context since brand relationships are often based on interpersonal interactions. In contrast, the importance of celebrity endorses, the role of the brand in signaling selfexpressiveness and creating a sense of belongingness may assume less relevance in a B2B context.

Brand Architecture Design Finally, brand meaning is critical not just to the brand in question, but to other brands that comprise the firm’s brand portfolio. Limited research has examined brand meaning in the context of the individual brands that comprise the firm’s brand portfolio. Nor has research examined how firms should design their brand architecture so as to maximize the meaning of individual brands vis a vis parent firm as a whole. Firms have myriad brand naming choices, from endorsement brands to sub-brands to co-branding, to brand extensions, and more. For example, if Red Bull were to see an opportunity in the chocolate market, the company has a choice of naming the new chocolate brand with a distinctive name that is not tied to the Red Bull name (e.g., Chocolate Zinger). Alternatively, Red Bull might use a brand extension naming method (e.g., Red Bull chocolates), a sub-brand (Red Bull Chocolate Zingers), an endorser brand (Chocolate Zingers by Red Bull), or a co-brand (Red Bull Chocolate Zingers by Godiva). While some research has examined brand-meaning management in the context of brand extensions, we know little about how other brand naming methods impact brand meaning. Nor do we understand how the firm should choose among various brand-naming methods in developing its brand architecture. An individual brand naming can be viewed as independent from the firm (e.g., Chocolate Zingers), and hence has flexibility to develop its own unique meaning. Moreover, such a method insulates the parent from brand transgressions. Yet by lacking a strong association with the parent or other brands in the Red Bull portfolio, the brand fails to capitalize on the marketing efficiencies wrought other brand naming options. It also fails to

xxxii

VOLUME INTRODUCTION

broaden or augment the meaning of the Red Bull brand or other brands in Red Bull’s portfolio. Future research should examine the various brandmeaning implications of alternative brand naming methods. We hope these comments show that the area of brand meaning and brand meaning management is rich with potential. Deborah J. MacInnis C. Whan Park Volume Editors

REFERENCES Hutt, M. D., & Speh, T. W. (2012). Business marketing management: B2B. Mason, OH: SouthWestern Cengage Learning. Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77 91.

WHAT DOES BRAND AUTHENTICITY MEAN? CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONSUMER SCRUTINY TOWARD A BRAND NARRATIVE Allison R. Johnson, Matthew Thomson and Jennifer Jeffrey ABSTRACT Purpose Brand narratives are created to differentiate brands, and consumers base their assessments of a brand’s authenticity on this narrative. We propose that the default consumer position is to accept a brand’s narrative, and we find that consumers maintain belief in this narrative even when explicitly reminded that it is manufactured by firms with an underlying profit motive. Because belief seems to be the default position adopted by consumers, we investigate what factors act as disruptors to this default position, thereby reducing assessments of authenticity. Methodology This research uses a series of studies to investigate when and why consumers view some brand stories as authentic and others

Brand Meaning Management Review of Marketing Research, Volume 12, 1 27 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-643520150000012001

1

2

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

less so. In addition, we examine the impact of changes to authenticity assessments on managerially important brand outcomes. Findings Only when one or more authenticity disruptors are present do consumers begin to question the authenticity of the brand narrative. Disruption occurs when the focal brand is perceived to be nakedly copying a competitor, or when there is a gross mismatch between the brand narrative and reality. In the presence of one or both of these disruptors, consumers judge brands to be less authentic, report lower identification, lower assessments of brand quality and social responsibility, and are less likely to join the brand’s community. Implications Creating compelling brand stories is an important aspect of any marketing manager’s job; after all, these narratives help drive sales. Care must be taken when crafting narratives however, since consumers use these as the basis of their authenticity assessments, and brands deemed inauthentic are penalized. Keywords: Authenticity; brand narrative; brand quality; corporate social responsibility; brand community

INTRODUCTION Marketing executives create narratives to position their brands. To the extent that there is some recurring and stable pattern of meanings revolving around a brand, it can be said to have a narrative that chronicles its place in the world (Abbot, 2002). While these narratives are carefully crafted to persuade consumers to preferentially select a particular brand, many are seen as inauthentic and subsequently discounted or ignored. Here, we focus on brand narratives in light of the recent eruption of interest in determining why consumers view some brands as authentic and others less so. There are several benefits to better understanding the domain of brand narrative authenticity, as authentic brands are often rewarded by consumers. Specifically, more authentic brands are thought to benefit from several positive downstream consequences, including superior assessments of product quality (Auslander, 1998), greater attributions of corporate social responsibility (Mikkelsen, 2008), greater likelihood of affiliated brand communities (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006), more resilient consumer brand relationships (Green, 2007), and improvements to brand extension success

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

3

(Spiggle, Nguyen, & Caravella, 2012). Further, there is renewed academic and managerial interest in learning how to develop more compelling brand or company narratives (Paharia, Keinan, Avery, & Schor, 2011; see also Dowling, 2006; Herskovitz & Crystal, 2010; Woodside, 2010). To the extent that we can contribute to a better theoretical understanding of authenticity, we can also help inform marketing practitioners on how to effectively create authentic brand narratives, engaging consumers in the process (Green, 2007; Woodside, Sood, & Miller, 2008). Below, we build on recent academic work (e.g., Beverland & Farrelly, 2010) to address brand authenticity. We provide empirical support for the proposition that, by default, consumers believe brand narratives are authentic. We suggest that this belief is maintained unless the narrative is subject to considerable disruption, and only then is authenticity questioned. Specifically, our findings suggest that disruption in the form of brand imitation or mismatch between narrative claims and reality challenge consumer belief in brand authenticity. Where belief remains unchallenged, however, we find a positive relationship between brand narrative authenticity and perceptions of brand quality, consumer brand identification, corporate social responsibility, and willingness on the part of consumers to join a brand community. Figure 1 depicts our theoretical model, and its component elements will be explored in detail.

BACKGROUND There is some intuitive appeal to the idea that to be truly authentic, brand narratives must be perceived as literally true, historically precise, or entirely factual; however, we disagree. Instead, we believe that there is a range of “creative license” within which brand managers can operate when

Fig. 1.

Theoretical Model.

4

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

constructing brand narratives. Another way of saying this is that the typical consumer knows, yet does not care, that all brand stories are constructed and fictional, where fiction means made up or not necessarily true as opposed to “definitively inaccurate” (Green, Garst, Brock, & Chung, 2006, p. 282). This fact is not simply a recognition that contemporary consumers tend to be sophisticated about marketing and its various tactics (Brown & Krishna, 2004). Rather, it also reflects that people generally accept that stories have an author and that the “power of the narrative is not diminished by the readers’ or viewers’ knowledge that the story is invented” (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008, p. 256). Consumers, in the same spirit as when reading books or viewing movies (Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004), understand that brand stories are created and will generally “go along” with stylized versions of the truth (Beverland, 2005). A brand is “simply a story attached to a manufactured object” (Twitchell, 2004, p. 484), and it is this story that elevates a brand beyond the realm of a basic commodity. A brand’s meaning set, and the narrative that accompanies it, is used by marketing executives to try to differentiate a brand from competitors and to resonate with target consumers. Good brands delve into the “province of drama” (Deighton, Romer, & McQueen, 1989, p. 336), going beyond objective truth to persuade consumers of their merits. While these narratives help to differentiate brands, they also open brands to the possibility of greater consumer scrutiny since a brand’s authenticity is judged against its narrative.

Brand Narratives as Stories Good brands are based on compelling stories, and good stories abide by at least three common rules. On the whole, stories must correspond to the laws of the world (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008) or at least be logically consistent with what is deemed possible in the story world (Segal, 1995). The real world is the typical default by which consumers interpret narratives, and while some types of stories (e.g., science fiction, fantasy) have rules or expectations that are somewhat at odds with this real world, the stories need to be either genre-consistent or mostly real-world consistent. Glaring discrepancies that is, ideas, events, decisions, and so on that are deeply at odds with either the real world or the genre-specific story world will not be tolerated. If these exist, it is unlikely that consumers will believe the story, instead actively contrasting it to their own personal experiences and knowledge, often defeating the narrative’s effectiveness in

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

5

the process. In short, there needs to be some basic convergence with the reality of the world, though the details can be somewhat off. Small infractions and violations are permitted. Curiously though, labeling a brand story as true or factual may have an unintended effect of encouraging analytical processing, increasing the likelihood of having inaccuracies or exaggerations discovered and focused on, and thereby reducing perceptions of authenticity (see Green et al., 2006). Marketing managers should avoid explicitly labeling their brand narratives as true to avoid triggering this “overthinking” on the part of consumers. More effective stories are felt, not thought. Further, successful brand stories are interesting. In a marketing context, one way such interest has been generated is through the use of brand paradox, “an irresolvable contradiction that manifests itself at the level of brand consumption” (Brown, Kozinets, & Sherry, 2003, p. 25). For example, retro brands possess the paradox of old and new: the idea of a more modern, technologically advanced version of a brand that beckons emotional memories of yesteryear, such as the New VW Beetle (Brown et al., 2003). This paradox produces tension that may be an effective way to tell stories. Other means exist. For example, good stories have true to life plotlines (Green, 2004), use vivid and expressive language (Worth, 2004), and graphic and concrete content (Escalas, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). In fact, stories may be more engaging and convincing with greater specificity (e.g., employs rich and detailed descriptions; Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007; Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007) and story-lines (e.g., adequately romantic, or adventurous, or comedic) given the target audience (Slater & Rouner, 2002). Finally, story flow and format should follow accepted patterns. For example, easily recognizable themes (Kelly & Keil, 1985) will cue consumers to the fictional nature of the story, accelerating their belief in the ensuing narratives. People generally have expectations for stories typically centering on their format (e.g., required chronology and causality; see Escalas, 2004; Escalas, Moore, & Edell, 2004), and for specific types of stories in particular (e.g., romantic comedies, crime dramas; see Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008). Marketers who enable consumers to quickly identify and follow brand narratives by adhering to accepted format and flow should benefit from unscrutinized consumer acceptance of an authentic brand narrative. Explicitly labeling a brand story as such may be a crude but effective means of prompting narrative processing. Pilot testing a particular story is also a good idea, to gauge how absorbed respondents will be and what might be some potential encumbrances to belief (Green, 2008).

6

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

Two Pretests of the Extent of Creative License We conducted a pretest to investigate whether the explicit knowledge that a brand story is crafted specifically to sell goods and services affects perceptions of authenticity. We asked 40 undergraduates to list a brand with which they were familiar. Then, while half of the respondents went directly to a series of questions assessing the authenticity of that brand (described below), the other half first read the following: Every brand has a story that is created by marketers. In fact, a lot of what you know about any particular brand was scripted by the marketers behind it. Some brand stories are better than others. Marketers believe that when their brands have a convincing story about the brand’s background and meanings, the brands will be more appealing to consumers, who will buy more and more often. Some of the ways that marketers tell these brand stories are with advertising; with the packaging of their products (e.g. the appearance of the product, labels and so on, as with the themed packaging of Herbal Essences); by exposing the brand in movies, in TV shows or by paying for celebrity endorsements such as Jennifer Anniston and SmartWater; and even by allowing people to try the product or service for a discount or for free, in the hope that they will then spread positive word-of-mouth about the product.

Next, we assessed how respondents rated the authenticity of the brands they nominated. We employed three measures of brand authenticity. The first measure (real, genuine, true; α = .88) was based on recurring ideas advanced in previous research about the likely nature of authentic objects (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Mun˜oz, Wood, & Solomon, 2006). We refer to this as the direct measure. We also used indirect reflective measures, based on the perceived characteristics that appear to be consistently linked with authentic objects. Authentic objects are seen as dedicated to particular ideals or having a set of clear and enduring core values associated with them (Anderberg & Morris, 2006; Beverland, Lindgreen, & Vink, 2008; Lacy & Douglass, 2002; Leigh, Peters, & Shelton, 2006; Mun˜oz et al., 2006; Peterson, 2005; van den Bosch, de Jong, & Elving, 2005) and are associated with heritage or tradition that imbues the object with a sense of a significant past (Beverland et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2003; Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005; Holt, 2002; Jones, Anand, & Alvarez, 2005; Leigh et al., 2006; Penaloza, 2001). Higher ratings on these two reflective measures would indicate that a consumer has judged a brand to be authentic (as opposed to fixating on the fact that these values or traditions might be manipulated by the brand manufacturers to increase sales). We assessed Values with six items (α = .69) and Tradition with three items (α = .77; see appendix for all items).

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

7

The results reveal no differences in authenticity perceptions between groups. Respondents who received the information that brand stories are created by marketers rated brand authenticity the same as those who did not see that information. With both the direct (M = 5.57 vs. 5.42, F [1, 38] = .17, p = .68) and indirect, reflective measures of authenticity (Values: M = 5.40 vs. 5.05, F [1, 38] = 1.45, p = .24; Tradition: M = 4.98 vs. 4.92, F [1, 38] = .02, p = .88), scores were not significantly or meaningfully different. In fact, if anything, the participants who were prompted with information that brands are explicitly constructed to generate sales thought their brands were (directionally) more authentic. Because this first pretest used students, we wanted to ensure the null effect was not due to some unusual sample characteristic. We collected more data on a sample of adult respondents using an online paid panel (n = 95, with an average age of 44.9, ranging from 18 to 78 years old, 52% female). In this second pretest, we changed the wording slightly, asking respondents to nominate an “authentic brand” rather than simply a familiar one. As in the previous study, following their brand nomination, half of participants read the same passage above (“Every brand has a story that is created by marketers …”). All participants then completed the same measures of authenticity, which we updated to reflect recent work in the domain looking at brand extension authenticity (Spiggle et al., 2012). Spiggle and colleagues suggest authentic brands contain “heritage” (similar to our Tradition) and a “brand essence” (similar to our Values). Using their measures of brand extension authenticity and adapting them to reflect a target brand, we added several items to our metrics. Specifically, we added two items to the measure of Tradition: “This brand holds true to its origins” and “This brand has a considerable legacy” (α = .96). With respect to the Values measure, we added two items: “Over time, this brand has had a consistent meaning” and “This brand has maintained a consistent identity over time” (α = .97). In addition, Spiggle and colleagues (2012) suggest a third aspect relevant to this research not captured by either the constructs Tradition or Values: Exploitation. The authors posit that authentic brands avoid “brand exploitation,” which reflect ideas of profit and growth; a concept that we measured with the following four items (α = .92): (a) “The company that makes this brand seems to be motivated first and foremost by money”; (b) “It seems that this brand would sell out to make a buck”; (c) “The makers of this brand seem to be interested in making money at all costs”; and (d) “Making money is at the heart of this brand.” We also included the same direct measure of authenticity as discussed above (α = .97). The aim of this second test was to use a larger and more representative

8

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

sample and improved measures to test whether telling consumers that brand stories are constructed and likely to be wholly fictional would reduce the brand’s perceived authenticity. However, again, there were no significant differences between conditions. Using the direct (M = 6.38 vs. 6.46, F = .28, p = .60) and indirect measures of authenticity (Values: M = 6.12 vs. 6.08, F = .07, p = .80; Tradition: M = 6.18 vs. 6.27, F = .37, p = .54; Exploitation: M = 3.76 vs. 3.51, F = .55, p = .46), scores were statistically indistinguishable. In short, we feel we have reasonable empirical grounds to conclude that consumers know that brand stories may be created or fictional, and yet this awareness does not de facto trigger concerns around the authenticity of those stories. This result is consistent with prior research showing people’s beliefs about a story are not impacted by whether it is identified as fact or fiction (Green & Brock, 2000), and suggests that consumer scrutiny of authenticity claims must be prompted by something more than a simple reminder or general awareness that the story may be fabricated or embellished. Consumers are “More Gullible than Suspicious”1 We propose that an authentic brand is one whose consumers believe in its story and that this happens when the narrative remains unscrutinized by consumers. When consumers encounter narrative information whether factually accurate or not they generally represent it in their minds as true (Gilbert et al., 1990) and are highly reluctant to stop and critically analyze its content and propositions (Escalas, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). People respond to narratives in an intuitive fashion rather than “rationally” (Green et al., 2006, p. 269) or “critically” (Worth, 2004, p. 447). Being the receiver of narrative information is not an exercise in evaluation but in creativity and imagination. Much as people do with respect to other narratives such as a novel, movie, or theatrical performance consumers are apt to uncritically accept brand stories (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000; Stern, 1994). When dealing in the realm of stories, believing is “easy and inexorable” whereas doubt is retroactive and “difficult” (Gilbert, Tafarodi, & Malone, 1993, p. 230). There is no suspension of disbelief required in reference to narratives, since belief is the natural default (Gerrig & Rapp, 2004; Prentice, Gerrig, & Bailis, 1997) unless given a reason to doubt (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008; Green & Brock, 2000). In short, in the normal course of interacting with a brand, consumers are expected to naturally judge a

9

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

brand’s narrative as authentic, overlooking its contrived and commercial aspects unless given a compelling reason not to do so. What promotes disbelief? Suspension of disbelief is actively produced: receivers of information (e.g., readers) will reject the assertions made in a fictional work only if they are motivated to do so (Gerrig & Rapp, 2004; Prentice et al., 1997). As discussed above, people accept narrative information as true and only reject or “unbelieve” it if they have the energy and/or means to do so (Green et al., 2006). As previous research suggests (e.g., Green & Brock, 2000), and consistent with our two pretests above, reminding people that a particular story may be constructed or fictional does not provide a sufficient disruption to challenge a brand’s authenticity. So, what does amount to a disruption? What threatens authenticity?

STUDY 1 Method Since the marketing literature is relatively silent on the issue of encouraging consumer scrutiny for brand narratives, we carried out a study where we asked respondents to identify and discuss brands that they felt were not authentic. There were a total of 100 undergraduate participants (50% female, mean age 19.7 years) at a Canadian business school, who participated in exchange for course credit. Participants were presented with the following directions: There are probably a lot of brands that you can think of that are NOT authentic. What is it about these brands that makes this true? Is it the people who use the brand? Something a company does? Something else? In as much detail as possible, please provide an ‘inauthentic’ brand and explain why it is so.

Three coders analyzed and grouped the feedback into common themes (e.g., Dahl & Moreau, 2007) and through discussion reached a consensus (inter-rater correlations > .9) about the themes revealed by the data.

Results Results pointed to two recurring themes. First, when a brand was seen as copying another brand or company’s actions, this was something that respondents associated with a lack of authenticity. Terms like “copycat”

10

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

and “unoriginal” were used repeatedly to describe this theme, which appeared in 31% of respondents’ feedback. For example, American Eagle clothes were “just cheaper versions of Abercrombie,” FHM copied Maxim, many fashion brands (e.g., Mudd Jeans, Esprit, EWU) imitated others, and a variety of private label brands (e.g., President’s Choice, Equality) were mere knock-offs of national brands. Respondents talked not only about competitors’ products, but also about marketing communications (when the packaging or advertising approach used by a brand “has already been done”) or even when one brand borrowed from a sister brand (e.g., Lincoln was described as a repackaged Ford). We refer to this theme as Imitation, which occurs when one brand aggressively copies another brand or company’s actions (e.g., in design, advertising, packaging). Second, approximately 61% of participants named brands that they felt were rife with contradiction caused by a mismatch between the brand story or projected image and the real behavior or situation of the brand. One respondent suggested that some brands claim to cater to “hardcore” followers of a particular sport, when in fact those customers do not and would not purchase or endorse the brand. Respondents objected when large multinationals tried to position themselves as “the friendly neighborhood store,” when high-end brands tried to convey an “underground” flavor, when mainstream brands tried to achieve a “earthy or hippy” look, when firms made what are probabilistically false promises (e.g., “Get the BowFlex Body”), and when there were serious conflicts within a brand image (e.g., Martha Stewart as “perfect housewife” vs. “fraudulent criminal”). Other examples included Air Canada (positioned as “Number 1” yet suffering from poor customer service), Roots (trying to capitalize on its Canadian heritage though it is no longer Canadian-owned), and McDonald’s (projecting a healthy image but “there is no way that eating McDonald’s will make you a healthier person”). All these respondents viewed brands as inauthentic when they perceived that there was a lack of accuracy, in that the brand claims do not match reality. However, a brand’s actually being mainstream, prestigious, or large is not necessarily an undesirable feature, nor do those qualities affect authenticity perceptions per se. The concern arose when those or other features were incorporated into a brand narrative, yet at odds with the respective brands’ actual situation (e.g., trying to seem prestigious when actual consumer users did not portray or experience that quality). This discrepancy between brand narrative and brand experience seems consistent with prior scholarship. For example, consumers are highly unlikely to believe an advertisement from a company if told that company is “making false

11

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

claims” (Green & Brock, 2000, p. 702). We refer to this theme as Mismatch, which occurs when the story a brand projects is at odds with the brand reality experienced by consumers. Given what we proposed about authenticity’s relationship with fiction, this idea may be challenging. If brands are deemed to be making inaccurate claims (i.e., where truth of brand substance is glossed over or contradicted; i.e., greater Mismatch) but brand narratives are by nature fictional, how do any ever qualify as authentic? As mentioned before, fiction does not mean definitively false but rather made up or not necessarily true (Green et al., 2006). With any narrative, the reader or viewer grasps that there may be some creativity, exaggeration, imagination, or literary license taken by the author and makes affordances for what amounts to an acceptable storytelling practice. So long as the story and its claims are conceivably true or not egregiously divorced from reality, the reader will go along (Prentice et al., 1997). Said another way, “one must not believe the events are really happening, but one should believe that it is possible they could happen” (Worth, 2004, p. 441). Implicit in this idea is that there is a range of acceptance for hyperbolic statements within narratives. Presumably consumers will hold somewhat idiosyncratic thresholds for rejecting narratives. Probabilistically, with greater proximity between what is claimed and what is or could be true, consumer belief will endure and accompanying brand narratives will be accepted as authentic. The results of Study 1 indicate that either questioning the consistency of the brand story or considering it a crass imitation of others should be disqualifying conditions for the authenticity of the brand. The perception of qualities related to Mismatch and Imitation raised doubts about the brand, encouraged skepticism, and prevented the consumer from retaining belief in the narrative. Thus, we predict both Imitation and Mismatch will serve as effective “disrupters” of the brand narrative, and the presence of either will decrease the extent to which the brand will be perceived as authentic. Study 2 set out to provide experimental evidence to that effect.

STUDY 2 Method One hundred and seventy-two non-student respondents (50% female, average age = 38 years old) were recruited using a private market research

12

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

firm and participated online. All respondents were first presented with the following story, which they were told was taken from an actual company’s website with the brand disguised: [Brand B] ice cream was originally made in the back shed by our founder, Mr. Blue [name disguised]. He would make ice cream using the best, most fresh ingredients then sell it to neighbors along with lemonade. Popularity grew and he soon used a cart, then a three horsepower motorcycle to sell [Brand B] ice cream. It continued to grow and today [Brand B] ice cream is sold throughout North America. At [Brand B], we’ve always worked hard to introduce new, great-tasting flavors and varieties. Ice cream should always be fun, but we have added an ever-growing range of lower-fat, lower-sugar products to help consumers who are trying to watch their weight. Although they contain less fat and sugar, they are as luscious as their classic partners! We hope you enjoy!

This passage was based on an actual ice cream brand description found on a company’s website (“Streets” by Unilever Australia). Small changes were made from the original (e.g., specifying North America as the market, and substituting “three horsepower motorcycle” for “one-horse-power motorbike”) so as to make it more relatable to participants. The overarching purpose, which likely mirrors why the company provides this information on its website, was to construct a narrative about an unfamiliar brand in the hopes that consumers would find it both authentic and compelling. Next, respondents were randomly assigned to one of four conditions, in a 2 (Mismatch: present vs. absent) × 2 (Imitation: present vs. absent) fullfactorial between-subjects design. In the control condition (both types of disruption absent), no additional information was provided to respondents. In the three other conditions, respondents viewed one of three passages that were intended as manipulations of Imitation and/or Mismatch. These passages were introduced to respondents as the result of a series of tests completed by “credible third-party organizations.” Following this, respondents read one or both of the informational manipulations of Imitation and Mismatch that were in essence summaries of the results of these tests. The information for Imitation indicated that the independent analysis “of the newest Brand B ice cream a chocolate-fudge flavor shows it fairly closely matches a recipe for home-made ice cream posted last year to a popular recipe-sharing website by a dentist from Denver, Colorado.” We chose this wording so that respondents could reasonably infer that the Brand B recipe was derived from a source that was designed to be copied; that is, the company did not carry out an obviously illegal or immoral act. A three-item manipulation check ([a] this brand is a cheap imitator, [b] this brand is fake, and [c] this brand is a copycat; α = .96) indicates a successful manipulation of Imitation (Mabsent = 3.43 vs. Mpresent = 6.37, p < .01).

13

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

The information for Mismatch indicated that the same independent analysis “revealed that though the Brand B package says the new ice cream contains 9 grams of fat and 17.5 grams of sugar per serving, it actually contained 22.5 grams of fat and 7 grams of sugar.” The information about fat and sugar content was chosen to ensure it would be viewed as inaccurate (i.e., not matching reality) but qualitatively ambiguous (i.e., more fat is bad, but less sugar is good, and those components increase or decrease in the same proportion). A three-item manipulation check ([a] there is an enormous gap between the image and the reality of this brand, [b] this brand makes false promises and [c] this brand tries to be something it is not; α = .93) confirmed that the manipulation of Mismatch was successful (Mabsent = 4.09 vs. Mpresent = 5.99, p < .01). In all conditions, brand authenticity was measured first (using the same direct and indirect measures as in the first pretest, reported previously; all α’s > .84), followed by Mismatch and Imitation, and finally demographics (age and gender) and a covariate. The latter was included to contend with the possibility that changes in perceived authenticity were not the result of the Imitation and/or Mismatch manipulations disrupting the narrative but respondents’ merely thinking that the actions described were qualitatively unethical. Specifically, we asked whether “what the company did was wrong/not wrong” and “unethical/not unethical.”

Results The ratings in the control condition indicate that the creation of an authentic brand perception was successful (Mdirect = 5.77; Mtradition = 6.50; Mvalues = 6.23). The correlations among the three measures of authenticity2 were uniformly high (r > .84, p < .01). While the directions explicitly labeled the Brand B narrative as sourced from the company’s website, a source which could be perceived as biased or intended to persuade, consumers seemed to readily believe the story. ANOVA results demonstrated that the absent versus present Mismatch conditions showed a significant main effect (Mdirect = 3.94 vs. 2.00, p < .01; Mtradition = 4.99 vs. 2.78, p < .01; Mvalues = 4.57 vs. 2.27, p < .01) as did the absent versus present Imitation conditions (Mdirect = 4.08 vs. 1.87, p < .01; Mtradition = 4.44 vs. 2.30, p < .01; Mvalues = 4.88 vs. 2.88, p < .01). The highest authenticity scores appeared when both Mismatch and Imitation were absent (see above) and the lowest scores appeared when both were present (Mdirect = 1.61; Mtradition = 2.28; Mvalues = 1.69). These results were

14

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

significantly different from each other as well as from each of the remaining cells’ results (i.e., imitation present, mismatch absent and imitation absent, mismatch present; p < .05). In short, one “disruptor” significantly weakened authenticity, but two (significantly) lowered it even further. We carried out additional analysis with regression using the manipulation checks of Mismatch and Imitation as variables predicting our three measures of authenticity. Both Mismatch (β = −.48, p < .01) and Imitation (β = −.39, p < .01) had significant main effects on the direct measure of authenticity. Following a similar pattern, both Mismatch (β = −.58, p < .01) and Imitation (β = −.38, p < .01) predicted the first reflective measure of authenticity, Values, as well as the second reflective measure of authenticity, Tradition (Mismatch β = −.56, p < .01; Imitation β = −.38, p < .01). In addition, we examined the potential impact that perceived ethicality had on the results. Specifically, we wanted to rule out the possibility that participants viewed our Imitation and Mismatch manipulations as indicating unethical behavior on the part of the brand, and that this in turn was driving our results. We do not think this is the case, as we took care in the manipulations to convey information that was not patently wrong or negative (i.e., borrowing a recipe from a site intended for sharing; ingredient proportions inaccurate but a nutritional “mixed-bag”). Still, we assessed the perceived ethicality of the firm’s actions, which did demonstrate that the more consumers viewed a company’s actions as unethical the lower the corresponding authenticity scores (authenticitydirect: β = −.43, p < .01; authenticityvalues: β = −.44, p < .01; authenticitytradition: β = −.41, p < .01). However, while ethicality was found to be a significant predictor variable on authenticity, including it as covariate did not significantly reduce or eliminate the effects of Mismatch and Imitation on authenticity measures (see Table 1). The variance explained by each is unique; ethics cannot explain the authenticity disruption effect. When provided with a story about a brand, consumers appear to default to belief. In this study, respondents who simply read a company-generated brand narrative generally rated it favorably, with accompanying high authenticity scores. This is consistent with our premise that attributions of authenticity are the default consumer position. Both perceptions of Imitation and Mismatch appear to disrupt these perceptions of authenticity, yielding separate and additively negative effects. When presented with information that the brand is either a manifest imitator of others or that its claims are at stark odds with reality, consumers devalue the brand’s authenticity. To follow up on these findings, in Study 3 we examine potential downstream consequences of this devaluation on managerially relevant outcomes.

15

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

Table 1. Predictor

Constant Gender Age Company “unethical”a Mismatch Imitation

Study 2 Regression Results.

Authenticitydirect

Authenticityvalues

Authenticitytradition

β

t

p
.67, p < .01).

Discussion Both hypothesized authenticity disruptors Imitation and Mismatch were found to be related to brand authenticity in the same manner as in the preceding experiment. Respondents asked to recall a brand seen as Table 2. Condition

Not authentic Authentic

Quality

Study 3 MANOVA Results. Identification

Social Responsibility

Willingness to Join Brand Community

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

3.8 6.3

.12 .10

2.7 4.8

.15 .12

3.5 5.3

.12 .10

2.7 4.7

.15 .12

Note: All pairwise comparisons are significantly different from each other, p < .001.

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

19

inauthentic reported significantly higher levels of one or both disruptors to the brand narrative than did respondents asked to recall an authentic brand. We do not believe that participants interpret an absence of these disruptors as suggestion of a truthful brand narrative per se; rather, the results suggest an absence of these disruptors prevents consumers from scrutinizing the brand narratives. In addition, these results provide additional support for the proposition that Imitation and Mismatch are not simply additional measures of authenticity. Results of our confirmatory factor analysis indeed suggest that these are orthogonal, and that the presence of either or both Imitation and Mismatch diminish perceptions of authenticity. While we do not believe that these are the only two potential disruptors of authentic assessments, our results suggest that they can play an important role in shaping consumer perceptions of authentic brand narratives. In addition to providing support for the role that Imitation and Mismatch can play in disrupting consumer perceptions of an authentic brand narrative, we also sought to better explore the role that authenticity has on theoretically and managerially important outcomes. This study is an important first step, providing empirical support for the proposition that consumer assessments of higher authenticity are positively linked with higher perceived quality of the brand’s products, greater likelihood of identification with the brand, more perceived social responsibility on the part of the brand’s parent company, and a greater willingness for consumers to join that brand community. This study is not without its limitations, most notable of which is the correlational nature of the findings. Additional studies using an experimental methodology would be of value to clearly establish the directionality of the relationship between authenticity and these important outcome variables. All of these results suggest that the brand authenticity construct is potentially impactful and that it behooves brand managers to consider their brand narratives carefully, structuring them in such a way as to encourage consumer perceptions of authenticity. In short, people who view a brand as authentic will evaluate it well and are more likely to identify with it, both outcomes brand managers strive to achieve.

GENERAL DISCUSSION From the outset, we suggested that brand authenticity is judged in large part on its accompanying brand narrative. Researchers have noted the growing consumer demand for authentic market offerings

20

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

(Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Brown et al., 2003; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Holt, 2002) and there is a need to better determine factors that influence perceptions of authenticity. We contribute to the understanding of authentic brands by empirically investigating the disruption of authenticity and examining the likely consequences (or at least the correlates) of authentic and non-authentic assessments. Building on previous work, our results suggest that brand authenticity rests on consumers maintaining belief in a narrative. This belief, in turn, can be disrupted by consumer perceptions of the brand either being a copy of another or being grossly untruthful; these reduce consumers’ assessments of brand authenticity accordingly. Our research provides conceptual insight into reasons that brand narratives fail to resonate meaningfully with consumers. Authenticity is undermined if the brand story is an imitation of other brands or of there is a gross departure from reality, when the story is more apt to be critically appraised and rejected. For example, Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel (2006, p. 61) note that Starbucks’ huge growth and mass market ubiquity has undercut the brand’s “ability to act as an authenticating symbol of hip consumerism.” Based on our research, one can explain how this threatens belief in the brand story. With its mass market presence, the Starbucks brand narrative of exclusivity and trendiness is at odds with actual consumer experience and this inconsistency triggers scrutiny. This, in turn, undermines belief in the projected Starbucks brand story and diminishes overall assessments of authenticity (Thompson et al., 2006). Of course, there are likely to be other considerations that impact how accepted a narrative will be. One obvious one seems to be the degree to which a consumer is attuned to the message, and any prior expectations held around that message. For example, if a consumer is passively encoding a brand narrative via a television commercial, he or she may not scrutinize the narrative, ultimately leading to relatively high acceptance and higher authenticity scores. However, if a consumer receives the information about the brand either with negative expectations, such as if he were already an avowed detractor of that brand (e.g., Gre´goire & Fisher, 2008), or as a result of receiving the information in a place or time he does not want it (e.g., an intrusive pop-up ad), the brand narrative might be more intensively examined. Usually, a person willingly reads a book or attends a movie. In other words, consumers make the choice to have a certain experience and having done so, they are more likely to accept and enjoy it based on expectations of the experience. We suspect that removing this choice, especially by pushing the brand story onto someone who is actively trying to avoid such exposure, encourages scrutiny and lowers authenticity

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

21

assessments from the outset. As well, people who have strong negative priors about a brand, for whatever reason, might be the least likely to believe an associated narrative, even one that is much edited or revised (Gerrig & Rapp, 2004). In both cases, the consumer is likely to actively counter-argue the brand narrative. An interesting finding in this research is that consumers perceive brand narratives as authentic irrespective of how factual they are consumers assessments were not adversely impacted even when explicitly informed that narratives were frequently manufactured by marketers and yet rely on these authentic assessments to determine things like brand quality, brand social responsibility, and so forth. Indeed, authentic brands benefit from several halo effects, yet authenticity is not based on truthfulness (i.e., actually true) but rather on “truthiness” (i.e., could be true, or is not obviously untrue). This does not mean managers have free reign to lie, only that consumers understand that brand stories are most commonly some form of mixed design, combining elements of truth and “poetic license.” Consumers are certainly skeptical of marketing efforts and perhaps the lack of truthfulness in brand stories is partly to blame for this fact, but the fact remains that consumers do not see brand narratives as lies but as stories. There appears to be a region of tolerance, wherein consumers play along with the brand’s author. Our findings present the opportunity to extend research on authenticity in several ways by examining some unresolved questions and issues. The first issue centers on how perceptions of authenticity vary as a function of individual differences. For example, personality differences make it more or less likely that a person will become engaged or absorbed in a story or narrative (Wild, Kuiken, & Schopflocher, 1995). High need for cognition individuals may be less likely to accept brand narratives based on an inherently higher likelihood of scrutinizing information and even a possible lower fondness for fiction generally (Green et al., 2006). A challenge for marketers in creating a compelling brand narrative is to anticipate how different consumers might interpret brand narratives, especially given that consumers are unlikely to process these narratives with the same level of attention and care as have the marketers who wrote them. For example, a consumer who superficially or incompletely processes a brand narrative may miss key aspects of the narrative and any subsequent exposure to a disruptor may lead to consumer perceptions of a mismatch, even when no true mismatch exists. The question remains then how these individual differences impact storytelling, particularly as brands themselves are progressively more a function of consumer co-creation.

22

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

In addition, research is needed into the ethical dilemmas that arise as a result of unresolved apparent contradictions. Consider the example of Unilever and the conflicting stories of the Dove and Axe brands (Best, 2007). The Dove narrative centered on empowering girls and women, encouraging them to eschew the traditional stereotypes of beauty and highlighting the manufactured and constricting nature of the cosmetics industry. Axe, conversely, played up these stereotypes, depicting women fighting over men wearing Axe. For packaged goods companies, managing a portfolio of brands appealing to different target markets also means managing a portfolio of brand narratives. Each story on its own may be coherent and appealing, but other firm activities may inadvertently behave as disruptors. What may be authentic to one group (e.g., Axe to young males), is inauthentic to another group (e.g., women attracted to Dove’s brand story). What can the parent company do to minimize the risk of consumers realizing these potentially conflicting brand stories, and how can it mitigate any negative downstream consequences should these potential contradictions become apparent to consumers? Building on this idea, brands are often promoted via co-promotions, packaged with other brands or endorsed by celebrity spokespeople. If a disruptor prompts greater scrutiny and reduces perceived authenticity toward one brand, does that scrutiny spill over to a partner brand? A final question that remains unanswered but is worth investigation is what happens when a brand narrative is scrutinized, because of the perceived presence of a disruptor, but is then found to be consistent with its claims? Is it simply the act of critiquing a narrative that diminishes perceptions of authenticity, or does the process have to reveal some flaw in the brand story, such as a mismatch with reality or the copycat nature of the brand? We believe that it is not the act of scrutinizing a narrative that reduces perceptions of authenticity per se, but rather that the act often reveals a flaw. If a brand narrative analysis reveals a story consistent with consumer perceptions, we believe that this would simply strengthen attitudes toward the brand’s authenticity, increasing the certainty with which those assessments are held (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). What is less certain, however, is whether this strengthened view of authenticity would have positive downstream consequences over and above baseline authenticity levels achieved when consumers passively accept a brand narrative. Are brands rewarded for being evaluated as authentic or simply punished when scrutiny reveals them to be inauthentic? Similarly, what happens when consumers scrutinize a brand narrative and find that it is both a match to the reality and also an imitation? Many private label brands, and even some

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

23

national brands, position themselves as a lower-cost alternative of equal quality to other brands. Private labels were often cited as inauthentic, and yet their product narratives are consistent with product experiences. Given the premiums consumers place on brands deemed authentic, researchers might consider investigating how to create compelling and authentic narratives for copycat brands. Does the authentic generic “house” brand represent a special case? Our research suggests that consumers de facto accept a brand narrative as authentic, even though they realize it was created by marketers for the explicit purpose of promotion. This apparently irrational behavior suggests that consumers accept a certain degree of “poetic license” on the part of manufacturers; an evolution in their persuasion knowledge perhaps. In addition, they appear to use these assessments of authenticity as a deciding factor when judging brand quality, corporate social responsibility, and whether to join a brand community. Brand narratives form the basis by which authenticity is assessed for products and services, informing the larger brand meaning in the process.

NOTES 1. Gilbert, Krull, and Malone (1990, p. 612). 2. Our adapted measures, previously reported, based on Spiggle et al. (2012) were not available at the time we carried out these tests.

REFERENCES Abbot, H. P. (2002). The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Anderberg, J., & Morris, J. (2006). Authenticity and transparency in the advertising industry. Journal of Management Development, 25(10), 1021 1023. Auslander, P. (1998). Seeing is believing: Live performance and the discourse of authenticity in rock culture. Literature and Psychology, 44(4), 1 26. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 45 61. Best, P. (2007). Unilever faces critical ‘Onslaught’. The Globe and Mail, November 28, p. B2. Beverland, M. B. (2005). Brand management and the challenge of authenticity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(7), 460 461. Beverland, M. B. (2006). The ‘Real Thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade. Journal of Business Research, 59, 251 258.

24

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest for authenticity in consumption: Consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838 856. Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting authenticity through advertising: Consumer judgments of advertisers’ claims. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 5 15. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 76 88. Brown, C. L., & Krishna, A. (2004). The skeptical shopper: A metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 529 539. Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19 33. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255 280. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(August), 357 369. Deighton, J., Romer, D., & McQueen, J. (1989). Using drama to persuade. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 335 343. Dowling, G. R. (2006). Communicating corporate reputation through stories. California Management Review, 49(1), 82 100. Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is enough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185 194. Escalas, J. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37 48. Escalas, J., Moore, C. M., & Edell, J. A. (2004). Fishing for feelings? Hooking viewers helps. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1 & 2), 105 113. Gerrig, R. J., & Rapp, D. N. (2004). Psychological processes underlying literary impact. Poetics Today, 25(2), 265 281. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 601 613. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 221 233. Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1031 1055. Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296 312. Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes, 38(2), 247 266. Green, M. C. (2007). Linking self and others through narrative. Psychological Inquiry, 18(2), 100 102.

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

25

Green, M. C. (2008). Research challenges in narrative persuasion. Information Design Journal, 16(1), 47 52. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701 721. Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communications Theory, 14(4), 311 327. Green, M. C., Garst, J., Brock, T. C., & Chung, S. (2006). Fact versus fiction labeling: Persuasion parity despite heightened scrutiny of fact. Media Psychology, 8(3), 267 285. Gre´goire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247 261. Herskovitz, S., & Crystal, M. (2010). The essential brand persona: Storytelling and branding. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(3), 21 28. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 78 89. Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70 90. Johnson, A. R., & Folkes, V. S. (2007). How consumers’ assessments of the difficulty of manufacturing a product influence quality perceptions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(Fall), 317 328. Jones, C., Anand, N., & Alvarez, J. L. (2005). Manufactured authenticity and creative voice in cultural industries. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 893 899. Kelly, M. H., & Keil, F. C. (1985). The more things change …: Metamorphoses and conceptual structure. Cognitive Science, 9, 403 416. Lacy, J. A., & Douglass, W. A. (2002). Beyond authenticity: The meanings and uses of cultural tourism. Tourist Studies, 2(1), 5 21. Leigh, T. W., Peters, C., & Shelton, J. (2006). The consumer quest for authenticity: The multiplicity of meanings within the MG subculture of consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 481 493. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353 383). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mikkelsen, P. (2008). Brand personality: Communicating character and authenticity in a digital world. DDBO: The Yellow Paper Series. Retrieved from www.brandchannel.com. Accessed on March 31, 2009. Mun˜oz, C. L., Wood, N. T., & Solomon, M. R. (2006). Real or blarney? A cross-cultural investigation of the perceived authenticity of Irish pubs. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5, 222 234. Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775 790. Penaloza, L. (2001). Consuming the American west: Animating cultural meaning and memory at a stock show and rodeo. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 369 398. Peterson, R. A. (2005). In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1083 1098. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.

26

ALLISON R. JOHNSON ET AL.

Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(3), 416 420. Rose, R. L., & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(September), 284 296. Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43 61. Segal, E. M. (1995). Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective (pp. 3 17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173 191. Smith, N. C., & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and target marketing: The role of product harm and consumer vulnerability. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 1 20. Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: Brand extension authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(6), 967 983. Stern, B. (1994). Authenticity and the textual persona: Postmodern paradoxes in advertising narrative. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 387 400. Thompson, C. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic value of the Doppelga¨nger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70(January), 50 64. Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(July), 104 119. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83 95. Twitchell, J. B. (2004). An English teacher looks at branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(September), 484 489. van den Bosch, A. L. M., de Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2005). How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 108 116. Wild, T. C., Kuiken, D., & Schopflocher, D. (1995). The role of absorption in experiential involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 569 579. Woodside, A. G. (2010). Brand-consumer storytelling theory and research: Introduction to a psychology & marketing special issue. Psychology & Marketing, 27(6), 531 540. Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97 145. Worth, S. E. (2004). Fictional spaces. The Philosophical Forum, 35(4), 439 455.

27

What Does Brand Authenticity Mean?

APPENDIX Measure Authenticity (direct)

Authenticity: Tradition (reflective) Authenticity: Values (reflective)

a

Item Wordinga Real True Genuine This brand has a sense of tradition This brand has a lot of heritage behind it This brand is true to its roots This brand is clearly committed to its core values Significant values lie at the core of this brand This brand reflects values that are very important to a lot of people This brand is committed to a particular ideal This brand stands for values in our society A certain spirit lies at the heart of this brand

All items measured on seven-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) to (7) strongly agree.

This page intentionally left blank

MANAGING BRAND MEANING THROUGH CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT Jennifer Edson Escalas and James R. Bettman ABSTRACT Purpose We explore how marketers can manage brand meaning through the use of celebrity endorsements. We theorize that consumers look to celebrity endorsements for brand symbolism, which they appropriate to construct and communicate their self-concepts by forming selfbrand connections (SBC). Methodology This research employs an experimental paradigm, with two empirical studies examining whether marketers can create meaning for their brands through the use of celebrity endorsements. Findings Study 1 finds that celebrity endorsement enhances SBC when consumers aspire to be like the celebrity, but harms them when consumers do not; furthermore, this effect is more pronounced when the brand image is congruent with the celebrity’s image. The effect is further moderated by the degree to which a brand communicates something about the user, with more symbolic brands having stronger effects than less symbolic brands. Study 2 finds that the effect of celebrity

Brand Meaning Management Review of Marketing Research, Volume 12, 29 52 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-643520150000012002

29

30

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

endorsement on SBC is augmented when consumers’ self-esteem is threatened. Consumers self-enhance by building connections to celebrities with favorable images or distancing themselves from those with unfavorable images. Practical implications These findings can help marketers’ decisions regarding when and whom to use as a celebrity endorsers by taking into account how consumers use meaning appropriated from celebrities when constructing the self. Keywords: Celebrity endorsement; brand meaning; self-brand connections; advertising

With the rise of social media and reality television, some refer to our times as the social era of celebrity (Gullov-Singh, 2011): Kim Kardasian receives $10,000 to tweet about products; Abercrombie and Fitch paid Jersey Shore stars not to wear their products on the reality television show; and stars like Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, and Lady Gaga have more Twitter followers than the populations of many countries (e.g., Katy Perry has over 49 million followers as of September 2013; TwitterCounter.com, 2013). About 20% of U.S. ads in traditional media feature celebrities (Solomon, 2009), and the percent of ads using celebrities in other countries, such as Japan, is thought to be even higher. Adly.com offers over 2,000 celebrities for endorsement deals through Twitter, with projected revenues of over 5 million dollars in 2013 (Cassidy, 2013). Given the prevalence of celebrity endorsements, it is important to understand their effects. Traditional explanations of celebrity endorsement persuasion effects are based on the source effects literature and find that (1) celebrity endorsement increases the attention paid to an ad (Buttle, Raymond, & Danzinger, 2000), (2) celebrities are generally attractive, which helps persuasion when consumers are worried about social acceptance and others’ opinions (DeBono & Harnish, 1988) or when the product is attractiveness-related (Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990), (3) celebrities may be credible sources if they have expertise in a particular area, such as an athlete endorsing shoes (Ratneshwar & Chaiken, 1991) or a beautiful model endorsing make-up (Baker & Churchill, 1977), and (4) celebrities are often well-liked, possibly leading to identification and consumer persuasion in an attempt to seek some type of relationship with the celebrity (Belch & Belch, 2007).

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

31

In dual process attitude models (e.g., ELM; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983), celebrities are often considered a peripheral cue: they are important in persuasion only when consumers are not involved in the product category or in processing the ad. However, celebrities may provide central information when an aspect of the celebrity matches the product (as with beauty products and attractiveness; Kahle & Homer, 1985). Also, as affective peripheral cues, celebrity endorsements may have an impact on sales in mature categories (MacInnis, Rao, & Weiss, 2002). Additionally, research has shown that source congruence, that is, the match between the celebrity’s image and the brand’s image, is an important influence on brand beliefs and attitudes under conditions of high involvement/elaboration (Kirmani & Shiv, 1998), especially in situations with multiple endorsers and multiple endorsements (Rice, Kelting, & Lutz, 2012). Our approach differs from these more traditional explanations of celebrity endorsement effects on persuasion, focusing instead on the cultural meanings associated with celebrities. Our framework is based on the idea that people engage in consumption behavior in part to construct their selfconcepts and to create personal identities (Belk, 1988; McCracken, 1989; Richins, 1994). We examine celebrity endorsement based upon McCracken’s (1989) perspective: as consumers construct their self-concepts by using brands, they appropriate the symbolic meanings of brands; these meanings may be derived, in part, from celebrity endorsement (see also Miller & Allen, 2012). Celebrities come to personify various characteristics that may be useful to consumers for building selves, and these symbolic properties can become associated with brands via celebrity endorsers. In our research, we focus on self-brand connections (SBC), rather than specific brand associations or brand attitudes, because we believe that SBC measure the extent to which symbolic brand meanings are incorporated into a consumer’s self-concept (Escalas, 2004). Consumers value psychological and symbolic brand benefits because these benefits can help them construct their self-identity and/or present themselves to others. In this way, celebrities are carriers of meaning for consumers, and we argue that SBC capture the extent of such meaning.

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT Brand meanings are used to create and define a consumer’s self-concept (Levy, 1959). McCracken (1986) asserts that such meaning originates in the

32

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

culturally constituted world, moving into goods via the fashion system, word of mouth, reference groups, subcultural groups, the media, and, importantly for our purposes, celebrities. As an example of meaning transfer, research has shown that consumers construct their self-identity and present themselves to others through their brand choices based on the congruency between brand-user associations and self-image associations (Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005). Meanings can also “get into” a brand through advertising because ads reference the general cultural symbols needed to provide meaning (McCracken, 1986). In particular, a celebrity endorser may provide a bundle of meanings that become associated with the brands s/he endorses (Miller & Allen, 2012). Next, meaning moves to consumers as they construct their identities through brand choices based on congruency between brand meaning and desired self-image. Thus, the meaning and value of a brand is not just its ability to express the self, but also its role in helping consumers create and build their self-identities (McCracken, 1989).

Self-Brand Connections Consumers value products and brands for different reasons. One reason is for a product’s instrumental features or attributes, which provide tangible benefits. For example, cars provide transportation, and salt adds flavor to food. However, sometimes consumers form a special, self-brand connection with products or brands. These brands come to signify more than just the sum of their features. Consumers ascribe these brands with an intrinsic meaning that makes them worth more than the value of their features or instrumental benefits. As an example of special meaning, many people become particularly attached to their first brand of car. The car provides freedom and independence; it is part of a rite of passage into adulthood. Important memories become associated with the car, such as going to the prom or high school graduation. The car may be a used, second hand vehicle, but if purchased with money from one’s first job, it can symbolize accomplishment. Based on any or all of these factors, the consumer may come to associate positive feelings and memories with this brand of automobile. Obviously, the car’s functional performance needs to be strong as well, but while many other brands of car may perform well, this particular brand has become incorporated into the consumer’s sense of self. It represents a part of who s/he is and can be used to communicate who s/he is to others.

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

33

How does this meaning become associated with the brand? In order to understand this process, we must recognize that brands have symbolic properties that extend beyond their functional benefits (Levy, 1959). As such, brands can be used to meet higher order, psychological needs, such as self-construction, social integration, self-differentiation, and selfpresentation (e.g., Ball & Tasaki, 1992; Belk, 1988; Kleine, Kleine, & Allen, 1995; McCracken, 1989; Richins, 1994; Schultz, Kleine, & Kernan, 1989). Aaker (1991) asserts that brands generate value by providing functional, emotional, and self-expressive benefits. Much of consumer research under the information processing paradigm has focused on the functional benefits of brands. The focus of this paper is on the emotional and self-expressive benefits of brands. Levy (1959) claims that brands, as symbols, take on meaning when they join with, add to, and reinforce the way consumers think about themselves. Thus, in order to study the symbolic benefits of brands, we must be able to measure the relationship between the brand and the consumer’s sense of self. This relationship between consumers’ selfconcepts and brands is referred to as SBC because these brands become associated with, or connected to, consumers’ mental representations of self. We propose that the set of brand associations can be more meaningful the more closely it is linked to the self. To achieve their identity goals (Huffman, Ratneshwar, & Mick, 2000), people use products and brands to create and represent self-images and to present these images to others or to themselves. As a result of this process, a link bridges the brand and the self. We conceptualize and operationalize this self-brand linkage using the seven-item scale provided in Table 1 (Escalas, 2004). We focus on SBC, rather than specific brand associations, because we believe that brand meaning is most often dependent upon the entire constellation, or gestalt, or the set of brand associations. SBC subsume the collection of brand associations, broadly defined to include meaning created by the cultural world around the consumer as well as the consumer’s own personal memories of the brand. SBC are thus the mental linkage between the symbolic nature of what the brand means to a particular consumer and that consumer’s representation of self. In sum, we believe that the self-brand connection scale is a comprehensive assessment of the link between brands and consumers’ self-concepts, based on conceptualizing consumers’ interactions with brands as a constructive, active identity building process. We distinguish self-brand connection from the brand relationship research conducted by Fournier and others (e.g., Fournier, 1998). Fournier identifies six dimensions of brand relationship quality (BRQ). The selfbrand connection concept is most similar to the BRQ dimension entitled

34

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

Table 1. Self-Brand Connection Scale Items. 1. This brand reflects who I am 2. I can identify with this brand 3. I feel a personal connection to this brand 4. I use this brand to communicate who I am to other people 5. I think this brand help me become the type of person I want to be 6. I consider this brand to be “me” (it reflects who I consider myself to be or the way that I want to present myself to others) 7. This brand suits me well Note. Anchored by strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (100).

“self-concept connections” and could be considered a subset of BRQ. However, the major difference between our notion of SBC and the brand relationship approach is that brands in our framework are not construed as active relationship partners. In our approach, brands are vessels of symbolic meaning, with this meaning appropriated by consumers as they use brands’ symbolic properties to meet self needs. To extend the “life is a stage” metaphor of Goffman (1959), in this paper, brands are considered to be props used by actors for character development rather than as fellow actors (cf. Ahuvia, 2015). We believe both approaches are valid and worthy of research, both by academics and marketing practitioners, but we focus on brands as meaning carriers.

Celebrity as Source of Meaning As noted above, celebrity endorsement provides an important source of brand meaning. Our research empirically examines this role of celebrities as vessels of cultural meaning. Why celebrities? Celebrities are individuals who are “known to many, but know far fewer, and are the object of considerable attention” (O’Guinn, 1991, p. 102). Boorstin (1961/1992) famously quipped that a celebrity is “a person who is well known for his well-knownness” (p. 57). However, our view is different from Boorstin’s, who sees celebrity as an empty shell, while we look at the meaning contained within that shell. In our consumer society, people look to celebrities for meaning (Ferris, 2007; Klapp, 1969). Celebrities play the role of modern heroes who help individuals make sense of their lives (Campbell, 1949/2008) in a society that no longer reveres historical and/or mythological heroes. As heroes, celebrities exist to give the individual identity in a modern mass culture (Klapp, 1969). Reeves (1988) asserts that stardom is a

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

35

cultural agent of personality development. Being a fan of celebrities allows consumers to connect with American culture, while also maintaining individuality in their choice of which celebrities to “worship.” Many academics argue that celebrity is not authentic, because it is manufactured by Hollywood, advertisers, and mass media (Gabler, 2000; Newbury, 2000, see also, Grayson & Martinec, 2004). These scholars argue that there is little to no connection between fame and true achievement (e.g., Braudy, 1986/1997; Gabler, 2000). However, consumers are able to find meaning in celebrity, in contrast to the critical theory view that celebrity lives and relationships lack authenticity (Newbury, 2000), although more authentic celebrities may be more likely to become aspirational for consumers (cf. Schiappa, Allen, & Gregg, 2007). Celebrities use mass media to create their identities, and consumer culture both interprets and shapes these identities. As part of this process, celebrities provide meaning to objects through product endorsements, and in a circular fashion, their own meaning is also created by the products they endorse (Ferris, 2007). Furthermore, consumers use the meanings they themselves fashion for celebrities to construct their own personal identities (Marshall, 1997). Despite the commercial nature of celebrity in our society, some scholars posit that celebrities are an art form in and of themselves (Gabler, 2000). In Gabler’s view, celebrities are a narrative that society looks to for entertainment. At times, this art form may provide life lessons valued by our culture, such as illustrating the wages of sin, punishment for hubris, or the benefits of self-mastery. Celebrity creates a source of common experience around which society can build a nationwide or even global community (Gabler, 2000). Whether as heroes or as narratives, celebrities encapsulate meaning on a number of levels, including both broad cultural ideas, such as values and norms, and more idiosyncratic individual meanings, such as what it means to be cool or smart or successful. In this research, we assert that consumers appropriate desired celebrity-based meanings by using brands associated with the celebrity to construct and communicate their own self-concepts. Consumers do not look to all celebrities for meaning indiscriminately. That is to say, consumers are likely to accept meanings from brands associated or consistent with a celebrity who represents either who they are or who they would like to be (aspirational) and to reject meanings associated or consistent with a celebrity who represents either who they are not or who they would not like to become (dissociative or non-aspirational; Berger & Heath, 2007; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; White & Dahl, 2007). In the latter case, the brand is ascribed meaning through the process of

36

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

avoiding the non-desired celebrity associations while constructing one’s possible self. For this negative process to occur, the celebrity symbolism must be actively rejected by the consumer, and not simply consist of associations that are meaningless or unimportant, in which case there may be no effect of celebrity endorsement. Therefore, we propose that H1. Celebrity endorsement effects on SBC will be positive when the celebrity is perceived to be aspirational, but negative when the celebrity is non-aspirational. Based on previous research (e.g., Kirmani & Shiv, 1998; Rice et al., 2012), in order for celebrity endorsement to have an effect on SBC, there must also be source congruity, that is, a match between the celebrity image and the brand image. McCracken’s (1989) view also suggests that a symbolic “match” should exist between the celebrity image and the brand image in order for the celebrity endorsement to be effective. A generic, well-liked celebrity endorsement will not have the same “punch” as a celebrity endorsement where the image of the celebrity matches the image of the brand. Source congruence occurs when one or more of the aspects of a celebrity’s image are congruent with one or more of these aspects of a brand’s image (e.g., personality, social roles). This consistency reinforces and augments the symbolic impact of the endorsement. Thus, we posit that H2. The effect of celebrity endorsement on SBC will be moderated by the extent to which there exists source congruence. Brand Symbolism Our basic premise is that consumers appropriate the meaning of brands as they construct their self-identities, in the present case by using the brand meaning that arises from celebrity endorsement. Some brands are better able than others to communicate something about the person using them. For example, prior consumer research proposes that publicly consumed (vs. privately consumed) and luxury (vs. necessity) products are better able to convey symbolic meaning about an individual (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). Additionally, a brand that is very popular and used by different types of people (e.g., a Honda Accord) may not communicate specific associations about the person who uses it. Therefore, we expect the basic effect postulated in Hypotheses 1 and 2 to be moderated by the degree to which a brand is perceived to be symbolic, that is, able to communicate something about the individual using the brand (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

37

Consumers will be more likely to form SBC to symbolic brands with appropriate associations as they construct their self-identities than with brands that do not communicate much about the self-identity of the user (cf. Swaminathan, Stilley, & Ahluwalia, 2009). Conversely, consumers will be more likely to reject forming a self-brand connection with symbolic brands with inappropriate associations than with non-symbolic brands. Thus, we hypothesize a three-way interaction between celebrity aspiration level, celebrity-brand image match, and brand symbolism: H3. The effect of celebrity endorsement and aspiration level on SBC will be moderated by the degree to which a brand is perceived to be symbolic, that is, able to communicate something about the user’s selfidentity, with more symbolic brands having a more pronounced effect compared to less symbolic brands. Thus, the strongest positive effects on SBC will be for aspirational endorsements with a strong match for symbolic brands. The strongest negative effects on SBC will be for non-aspirational endorsements with a strong match for symbolic brands.

STUDY 1 In this study, we examine the influence of celebrity endorsement on SBC and measure the degree to which the celebrity image matches the brand image and the extent to which the brand communicates something about its user in order to test hypotheses 1 3. Method Participants The experiment was administered via a Web-based facility for online research. Our sample consisted of 321 English-speaking respondents from an online panel who responded to a randomized invitation to participate, followed study directions, and completed the study. Twenty-six participants (the top and bottom 5%, approximately) were removed to eliminate outliers based on the time it took them to complete the study (completion time range: six minutes to nearly five hours; mean: 32 minutes, top 5%: over 80 minutes, bottom 5%: under 10 minutes), yielding a final sample of 295 participants. Up to three e-mail notifications over a one week period were used

38

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

to secure cooperation, and the chance to win one of six drawings for a $100 prize served as an incentive. Procedure A Web-based program allowed us to customize the study based on participants’ responses. The program began with a short study introduction, after which participants entered a favorite celebrity who endorsed a product (“Please type in the name of your most favorite celebrity who endorses a product:”). Next they typed in the one of the products endorsed by that celebrity (“Which is the one product that he/she endorses that you most associate with him/her?”). This was followed by similar questions about their least favorite celebrity and a corresponding product for him/her. After a short, unrelated filler task designed to reduce potential demand effects, participants rated the degree to which they had SBC with the brand that corresponded to their most and their least favorite celebrity (with order randomized across participants; order had no effect in any of the models tested and therefore was not included in any of the results discussed below). This was followed by questions about whether the brand was symbolic, the extent to which the brand and the celebrity had similar images, and a number of celebrity covariates (see below). The program ended with a debriefing statement. The entire procedure took approximately one and half hour. Independent Variables Participants answered questions probing both their most and least favorite celebrities and the products they endorsed. Additionally, participants rated the extent to which each celebrity image and brand image matched on three items (0 100): “To what extent does the image of this celebrity match the image of this product?” “Does it make sense for this celebrity to use this product?” and “This product and this celebrity fit together” (α = .90). Participants also rated the extent to which each of the two brands they had entered was symbolic, on two items (0 100): “To what extent does Brand X communicate something specific about the person who uses it?” and “How much does Brand X symbolize what kind of person uses it?” (α = .87). Dependent Variable SBC were measured using seven items (Escalas, 2004; see Table 1), averaged to form one self-brand connection score per participant per brand (α = .96).

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

39

Manipulation Checks The extent to which participants felt themselves to be similar to the celebrity was measured using a two-item scale (0 100): “I am a lot like this celebrity” and “This celebrity and I have a lot in common” (α = .88). Two other items measured the extent to which participants aspired to become more like the celebrity (0 100): “I would like to be more like this celebrity someday” and “I wish I were more like this celebrity” (α = .92).

RESULTS The model used in the analyses to predict SBC is a within-subjects General Linear Model (GLM) model, with factors the type of celebrity (manipulated: aspirational vs. non-aspirational), celebrity-brand image match (measured: run as both continuous and with a median split, see below), and brand symbolism (measured: run as both continuous and with a median split, see below).

Manipulation Checks Participants rated themselves to be more similar to their favorite celebrity and to aspire to become more like their favorite celebrity compared to their least favorite celebrity (favorite similar = 36.85, least favorite similar = 12.11; favorite aspire = 45.94, least favorite aspire = 14.37; F (1, 589) ≥ 179.90, p < .001). Celebrity-brand image match also had a significant effect on both similar and aspire, with matches being higher. Hypotheses 1 and 2 In the model for SBC, we find a significant main effect for celebrity-brand image match and a marginally significant main effect of celebrity type (with aspirational celebrities having a more positive effect than non-aspirational celebrities). These effects are qualified by the significant two way interaction of celebrity type and celebrity-brand image match (F(1, 589) = 4.31, p < .05).1 Fig. 1 graphically presents these results, using dichotomous variables for graphical purposes. In support of Hypotheses 1 and 2, the effect of celebrity endorsement is augmented when there is a celebrity-brand image match, enhancing SBC when the favorite celebrity endorses the

40

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN Non-Aspirational Celebrity

Aspirational Celebrity 49.47

37.11 29.62 22.62

Low Image Match

Fig. 1.

High Image Match

Study 1: Effect of Celebrity Type and Image Match on Self-Brand Connections (SBC).

brand (match = 49.47, no match = 37.11; F(1, 589) = 7.67, p < .01), compared to when the celebrity image does not match the brand image. In the least favorite celebrity condition, the predicted effect is only marginally significant (match = 22.62, no match = 29.62; F(1, 589) = 2.68, p = .10).2 Hypothesis 3 The effect reported above for Hypotheses 1 and 2 is moderated by the degree to which the brand is symbolic, that is, able to communicate something about the user, with more symbolic brands having stronger effects than less symbolic brands (Escalas & Bettman, 2005). We find a significant three-way interaction, with steeper slopes for symbolic brands (F(1, 589) = 4.64, p < .05).3 These results are shown in Fig. 2 (dichotomized for graphical presentation). The positive effect of aspirational celebrity endorsement on SBC is stronger for brands that are perceived to communicate something symbolic about the brand’s user compared to brands that do not (high symbolic contrast: F(1, 589) = 9.01, p < .01; compared to nonsignificant effect in the low symbolic condition: F(1, 589) < 1.0, ns). However, the directional effect for non-aspirational celebrity endorsement does not reach significance for the high symbolic brands (F(1, 589) = 1.24, ns) or the low symbolic brands, which we expected to be non-significant (F(1, 589 < 1.0, ns). Thus, support for Hypothesis 3 is only found for aspirational celebrity endorsements.

41

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

Brands that Communicate Much about the User Non-Aspirational Celebrity

Aspirational Celebrity 58.64

38.90 35.86 29.34

Low Image Match

High Image Match

Brands that Communicate Little about the User Non-Aspirational Celebrity

Aspirational Celebrity

40.30 35.32

23.38 15.89

Low Image Match

Fig. 2.

High Image Match

Effect of Celebrity Type and Image Match on Self-Brand Connections (SBC), Moderated by Brand Symbolism.

Discussion of Results from Study 1 As hypothesized, we find that consumers report stronger SBC for brands endorsed by a favorite celebrity compared to brands endorsed by their least favorite celebrity, and this effect is moderated by celebrity-brand image

42

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

match (Hypotheses 1 and 2). These effects are further moderated by the degree to which the brand is symbolic, that is, able to communicate something about the person who uses it, with the positive effect of aspirational celebrity endorsements having a significantly larger impact on SBC when the brand is symbolic, compared to when it is not (Hypothesis 3). This study thus provides initial empirical evidence that consumers use brand associations that are the result of aspirational celebrity endorsement to communicate their self-concepts, particularly in the case of symbolic brands. As discussed above, we believe that SBC capture brand meaning to the consumer, so these results support McCracken’s (1989) notion that celebrities can provide consumers with packets of meaning for the self. Next we examine how the addition of self-motives can provide insight further into the self-construction processes used by consumers.

Self-Enhancement Motives In our framework, celebrity-based brand associations can help consumers achieve self-goals when celebrity-based brand associations are linked or connected to the self. Thus, our theory implies that our hypothesized endorsement effects will be stronger when self needs relevant to constructing one’s self-identity are high. Associations may be captured from celebrity endorsement and used by individuals constructing their self-concepts in a manner consistent with their predominant or currently activated self-motivations (Escalas & Bettman, 2003). In a similar vein, Thomson (2006) asserts that attachment to celebrities comes from celebrities’ perceived abilities to meet consumers’ autonomy and relatedness needs (and not harm competence needs). O’Guinn (1991) finds that consumers are motivated to worship celebrities to fulfill social and even spiritual needs. Thus, celebrity endorsement can provide useful meanings and connections that help consumers meet selfrelated needs. In this paper, we focus on one self-motivation that is particularly relevant to the use of brands to construct and communicate one’s self concept: self-enhancement. People are often motivated to create a favorable selfidentity and are heavily influenced by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem (Crocker & Park, 2004; Greenwald, Bellezza, & Banaji, 1988; Tesser, 2000). People are motivated to create a good impression to gain social approval and for the intrinsic satisfaction of projecting a positive self-image, even to oneself (Schlenker, 1980). Self-enhancement is

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

43

particularly desired after a threat to the self (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Steele, 1988; Tesser & Cornell, 1991). Heine, Proulx, and Vohs (2006) assert that maintenance of self-esteem helps individuals make their lives meaningful. Consumers with strong self-enhancement goals tend to form SBC to brands used by aspiration groups, that is, groups for which the consumer wishes to become a member (Escalas & Bettman, 2003). We believe a similar process is at work with celebrity endorsement. Furthermore, in contrast to our work on aspiration groups, celebrities may be more consistently aspirational across a broad range of consumer groups. Thus, a consumer may appropriate symbolic brand meaning derived from a celebrity who has characteristics that the consumer aspires to possess. Therefore, the activation of self-enhancement goals by a threat to the self should increase the extent to which celebrity endorsement influences SBC. We expect that consumers who have active self-enhancement motives will be more likely to form SBC to brands that are endorsed by a celebrity that they aspire to be like. However, self-enhancers will be more likely to reject brand associations created by a celebrity endorsement where the celebrity associations are rejected (i.e., a non-aspirational celebrity), compared to consumers who do not have active self-enhancement goals. H4. The effect of celebrity endorsement on SBC will be moderated by the extent to which consumers have active self-enhancement goals, with active self-enhancement goals having a more pronounced effect compared to less active goals.

STUDY 2 In this study, we examine whether self-enhancement needs augment the influence of celebrity endorsement on SBC (Hypothesis 4) by threatening self-esteem. People attempt to repair their self-esteem in response to a threat to the self (Steele, 1988); we expect people might look to celebrities and their associated meanings as one source for such repairs. Based on previous research (Escalas & Bettman, 2003, 2005) and our results for symbolic brands in Study 1, we use a product category that communicates something about identity in this study: watches, holding fit, and symbolism constant in order to focus on aspiration level. We also test the difference between aspirational versus non-aspirational celebrity effects (operationalized here as favorite vs. least favorite; Hypothesis 1).

44

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

Method Participants The experiment was administered via a Web-based facility affiliated with a major research university. A total of 311 American citizens from an online panel responded to a randomized invitation to participate and completed our study, ultimately yielding a usable sample of 278 after the removal of approximately the top and bottom 5% of participants based on the time taken to complete the study (N = 34, completion time range: three minutes to nearly one hour; mean: 23 minutes, top 5%: over 49 minutes, bottom 5%: under 9 minutes). Up to three e-mail notifications over a one week period were used to secure cooperation, and the chance to win one of six drawings for a $100 prize served as an incentive.

Procedure After a short study introduction, participants were asked to complete a battery of individual difference scales, including US national identity (see below). Next, participants were asked to sort seven celebrities (“Please rank the following celebrities according to how much you like them, from most favorite to most despised:”) to manipulate aspirational versus nonaspirational celebrity endorsers. Women sorted Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Celine Dion, Nicole Kidman, Jessica Simpson, and Paris Hilton, while men sorted Tiger Woods,4 Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Rush Limbaugh, and Howard Stern. Next, participants completed a series of questions relating to a different experiment. Participants then read an article entitled “War in Iraq Badly Damages US Image Internationally” from the Voice of America website, which explained how Anti-American sentiment had risen throughout the world as a result of President Bush’s Middle East policies (the source was not revealed to the participants until the debriefing statement). The intention of this article was to threaten the self and hence manipulate identity repair needs. We believed that participants who had a strong United States national identity (USNI) would be more threatened by the article than those low in USNI and thus would have active self-enhancement goals (Steele, 1988). After reading the article, participants were shown an ad for a fictitious watch brand, Montrex. This ad featured either their second favorite celebrity or second least favorite celebrity, using the data from the sorting task conducted earlier in the study. Participants then rated the degree to which they had SBC with the Montrex watch, followed by

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

45

manipulation checks on self-esteem and a number of celebrity-related variables (see below). Independent and Dependent Variables To disguise the purpose of the study, participants were randomly assigned to the second most or second least favorite celebrity conditions. For our manipulation of self-esteem, we expected that the article that shed negative light on America would affect people high in national identity with the United States to a greater extent that those low in USNI. We measured USNI using the four item scale developed by Huddy and Khatib (2007): “How important is being American to you?” “To what extent do you see yourself as a typical American?” “How well does the term American describe you?” and “When talking about Americans, how often do you say ‘we’ instead of ‘they’?” (0 100, α = .83). Our primary dependent variable, SBC, was measured using the seven-item scale in Table 1 (α = .98). Manipulation Checks The extent to which participants aspired to become more like the celebrity was measured by two items (0 100): “I would like to be more like this celebrity someday” and “I wish I were more like this celebrity” (α = .91). In order to test our manipulation for threatening self-esteem, we use McFarland and Ross’s (1982) 12 item self-esteem scale (e.g., “How do you feel about yourself right now?” followed by “good/bad,” “competent/ incompetent,” “proud/shameful,”; 0 100, α = .84). We also measured source congruence with three items (0 100): “To what extent does the image of this celebrity match the image of this product?” “Does it make sense for this celebrity to use this product?” and “This product and this celebrity fit together” (α = .76), but found no effect of the celebrity shown in the ad on the extent to which the celebrity-brand image matched, as expected for a fictitious watch brand.

Results A between-subjects GLM, with factors of celebrity aspiration level (manipulated: second favorite vs. second least favorite) and threat to selfesteem (US national identity measured: run as both continuous and with a median split, see below) was used to model SBC. A dummy variable for the actual celebrity shown in the ad also was included.

46

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

Manipulation Checks Participants high in US national identity were more threatened by the antiAmerica article than those low in US national identity (high USNI/ high threat self-esteem = 69.54, low USNI/low threat self-esteem = 77.82, F(1, 277) = 11.73, p < .001), with no other significant effects. Participants also aspire to become more like their second favorite celebrity compared to their second least favorite celebrity (second favorite aspire = 41.52, second least favorite aspire = 17.35; F(1, 277) ≥ 32.17 p < .001)), again with no other significant effects. Hypotheses Tests The only main effect in our model of SBC was that of the celebrity dummy variable. We find a significant interaction of celebrity aspiration level by threat level in our model of SBC (F(1, 277) = 4.07, p < .05). This interaction is also significant when we use the dichotomous threat level variable based on a median split (F(1, 277) = 4.75, p < .05). Fig. 3 graphically presents these results, using dichotomous variables for graphical purposes. In support of Hypothesis 4, we find a significant difference for those participants who are threatened (aspirational = 25.65, non-aspirational = 13.59; F(1, 227) = 6.26, p = .01), but not for those who are not threatened (aspirational = 19.98, non-aspirational = 19.45, F(1, 277) < 1.0, ns).

Non-Aspirational Celebrity

Aspirational Celebrity

25.65

19.98 19.45

13.59

Low Threat

Fig. 3.

High Threat

Study 2: Effect of Self-Esteem Threat and Celebrity Aspiration Level on Self-Brand Connections (SBC).

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

47

Discussion of Results from Study 2 Study 2 shows the moderating effect of active self-enhancement goals on the effect of celebrity endorsement. People whose self-esteem has been threatened form connections to brands that are endorsed by celebrities that they aspire to be like. They also reject brands that are endorsed by celebrities with images that do not match their desired self-image. This is contrasted with those participants where we did not activate self-enhancement goals. Those participants do not form differential SBC to an unknown brand based on an endorsement by an aspirational versus non-aspirational celebrity. This null effect may on the surface appear to contradict the findings in Study 1, where participants for whom we did not activate selfenhancement goals did respond differently to aspirational versus nonaspirational celebrities under conditions of high fit, symbolic products. However, in Study 1, participants were able to identify their favorite or least favorite celebrity, while in Study 2, they were presented with a list to choose from. Thus, the aspiration manipulation in Study 1 was much stronger and did not require priming self-enhancement motives in order to find an effect.

CONCLUSION We argue that consumers appropriate brand meanings from celebrity endorsement to construct their self-concepts. In making this claim, we integrate literature from the sociological/anthropological tradition in marketing and social psychology. Our studies show that consumers report higher SBC for brands with images that are congruent with the image of a celebrity that they aspire to be like, particularly in the case when there is source congruence, that is, the image of the celebrity and the brand match, and when the brands are symbolic. Consumers also report higher connections under self-threat. Thus, consumers appear to appropriate meaning from the brand/celebrity combination to build or buttress the self. Our findings should be useful to marketers attempting to manage brand meaning in a number of ways. First, when should marketers use a celebrity endorser in an advertising campaign? Our finding that symbolic brands, that is, brands that communicate something about the user, show stronger effects makes symbolic brands likely candidates for celebrity endorsements. Furthermore, our finding that consumers with self-enhancement goals respond more strongly to a celebrity appeal might imply that products with

48

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

self-enhancement benefits might be well-served by celebrity endorsements. The notion that celebrities are likely to be more aspirational to a wider set of consumers makes our celebrity findings more managerially tractable than our prior work on much more idiosyncratic aspirational groups. Second, we find that celebrity endorsements have the most impact when the brand image and the celebrity image match. This means marketers need to understand both what their brand already means to its target consumers and what their target consumers believe about the meaning of a potential celebrity endorser. Marketers often make celebrity endorsement decisions based on an overall likeability score. While our aspiration results confirm this approach to some extent, our congruency results reveal that the symbolic image or meaning of the celebrity is every bit as important as the likeability index. Marketers may also be tempted to use celebrities to build new images for their brands, but such endeavors may prove challenging if they try to change a brand image to be too far afield from its current symbolic meaning by using a celebrity endorser with a radically different image. The result may not be an image change, but a failed advertising campaign. Our research may also shed light on the adoption of social media to follow celebrities in our modern culture. For example, a Pew Research Center study (2011) reports that the majority of Twitter® users are under the age 34, with half of those users under the age of 24. While one might argue that young people are early adopters of technology in general, the most followed individuals on Twitter are celebrities, such as Lady Gaga, Justin Beeber, and Katy Perry (TwitterCounter.com, 2013). Future research could explore whether young people, who may have both stronger needs than older consumers to construct a workable self and stronger selfenhancement needs given the importance of social acceptance to teenagers, are more likely to look to celebrities for meaning and thus adopt Twitter as part of that endeavor. Finally, we believe the self-brand connection scale captures the transfer of meaning from celebrity to brand to consumer (McCracken, 1989). We have focused on the effect of celebrity endorsement on SBC as an important part of consumers’ construction of self. The set of associations consumers have about a brand is an important component of brand equity (Keller, 1993), and we believe that forming a self-brand connection based on meaning is the psychological manifestation of such equity at the consumer level. Therefore, the notion that consumers form a link to a brand as they use the brand’s symbolic associations for self-construction is important to marketing managers. When consumers’ self-concepts are linked to a brand, then the company behind the brand may be able to gain an

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

49

enduring competitive advantage, because this type of identity-based and meaning-based connection is difficult for competitors to imitate. Our studies provide insights into when such meaning is most likely to be a critical influence upon consumers.

NOTES 1. This interaction is significant whether we treat celebrity-brand match as a continuous variable or create a dichotomous variable with a median split (F(1, 589) = 10.17, p < .01). 2. The contrast comparing favorite (49.47) to least favorite (22.62) in the high match condition is also significant (F(1, 589) = 19.86, p < .001). 3. The three-way interaction is significant whether we treat brand symbolism as a continuous variable or create a dichotomous variable with a median split (F(1, 589) = 4.55, p < .05). 4. This study was conducted before Tiger Woods’ personal life issues emerged.

REFERENCES Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: The Free Press. Ahuvia, A. C. (2015). Nothing matters more to people than people: Brand meaning and social relationships. In D. J. MacInnis & C. Whan Park (Eds.), Brand meaning management (Vol. 12). Review of Marketing Research. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(November), 538 555. Ball, A. D., & Tasaki, L. H. (1992). The role and measurement of attachment in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 155 172. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(September), 183 194. Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2007). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 139 168. Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2007). Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(August), 121 134. Boorstin, D. J. (1961/1992). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. Braudy, L. (1986/1997). The frenzy of renown: Fame and its history. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. Buttle, H., Raymond, J. E., & Danzinger, S. (2000). Do famous faces capture attention? Advances in Consumer Research, 27, 245.

50

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

Campbell, J. (1949/2008). The hero with a thousand faces. Novato, CA: New World Library. Cassidy, M. (2013). What does celebrity shilling look like in a post-snooki age? Adly speaks up. Forbes, April 24. Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392 414. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541 546. Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1 & 2), 168 179. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339 348. Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(December), 378 389. Ferris, K. O. (2007). The sociology of celebrity. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 371 384. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343 373. Gabler, N. (2000). Life: The movie: How entertainment conquered reality. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City. NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(September), 296 312. Greenwald, A. G., Bellezza, F. S., & Banaji, M. R. (1988). Is self-esteem a central ingredient of the self-concept? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 34 45. Gullov-Singh, A. (2011). The social era of celebrity endorsements. Retrieved from Adly.com. Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88 110. Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63 77. Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. J. (2000). Consumer goal structures and goaldetermination processes: An integrative framework. In R. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why of consumption: Perspectives on consumer motives, goals, and desires (pp. 9 35). New York, NY: Routledge Press. Kahle, L., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(March), 954 961. Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation of the ‘match-up’ hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4 13. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1 22. Kirmani, A., & Shiv, B. (1998). Effects of source congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: The moderating role of issue-relevant elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(1), 25 47. Klapp, O. E. (1969). The collective search for identity. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Managing Brand Meaning through Celebrity Endorsement

51

Kleine, S. S., Kleine III, R. E., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a possession me or not me? Characterizing types and antecedents of material possession attachment. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(December), 327 343. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as a interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518 530. Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, 37(July August), 117 124. MacInnis, D. J., Rao, A. G., & Weiss, A. M. (2002). Assessing when increased media weight of real-world advertisements helps sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(November), 391 407. Marshall, P. D. (1997). Celebrity and power: Fame in contemporary culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. McCracken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(June), 71 84. McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(December), 310 321. McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attribution on affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 937 946. Miller, F. M., & Allen, C. T. (2012). How does celebrity meaning transfer? Investigating the process of meaning transfer with celebrity affiliates and mature brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 443 452. Newbury, M. (2000). Celebrity watching. American Literary History, 12(1/2), 272 283. O’Guinn, T. C. (1991). Touching greatness: The central Midwest Barry Mantilow fan club. In R. L. Belk (Ed.), Highways and buyways: Naturalistic research from the consumer behavior odyssey (pp. 102 111). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(September), 135 146. Pew Research Center. (2011). 13% of online adults use Twitter. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/ 2011/Twitter%20Update%202011.pdf Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 52 62. Reeves, J. L. (1988). Television stardom: A ritual of social typification. In J. W. Carey (Ed.), Media, myths, and narrative: Television and the press (pp. 14 45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rice, D. H., Kelting, K., & Lutz, R. J. (2012). Multiple endorsers and multiple endorsements: The influence of message repetition, source congruence, and involvement on brand attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 249 259. Richins, M. L. (1994). Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(December), 504 521. Schiappa, E., Allen, M., & Gregg, P. B. (2007). Parasocial relationships and television: A meta-analysis of the effects. In R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 301 314). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

52

JENNIFER EDSON ESCALAS AND JAMES R. BETTMAN

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schultz, S. E., Kleine III, R. E., & Kernan, J. B. (1989). ‘These are a few of my favorite things’: Toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 359 366. Solomon, M. R. (2009). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261 302). New York, NY: Academic Press. Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brand personality matters: The moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 985 1002. Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290 299. Tesser, A., & Cornell, D. P. (1991). On the confluence of self processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(6), 501 526. Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing, 70(July), 104 119. TwitterCounter.com. (2013). The top 100 most followed on Twitter. White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2007). Are all out-groups created equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525 536.

BRAND REMIXING: 3D PRINTING THE NOKIA CASE Aric Rindfleisch and Matthew O’Hern ABSTRACT Purpose To identify, conceptualize, and analyze a newly emerging form of consumer-initiated, brand-altering activity that we term “brand remixing.” Methodology A content analysis of 92 remixes of the Nokia Lumia 820 smartphone case. Findings We find that nearly 40% of the remixed versions of Nokia’s case retained at least one element of its standard template. The remixed cases contained considerable congruency with the design elements in the standard template, a high degree of personalization, and no negative brand imagery. Implications Our research is the one of the first examinations of the role of 3D printing upon marketing activities. It has important implications for marketing scholarship by showing that 3D printing empowers consumers to physically alter the brands they consume. Our research also suggests that practitioners interested in using this technology to develop and enhance their brands should accept the notion that firms are no longer fully in control of their brand assets. Hence, we believe that

Brand Meaning Management Review of Marketing Research, Volume 12, 53 81 Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-643520150000012003

53

54

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

brand managers should develop co-creation platforms that allow customers to easily modify, remix, and share various aspects of their brands with their peers. Originality We identify and label an important emerging branding practice (i.e., brand remixing). This practice has the potential to dramatically alter the branding landscape. Keywords: 3D printing; Thingiverse; branding; brand community; co-creation; remixing

Brands are powerful assets that are carefully cultivated, tightly controlled, and strongly protected by the companies that create them. For instance, Coca Cola’s brand managers have systematically crafted the Coke brand using consistent design elements that are nearly a century old (i.e., red and white color scheme, signature cursive lettering, classic contour bottle) and have protected the brand by keeping its secret formula locked in a vault in Atlanta since 1925. As a result of this consistent and careful management, Coca Cola’s brand value is estimated to be worth nearly $80 billion (Interbrand, 2013). Although few brands have achieved Coke’s level of success, most companies follow a similar strategic approach in terms of treating their brands as assets that must be carefully managed by executives within the firm (Aaker, 2009). In addition to being a popular managerial practice, this top-down approach to brand management is also strongly endorsed by a number of prominent branding scholars (Aaker, 2009; Keller, 2012). For example, Keller’s (2000) influential Brand Report Card grades brands based on their success in terms of “building and properly managing brand equity” (p. 147). Thus, this strategic branding paradigm is widely accepted by marketing scholars and practitioners alike. Although this type of strategic brand management may be conventional wisdom, a growing chorus of voices has begun to question this gospel. Thus far, the loudest dissent has come from anti-branding advocates such as Lasn (1999) and Klein (1999), who view strategic branding efforts as largely manipulative and disingenuous. These advocates recommend that consumers resist brands either passively (by refusing to purchase particular brands) or actively (by manipulating various brand elements). A popular example of this type of resistance is Adbuster’s Joe Chemo posters, which

Brand Remixing: 3D Printing the Nokia Case

55

depict Camel cigarette’s Joe Camel sadly lying in a hospital bed with an intravenous drip in his arm. These forms of anti-brand resistance have recently gained the attention of a growing number of branding scholars, who document how consumers either avoid or alter a firm’s strategic branding efforts by engaging in boycotts (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004), using brands in idiosyncratic ways (Holt, 2002), and crafting oppositional brand imagery (Thompson, Rindfleisch, & Arsel, 2006). Thus, a growing number of consumers are no longer content to simply choose and use brands in the form in which they are offered; instead, they wish to play a more active role in crafting the brand itself. Our paper seeks to contribute to this growing body of research by identifying, conceptualizing, and documenting a newly emerging form of consumer-initiated, brand-altering activity that we term “brand remixing.” Borrowing from Lessig (2008), we define brand remixing as a process of taking elements from an existing brand and changing or recombining them in a manner that substantially alters the brand. Brand remixing bears some similarity to Thompson et al.’s (2006) doppelganger brand image (i.e., disparaging brand images created and circulated by anti-brand activists). For example, propagators of both a doppelganger brand image and a remixed brand often seek to share their modifications with others. However, these two concepts also have some notable differences. First, brand remixing is not necessarily a form of consumer resistance and may, in fact, be positive in nature. Second, brand remixing activities are not limited to the message and/or visual images surrounding a brand but may also include other elements such as a brand’s physical features. This physical aspect of brand remixing is the focus of our paper. A good example of what we mean by brand remixing is the recent case of FedEx Furniture, in which a young college student (i.e., Jose Avila) used discarded FedEx boxes to construct furniture for his apartment, including a bed, sofa, and coffee table and shared these remixes with others via his (now defunct) website, FedExFurniture.com (Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, & Kates, 2007). At present, physical brand remixing is the exception rather than the norm, as this type of activity typically requires a certain level of technical knowhow and access to the appropriate tools. However, we suggest that this type of remixing is quickly gaining in popularity, due to the rapid diffusion of free or low-cost design tools (e.g., computer-aided drawing (CAD) software) and accessible manufacturing hardware (e.g., desktop 3D printers). In addition to having access to the appropriate knowledge and tools, brand remixing also requires that both managers and consumers change

56

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

their perceptions of brands from objects that are fixed and centrally controlled to resources that are fluid and open to the masses. Thus, in the next section of this paper, we contrast these two competing views of brands (i.e., as communal vs. private assets). We then provide a brief review of the remixing literature. This review informs our analysis of a recent example of brand remixing, the Nokia case. This example is particularly interesting, as Nokia openly posted the design for its Lumia 820 series smartphone case for anyone to digitally remix (using 3D design software) and physically produce (via 3D printing technology). We explore both the motives behind this corporate-sponsored brand remixing campaign as well as users’ response to this novel initiative. Based on this review and examination, we conclude with a set of implications for brand managers and branding scholars.

BRANDS: PRIVATE VERSUS COMMUNAL ASSETS As noted earlier, extant marketing thought and practice largely views brands as valuable assets that must be tightly protected and closely managed. As documented by Madden, Fehle, and Fournier (2006), brands are financially valuable assets that reduce cash flow volatility. Likewise, a healthy body of work in the brand equity domain provides compelling evidence that brands with higher levels of consumer equity are able to command a number of benefits, such as price premiums and customer loyalty (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Keller, 1993, 2000; Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000). According to this literature, building and maintaining strong brand equity is highly dependent upon a firm’s ability to systematically manage its brands and achieve consistency across its various brand elements. For example, Yoo et al. (2000) recommend that, “brand equity should be managed over time by maintaining brand consistency, protecting the sources of brand equity … and fine tuning the supporting marketing program” (p. 197). Likewise, Park et al. (1986) note that, “the long-term success of a brand depends on marketers’ abilities to select a brand meaning prior to market entry, operationalize the meaning in the form of an image, and maintain that image over time” (p. 135). Hence, according to this view, brand management is primarily a firmdriven, top-down process in which brand managers create meaning and communicate this meaning to current and prospective customers. Thus, managers have a strong incentive to protect their valuable brand

Brand Remixing: 3D Printing the Nokia Case

57

investments from external agents who may seek to dilute or alter their brand’s essence. In contrast to this traditional perspective of brands as private assets that are developed and maintained by the firms that market them, a growing body of research suggests that brands are actually communal assets that are often shaped by those who purchase and use them. Indeed, the brand community literature provides numerous examples of consumers collectively engaged in various brand-altering activities (e.g., McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001; Muniz & Schau, 2005). For example, Muniz and Schau (2005) document how members of the Apple Newton community provide technical support and create new applications for an electronic device that was discontinued and no longer supported by the firm that launched it. Likewise, McAlexander et al. (2002) show how some Jeep enthusiasts remove the doors of their vehicle to enhance their driving experience. Although these activities are typically initiated and conducted by a brand’s customers, they seem to have positive spillover effects for its manufacturer (e.g., increased word of mouth, enhanced loyalty, new ideas for product development). Beyond the brand community literature, the communal nature of brands is also clearly illustrated by related research on brand resistance, which focuses on the variety of ways in which consumers alter brand meanings through either consumption practices or anti-branding activities. For example, Thompson et al. (2006) illustrate how anti-brand activists crafted a “doppelganger” image of Starbucks as a rapacious corporate poseur and how this alternative image competes against its strategically managed brand image as a respite for corporate bohemians. Although this competing imagery was created by a loosely organized network of individuals without the benefit of a marketing budget, it had a substantial, negative impact on Starbuck’s brand equity and was cited by Howard Schultz as a major threat to its brand franchise (Hofman, 2007). As noted by O’Hern and Rindfleisch (2010), this type of anti-branding activity appears to be on the rise and “has led several large firms, including Wal-Mart, Nike, and McDonalds to be more cognizant of and open to consumer input” (p. 87). In addition to these types of direct challenges, consumers may also indirectly subvert strategic branding initiatives by using brands in idiosyncratic and unexpected ways that may alter a brand’s meanings and intended use. For example, Duck Tape, which was originally designed to seal holes in WWII ammo boxes, has been transformed by creative users into a material for crafting a variety of fashion accessories, including hand bags, prom dresses, and footwear. As noted by Holt (2002) a growing number of

58

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

customers are seeking to “individuate market offerings and avoid market influences” (p. 83). This type of individuating activity bears a close resemblance to von Hippel’s (2005) notion of innovative lead users, who modify products to better suit their idiosyncratic needs.1 As documented by von Hippel (2005), these modifications often provide manufacturers with unique and valuable insights for future new product development efforts. According to Poetz and Schreier (2012), these types of consumer-generated new product concepts often score substantially higher in terms of novelty than product concepts designed in-house by a firm’s employees. In sum, despite their best efforts to carefully cultivate and protect their valuable brand assets, firms are increasingly facing a world in which consumers treat these assets as communal property that can be altered in a variety of ways. These alterations may subvert a brand’s intended imagery and/or usage and thus challenge managers’ efforts to maintain consistency and control over a brand. However, these unexpected challenges may also lead to a variety of unanticipated benefits in the form of enhanced market sensing and improved product functionality (Thompson et al., 2006; von Hippel, 2005). Thus, a growing number of firms are actively encouraging their customers to help them co-create certain elements of their brands (O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2010). We suggest that for these types of firms, brand remixing may provide a new and valuable tool for cultivating communal contributions as a way of enhancing their strategic branding efforts.

THE RISE OF REMIXING At its core, remixing is the process of taking elements from existing offerings and altering or recombining them to create something new (Lessig, 2008). Although remixing is most commonly associated with songs and videos, this process can be applied to nearly any cultural offering. For example, Andy Warhol employed remixing to create his acclaimed pop art paintings (e.g., multicolored Campbell Soup cans and stylized Coca Cola bottles). Indeed, Knobel and Lankshear (2008) note that, “Remix has not simply emerged with digitization. It has always been a part of any society’s cultural development” (p. 22). At present, remixing activity is most prevalent in the entertainment industry; remixed songs and videos permeate YouTube, CCMixter, and other file-sharing websites. For digitized objects such as recorded songs and videos, this process largely entails cutting, copying, and pasting slices of these works to form a unique composition (Navas, 2010).2 The term

Brand Remixing: 3D Printing the Nokia Case

59

“remix” originated in US hip-hop culture in the mid-1970s as DJs such as Grandmaster Flash and DJ Kool Herc used multimixers to combine slices of existing songs into a new sound (Manovich, 2005; Russo & Coppa, 2012). Since then, remixing has moved to the mainstream, as the multimixer has been replaced by free and easy-to-use digital editing toolkits (e.g., Apple Garage Band, Windows Movie Maker) that enable a song or video to be copied, cut, and pasted by nearly anyone over the age of 10 with access to a computer (Lessig, 2008).

Prior Research Academic scholarship on remixing is thin and scattered across a wide range of disciplines, including education, law, and media studies (Knobel & Lankshear, 2008; Lessig, 2008; Manovich, 2005, 2007). The definitive work in this domain, thus far, is Lessig’s (2008) book, Remix, which outlines the foundations of remixing activity and its economic, social, and legal implications. As part of this treatise, Lessig (2008) draws a distinction between read/write (RW) versus read/only (RO) cultures. Specifically, he suggests that cultural offerings have historically been produced in RW cultures in which a song or a story is remixed as part of its natural development. However, during the 20th century, new technologies such as the radio and television gave rise to cultural offerings “read” by many but “written” by only a chosen few. As a result, “The twentieth century was the first time in the history of human culture when popular culture had become professionalized, and when the people were taught to defer to the professional” (Lessig, 2008, p. 29). Our new century appears to be reversing this trend, as the tools to design, edit, and distribute cultural offerings have become democratized. Thus, in a larger sense, remixing represents a return to a RW culture in which the production of cultural objects is placed in the hands of the many rather than the few. Although remixed cultural offerings are now fairly common, little is known about remixing activity and the few studies that have been conducted largely focus on music remixing. One of the earliest studies in this domain is Poschardt’s (1998) historical overview of DJ culture, in which remixing plays a key role. In this study, Poschardt (1998) examines the motives underlying remixing activity and suggests that, “In most cases the remix is prompted by love of the original. The remix seeks to give the original new life, to reinforce its influence and preserve its idea” (p. 33). This view of remixing as a form of tribute and adulation is also shared by

60

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

Cheliotis and Yew (2009), who conduct an empirical assessment of remixing activity among members of the ccMixter community.3 They find that approximately 40% of the original songs (vs. only 10% of remixes) posted on ccMixter ultimately get remixed. Cheliotis and Yew (2009) also suggest that remixing provides users with an outlet for personal expression and enhanced social relations. This portrait of remixing (i.e., adulation of an original offering, forum for personal expression, enhanced social relations) bears a close resemblance to the motives underlying consumer participation in brand communities (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Thus, there appears to be good reason for creators to encourage remixing activity among their users.

The Impact of Remixing As remixing is democratized and becomes more accessible to the average user, musicians and creators of other cultural offerings appear to be increasingly aware of its potential benefits. Knobel and Lankshear (2008) note that some musicians such as Jay Z actually “encourage remixing and make mixable versions of their work available for downloading and tinkering” (p. 24). Moreover, remixing appears to be influencing the manner in which an original offering is composed, as “musicians now often conceive their works beforehand as something that will be remixed, sampled, taken apart, and modified” (Manovich, 2007, p. 4). This use of remixing as a strategy has also been adopted by video game manufacturers (e.g., Microsoft’s Halo 3 and Sony’s Little Big Planet), who provide toolkits that allow users to modify their games and share these modifications with fellow enthusiasts (Merges, 2007). As noted by Knobel and Lankshear (2008), “each new remix becomes a meaning-making resource for subsequent remixes” (p. 26). By employing this principle, Sony was able to turn a game (i.e., Little Big Planet) that left the factory with five built-in levels into a game that has over 6 million levels, nearly all of which were created through customer-led remixing (Softpedia, 2012). Thus, at least in some industries, remixing appears to be increasingly viewed as a beneficial activity for both creators and users. This positive view of remixing appears at odds with the extant branding literature, which suggests that maintaining control over a brand and crafting consistent branding campaigns is paramount (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Keller, 1993, 2000). Remixing flies in the face of this well-established branding paradigm. Because it is difficult to predict how consumers will alter a brand, remixing seems antithetical to good branding practice and is

Brand Remixing: 3D Printing the Nokia Case

61

often regarded as an activity that should be actively discouraged, and perhaps, legally prosecuted. This may be one reason why, outside of cultural offerings such as music, videos, and games, examples of brand remixing are few and far between. As noted by Senevirante and Monroy-Hernandez (2010) remixing is most likely to occur when “people build on the work of those creators who want their work to be reused.” The next section of our paper examines a creator (i.e., Nokia) that closely fits this description and who actively cultivated remixing as part of its branding strategy.

THE NOKIA CASE Nokia, which had long been the world’s leading provider of mobile phones, was a late mover to the touchscreen smartphone market and has seen its market share drop precipitously as a result (Spence, 2013). As a response, it recently teamed up with Microsoft to launch a new line of smartphones (and tablets) under the “Lumia” sub-brand.4 The first Lumia smartphone was launched in November 2011 and a series of additional versions have been introduced since then. Our examination focuses on one of these models, the Lumia 820 smartphone, which was launched in September 2012 (see Fig. 1). This phone employs the Windows 8 operating systems, has a highspeed processor, a long-lasting battery, a high-resolution camera, and currently retails for approximately $250. In contrast to competing offerings, such as the Apple iPhone, the Lumia 820 is designed with a removable case in which the back of the phone can be easily opened for battery replacement by users. In addition, the stock Lumia 820 case can be swapped with a new case with a different color, design, or function (i.e., a shell with a wireless charging option). We focus on this case because Nokia recently launched an interesting new initiative that allowed users to remix a template of the Lumia 820 case using desktop 3D printing technology. Before discussing the specifics of this initiative, we provide a brief overview of 3D printing, as this technology is still quite novel and may not be familiar to most readers.

3D Printing Overview In brief, a 3D printer is a technological device that allows users to create an object by layering thin (300 microns or less) slices of a material in an additive manner. Although commercial 3D printers have existed for about three

62

Fig. 1.

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

Nokia Lumia 820 Smartphone. Source: http://www.microsoft.com/en/ mobile/phone/lumia820/specifications/

decades, mass-market desktop 3D printers have only recently become available and, at present, are still in an early stage of diffusion (Lipson & Kurman, 2013).5 The current leader in the desktop 3D printing market is the MakerBot Replicator (see Fig. 2). This printer is about the size of a microwave oven, has a build capacity of about 400 cubic inches and prints

Brand Remixing: 3D Printing the Nokia Case

Fig. 2.

63

MakerBot Replicator 3D Printer. Source: Personal photo.

objects using a thermoplastic called PLA (polylactic acid). The Replicator 2 was introduced in September 2012 and currently retails for approximately $2,000.6 Users can print objects that are designed using free or low-cost 3D modeling software (e.g., Google Sketchup), captured via a 3D scanner (e.g., MakerBot Digitizer), or downloaded from an online 3D file-sharing platform (e.g., Thingiverse.com). Although desktop 3D printers have a limited range of printing materials (mainly thermoplastics and resins), users of this technology have been able to create a wide variety of objects including the whimsical (e.g., Stephen Colbert’s head), the practical (e.g., replacement parts for old appliances), and combinations of the two (e.g., t-rex showerhead) (see Fig. 3). Smartphone cases are one of the earliest and most popular categories of 3D printed objects. For example, Thingiverse.com boasts nearly 4,000 design files labeled “iPhone case,” all of which were designed by iPhone users, rather than Apple itself.

Customizing the Lumia 820 In January 2013, Nokia announced the launch of a “3DK kit” which contained “everything someone versed in 3D printing needs to print their own custom Lumia 820 case” (Willans, 2013). This kit included a 3D design template, a set of design ideas, hardware and software specifications, and a list of recommended materials for printing a customer-designed case.

64

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

Fig. 3. Examples of Objects Made Using a 3D Printer. Sources: (a) http://www. thingiverse.com/thing:9104; (b) http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:9581; (c) http:// www.thingiverse.com/thing:329596

Brand Remixing: 3D Printing the Nokia Case

Fig. 4.

65

Customizable Nokia Lumia 820 Case App. Source: http://www.thingiverse. com/thing:52507

Nokia’s basic concept was that their Lumia 820 customers who had access to a 3D printer could download this design template, modify it as desired, and then create their own customized case. Nokia followed this initial release by launching a “Customizable Nokia Lumia 820 Case” on Thingiverse on February 25, 2013. This customizable design took advantage of Thingiverse’s newly launched Customizer app, which allows users with no programming skills to remix various elements of the standard design template using a series of pull-down menu options. Nokia’s Lumia 820 standard design template is displayed in Fig. 4. The Customizer app allows users to easily modify various elements of this design, including the shape of its design pattern, the message printed at the bottom of the case, as well as its font. These elements represent concrete product features (Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991), and thus, are the focus of our analysis. Analysis of Remixing Activity by Users As of December 31, 2013, Thingiverse users had uploaded 92 remixes of Nokia’s Customizable Lumia 820 Cases (approximately one every 3.4 days).7 These 92 remixes were submitted by 63 users. Although most of

66

ARIC RINDFLEISCH AND MATTHEW O’HERN

these users submitted only a single remix, there were 11 (17%) who submitted multiple remixes.8 We examined each of these remixes and also recorded the username of the individual responsible for each remix as well as the number of views and downloads that each remix received. Because our primary emphasis is physical brand remixing, we focus on the pattern, font type, and message displayed on each design. As shown in Fig. 4, the standard design template offered by Nokia employed a hexagonal design pattern and displayed the message “NOKIA” at the bottom in all caps using the brand’s recognizable futuristic font. Given the paucity of research on brand remixing, we do not pose any propositions regarding the degree or nature of the remixing activity. Thus, our analysis is largely descriptive and exploratory in nature. Specifically, we examine the alterations that users made in terms of remixing the case’s text, font type, and design pattern, as well as the amount of diffusion (i.e., views and downloads) attained by these remixes. Out of the 92 designs submitted, only 22 remixes (24%) employed the message “NOKIA.” However, several others featured messages that acknowledged-related aspects of the brand. For example, while the app’s template specified the corporate brand, five remixes employed the model’s brand name (i.e., “LUMIA”), one displayed both the corporate and model brand (i.e., “Nokia Lumia”), and three other remixes acknowledged the phone’s relation to its brand partner, Microsoft (e.g., “MICROSOFT,” “ .1), indicating that the primes were equivalent on these measures. Additionally, differences in impression management, concern for face, interdependence, and entitlement did not emerge across prime conditions (all ps > .1).

Procedure and Measures In the main study, participants were told that they will be participating in a variety of different tasks, and that there are no right or wrong answers. Next, participants were exposed to either the high-honor or the low-honor prime followed by the brand failure scenario. Then, they completed the desire for consumer vengeance scale, DCV (e.g., I should do something to get even with the brand, anchored at 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly agree; Bechwati & Morrin, 2003). Next, participants reported their degree of interest, the amount of attention paid, and the perceived difficulty of understanding the scenario, in order to rule these out as alternative explanations. Finally, participants indicated their gender and years spent living in the southern United States (as measured by Cohen et al., 1996).

Results and Discussion A one-way ANOVA was conducted comparing the high- and low-honor prime conditions with years spent in the southern United States as covariate. The analysis revealed a significant main effect of prime. As hypothesized, desire for vengeance was higher for the high-honor-primed consumers than for the low-honor-primed consumers (Mhigh-honor = 3.84 vs. Mlow-honor = 3.20; F(1, 93) = 4.47, p < .05). Further, no differences in attention, interest, and understanding emerged (ps > .1), ruling these out as alternative explanations. The results support our prediction that honor values have an aggravating influence on consumers’ desire for vengeance. Thus, high-honor consumers appear to respond more severely to a brand failure, which poses a major obstacle for firms. In the following studies, we shift our attention to strategies that reduce vengeance among high-honor consumers. In addition, we provide converging evidence for our theory. One might argue that our prime manipulates a number of things, which is

268

FRANK MAY ET AL.

necessary given that honor is a multifaceted construct. Going forward, we will measure levels of honor values, demonstrating that our proposed effects emerge whether honor is primed or measured.

STUDY 2: REDUCING THE DESIRE FOR VENGEANCE BY ALLOWING THE CONSUMER TO SUGGEST WAYS TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER In this study, we anticipate that for high-honor consumers, allowing them to suggest ways to punish the offending employee will decrease their desire for vengeance. In contrast, for low-honor consumers, an opportunity to punish the offender will not influence their desire for vengeance (H2). One hundred and forty-two students participated in a 2 (honor values: high vs. low) × 2 (opportunity to punish: punishment vs. “no punishment”) between subject design experiment.

Stimuli, Procedure, and Measures Participants were exposed to a different scenario depicting a brand failure. Participants were exposed to a process failure by reading a scenario about a computer repair service (Techfix) that returned the computer in working order but treated the consumer rudely (Chan & Wan, 2008). In the punishment condition, an extra paragraph was included, which allowed the respondent to suggest ways to punish the offending employee (see Appendix C for scenarios). During the experimental session, participants were first exposed to one of the scenarios. Next, they completed the desire for consumer vengeance scale (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003) and the honor values scale (Mosquera et al., 2002).1 They also indicated their degree of interest, frustration, happiness, and ease of understanding the scenarios. Lastly, participants gave their thoughts in response to the brand failure and answered various demographic questions.

Results Our hypothesis was tested by conducting regression analyses with opportunity to punish, honor scores, and their two-way interaction as independent

Honor Values and Brand Failures

269

variables. Honor scores were continuous and opportunity to punish was categorical. Desire for Consumer Vengeance (DCV) The results showed a significant two-way interaction between honor and opportunity to punish (β = −.65, t = −2.44, p < .05; see Fig. 1). We conducted a spotlight analysis (Fitzsimons, 2008) one standard deviation below and above the mean of honor to assess differences in the desire for consumer vengeance based on the opportunity to punish at low versus high levels of honor. As predicted, for high-honor consumers, the punishment condition decreased consumer vengeance relative to the “no punishment” condition (β = −.97, t = −3.12, p < .01). However, for low-honor consumers, there was no significant effect of opportunity to punish on consumer vengeance (β = .07, t = .25, p > .1). Ancillary Analysis No differences in happiness, frustration, degree of interest, and ease of understanding emerged (ps > .1), ruling these out as alternative explanations.

Fig. 1.

Study 2: Allowing High-Honor Consumers to Play a Role in Resolving the Brand Failure Reduces Their Desire for Consumer Vengeance (DCV).

270

FRANK MAY ET AL.

Discussion The results show that giving high-honor consumers an opportunity to play a role in punishing the offender is an effective way to reduce the desire for vengeance. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that the desire for vengeance decreased when high-honor consumers were allowed to suggest ways to punish the offender. However, for low-honor consumers, the opportunity to punish the offender did not affect their desire for vengeance. Evidence for the process mechanism was also obtained. Since high-honor consumers are indeed driven by a desire to seek revenge, proactively allowing them to suggest ways to punish the offending employee satiated their need to seek vengeance against the brand subsequently. In contrast, for low-honor consumers who do not have a desire to seek vengeance, an opportunity to punish the offender did not affect their desire for vengeance. Next, continuing with our theme of reducing vengeance among highhonor consumers, we examine the effectiveness of response strategies (apology vs. monetary compensation).

STUDY 3: REDUCING THE DESIRE FOR VENGEANCE BY USING A RESPONSE STRATEGY In this study, we anticipated that an apology and monetary compensation would be equally effective for high-honor consumers. However, an apology would be less effective than monetary compensation for low-honor consumers (H3). To assess the effectiveness of the apology and the monetary compensation strategies, a “no response” condition was included, where participants were exposed to the brand failure, but there was no response from the firm. Consumer responses are expected to be the worst in the “no response” condition. Three hundred and three participants from an online consumer panel participated in a 2 (honor values: high vs. low) × 3 (response strategy: apology vs. monetary vs. “no response”) between subjects design experiment.

Stimuli Participants were exposed to a scenario from study 2. In the “no response” condition, participants were exposed only to the brand failure stimuli.

271

Honor Values and Brand Failures

Participants in the remaining conditions were exposed to the brand failure followed by a heartfelt apology from the manager (in the apology condition) or a $25 deduction from their bill (in the compensation condition, see Appendix D; Smith et al., 1999). A pretest (n = 45) was conducted where participants were exposed to the brand failure followed by the apology or the compensation condition, and then asked to respond to several items measuring the degree of realism/believability of the scenario, degree of positivity of the information in the scenario, and the degree of negativity of the information in the scenario. The apology and monetary compensation stimuli were equivalent on these measures (all ps > .1).

Procedure and Measures Participants were told that they will be participating in a variety of different tasks and there are no right or wrong answers. Participants were exposed to one of the brand failures which had the response strategy embedded in it. Next, they indicated their satisfaction with the outcome (i.e., “How likely are you to spread positive word of mouth regarding Techfix to your friends?” “How satisfied are you with the manner in which the manager handled the situation?” “How likely would you be to have your computer repaired by Techfix in the future?” (Folkes, Koletsky, & Graham, 1987; Smith et al., 1999)). Then, they completed the desire for consumer vengeance scale (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003), the honor values scale (Mosquera et al., 2002), demographic questions, and provided their thoughts about the brand failure.

Results Regression analyses were performed with mean centered honor scores, response strategy, and their interaction as independent variables. All spotlight analyses were conducted one standard deviation below and above the mean of honor to assess differences in DCV at low versus high levels of honor (Fitzsimons, 2008). Desire for consumer vengeance (DCV) The results showed a significant two-way interaction between honor and response strategy (β = .38, t = 3.50, p < .01; see Fig. 2). To investigate the interaction, a number of spotlight analyses were conducted.

272

FRANK MAY ET AL. 5

DCV

4

No response 3

Apology Monetary

2

1 High honor

Low honor

Fig. 2. Study 3: For High-Honor Consumers, Apology, and Monetary Compensation Are Equally Effective in Reducing Desire for Consumer Vengeance (DCV) Relative to the “No Response” Condition. For Low-Honor Consumers, Only Monetary Compensation Is Effective.

For high-honor consumers, both the monetary compensation (β = −1.15, t = −5.10, p < .01) and the apology condition (β = −1.08, t = −4.08, p < .01) decreased consumer vengeance relative to the “no response” condition. There was no difference in vengeance between the apology and the monetary compensation conditions (β = −.06, t = −.30, p > .10). Consistent with our expectations, for high-honor consumers, both apology and monetary compensation were equally effective in reducing consumer vengeance relative to the “no response” condition. For low-honor consumers, the monetary compensation decreased consumer vengeance relative to the “no response” condition (β = −.52, t = −2.15, p < .05). However, the apology condition showed no differences in vengeance relative to the “no response” condition (β = −.17, t = −.60, p > .10). Thus, an apology did not help at all relative to the “no response” condition. Further, the monetary compensation condition resulted in lower vengeance compared to the apology condition (β = −.70, t = −3.11, p < .01). Consistent with our expectations, for low-honor consumers, a monetary compensation was more effective than apology in reducing consumer vengeance relative to the “no response” condition.

273

Honor Values and Brand Failures

Satisfaction The results showed a significant two-way interaction between honor and response strategy (β = −.35, t = −3.26, p < .01). To investigate the interaction, a number of spotlight analyses were conducted which are reported ahead. For high-honor consumers, both the monetary compensation (β = 1.92, t = 9.55, p < .01) and the apology (β = 1.63, t = 9.53, p < .01) resulted in higher satisfaction relative to the “no response” condition. However, there was no difference between the apology and the monetary compensation in terms of satisfaction (β = .29, t = 1.14, p > .10). As expected, for high-honor consumers, apology and monetary compensation were equally effective in increasing satisfaction relative to the “no response” condition. For low-honor consumers, both the monetary compensation (β = 1.60, t = 7.45, p < .01) and the apology (β = .46, t = 2.45, p < .05) resulted in higher satisfaction relative to the “no response” condition. However, the monetary compensation condition resulted in higher satisfaction versus the apology condition (β = 1.13, t = 4.35, p < .01). As expected, for low-honor consumers, the monetary compensation was more effective than apology in increasing satisfaction relative to the “no response” condition. Discussion Our results identify ways to reduce consumer vengeance among high-honor consumers. For high-honor consumers, an apology was just as effective as a monetary compensation in terms of reducing consumer vengeance (and increasing satisfaction). However, for low-honor consumers, a monetary compensation was more effective than an apology in terms of decreasing consumer vengeance (and increasing satisfaction). In fact, for low-honor consumers, relative to the “no response” condition, the apology did not work at all in terms of reducing vengeance. Although managers may be quick to hand out monetary compensation in order to satisfy irate customers, this study reveals that this course of action may not always be necessary. A simple, heartfelt apology, which is much cheaper than monetary compensation, can be quite effective for high-honor consumers.

STUDY 4: HONOR EFFECTS IN THE REAL WORLD Thus far, our studies rely on experiments to test our hypotheses and all did so in interpersonal contexts. To boost external and internal validity, we

274

FRANK MAY ET AL.

examine the effects of regional variations in honor on real-world vengeful behavior, in which interpersonal interaction is not necessarily present. Combining experiments with archival data has been used in prior research on consumer behavior and offers us the ability to balance the need for external validity with the need for internal validity (Levav & Zhu, 2009; Zhang, Winterich, & Mittal, 2010). Honor values are known to vary across different regions of the United States (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996) with Southerners being higher in honor values than Northerners. We procured archival data on actual household transactions from a US-based catalog retailer. We relied on a proxy measure to operationalize vengeful behavior demonstrated by customers. The advantage of this dataset is that it provides information on special coupons given to pacify angry customers who complain (hereafter referred to as “revenge coupons”). Vindictive complaining, where a customer expresses anger towards or abuses an employee, is an important kind of vengeful behavior (Gregoire & Fisher, 2008). We consider issuance of such coupons as a proxy for vengeful behavior toward the firm, because only customers who vindictively complain (vs. those who simply complain) are given these revenge coupons. Our overall prediction is that customers from high-honor (vs. low-honor) regions of the United States are more likely to vindictively complain and therefore receive such revenge coupons. Since the dataset did not include other variables such as nature of the response strategy, it allowed us to test for the main effect of honor only.

DataSet The Direct Marketing Education Foundation’s “DMEF dataset 8” was used to test our prediction. The retailer has mailed catalogs seasonally to existing customers and customers of subsidiary/affiliated companies. The initial data comprises of transactions of U.S. households and spans a time period of 12 years through April 30, 2009.The dataset includes the order history of households such as the size of the order in dollars and the zipcode of the household. Dependent Variable The dataset includes special coupons issued by the retailer to pacify irate customers who vindictively complain to the retailer. According to the retailer, such “revenge coupons” are issued to customers who complain about a failure. To clarify, the only occasion the retailer issued a coupon was when

275

Honor Values and Brand Failures

customers vindictively complained about brand failures. For example, in some cases, the failure might be because the delivered product was inconsistent with the advertised product in the catalog or on the website. In other cases, the failure might be because the product was not delivered on the promised time. Importantly, there were no other promotional coupons issued in this transactional period. We use the revenge coupon issuance as our measure of vengeful behavior. Each transaction is also stamped with a unique household identifier, order date, and order channel (i.e., catalog versus web). The data do not reveal the product categories for the various transactions or the specific type of failure, presumably for confidentiality reasons. Independent Variables We used regional variation in honor values, specifically state-level honor scores in the United States (Cohen et al., 1996; Gastil, 1971), as the key independent variable. Consistent with this research, we use the zip-code identifier in the database to construct the independent measure of honor values across households. Thus, all households within a particular state are deemed to have similar levels of honor values. We include collectivism as a control variable (state-level collectivism scores from Vandello & Cohen, 1999), since honor values could be correlated with collectivism values. All households within a particular state are deemed to have similar levels of collectivism. To account for alternative explanations, we controlled for several transactional (order size) and zip-code characteristics (e.g., household income, population in zip-code, household education, household size, and average age of household; see Table 1).

Results Model Description and Fit Our final dataset is comprised of transactional data on 6,036 households across the United States. The data represents households in all of the 50 states in the United States. The dependent variable is a binary choice variable that indicates whether revenge coupons were issued to a household or not (0 = no; 1 = yes). We estimated a probit model to examine the variation in our dependent measure. We estimated the results in a step-wise manner with different models to test our predictions (see M1 M3 in Table 2). M1 includes only the zip-level control variables, M2 includes the collectivism and the control variables, and M3 is the full model that includes honor

276

FRANK MAY ET AL.

Table 1.

Study 4: Variable Description and Summary Statistics for Archival Data.

Variables Consumer vengeance

Honor values

Order size

Collectivism

Household income Population Household education Household size Household age

Operational Measure

Mean

Standard Deviation

Binary outcome = 1, if the retailer issued a revenge coupon, 0 otherwise State level honor scores, higher scores imply greater adherence to honor values The total amount purchased on the order in dollars. This total does not include shipping and handling charges State level scores as operationalized by Vandello and Cohen (1999) Median income of a household in a zip in thousands of dollars Population in a zip-code Average years in school for households in a zip-code Average number of individuals in a household in a zip-code Average age of individuals in a household in a zip-code

.08

.28

21.11

15.36

58.11

54.21

52.48

11.76

43.589

18.123

7,349 12.695

11,604 .888

2.764

.639

48.82

5.29

values, collectivism, and control variables. We compare the fit statistics of the three models to ascertain whether honor values explain a statistically higher percentage of the variation in coupons issued. The Wald’s chi-square statistic for M3 is significantly higher than that for M2 (χ2 (1) = 7.86, p < .01) and M1 (χ2 (3) = 10.05, p < .05). (see Table 2 for Wald’s chi-square statistic for the individual models). Thus, we find that the addition of honor values variable improves the fit of the probit model significantly. Hypothesis Test Consistent with our prediction, the effect of honor values on the likelihood of revenge coupon issued is positive and significant (M3, β = .008, p < .05; see Table 2); as honor values increased, so did the likelihood of revenge coupon issued. However, the effect of collectivism on revenge coupon issued is not significant (p > .10). One could argue that the results may be driven by multicollinearity since honor values and collectivism may be

Study 4: Results for Archival Data Dependent Measure = Binary Outcome of whether a “Revenge Coupon” Was Issued. Model 1 (Only Control Variables)

Honor values Collectivism Order size Household Income Population Education Household size Household age N (sample size) Wald χ2

−.001 .000 1.91 × 10−7 .001 −.02 −.00 6,036 29.32

(.000)*** (.000)** (1.70 × 10−6) (.003) (.01)** (.00) 6,036

Model 2 (Collectivism + Control Variables)

.004 −.001 .000 1.59 × 10−7 .001 −.02 −.00 6,036 31.51

(.003) (.000)*** (.000)* (1.70 × 10−6) (.003) (.01)** (.00) 6,036

Model 3 (Honor Values + Collectivism + Control Variables) .008 −.00 −.001 .000 1.66 × 10−7 .001 −.02 −.00 39.37

(.003)** (.00) (.000)*** (.000)** (1.73 × 10−6) (.003) (.01)** (.00)

Model 4 (Residual Honor Values + Control Variables) .005 −.001 .000 3.64 × 10−7 .001 −.02 −.00

(.002)**

Honor Values and Brand Failures

Table 2.

(.000)*** (.000)** (1.71 × 10−6) (.003) (.01)** (.00)

32.63

Reported are unstandardized β coefficients. Robust standard error within parentheses. ***p < .01; **p < .05; *p < .10.

277

278

FRANK MAY ET AL.

positively correlated. To address this possibility, we computed an honor values measure that is orthogonal to collectivism, using standard procedures (Aiken & West, 1991; Burrill, 1998). We regressed honor values on collectivism scores of households and used the residuals from this regression as the new measure of honor values. Thus, the new honor values measure is orthogonal to the collectivism measure, and is no longer correlated with collectivism. M4 reports the results of the probit regression using the orthogonal measure of honor values. Again, the effect of honor values on revenge coupon issued is positive and significant (β = .005, p < .05; see Table 2); as honor values increased, so did the likelihood of revenge coupon issued. For the control variables, we find that order size is negatively related to the likelihood of revenge coupons issued (M3, β = −.001, p < .01). While household income is positively related to the likelihood of revenge coupon issued (M3, β = .000, p < .05), household size is negatively related to the likelihood of revenge coupon issued (M3, β = −.02, p < .05). Household age and education are not significantly related to the likelihood of revenge coupon issued (ps > .1).

Discussion The results of this study validate our prediction that honor values aggravate vengeful behavior in a real-world setting and boost the external validity of our research. Customers from high-honor regions are more likely to vindictively complain to the retailer in response to a brand failure and thus receive revenge coupons. Our effects for honor emerged even after controlling for transactional size (order size), zip-code characteristics (e.g., household income, zip-level population, household education, household size, and average age of household), as well as collectivism. Importantly, our probit model that includes honor values as a predictor gives significant better model fit than other models that exclude honor values. Further, the effect of honor emerged even when an orthogonal measure of honor values was used, ruling out multicollinearity as an alternative explanation. Although such real datasets can be countered by alternative explanations, it does provide a high level of external validity and was intended to provide complementary support for our hypotheses. Importantly, looking at the entire package of four studies, using both experiments and archival data, allows us to offer interesting insights into the role of honor on vengeful behavior.

Honor Values and Brand Failures

279

GENERAL DISCUSSION Our findings support our prediction that honor values have an important influence on how consumers retaliate in response to a brand failure. We examine our effects using measures of desire for consumer vengeance and actual vindictive complaining (archival data), which together boost the validity of our findings. Our findings were supported in a variety of experiments using a diverse set of stimuli (Chef Albert’s restaurant, Techfix computer repair, and real-world brand failures in the archival data), multiple operationalizations of honor (priming honor, measuring honor, and regional variation in honor in the United States), and different samples (adult population and students). The results of four studies reveal that honor values can aggravate consumer responses to a brand failure. This was confirmed in studies that situationally induced honor (study 1), measured honor (study 2), or used regional variations in honor values (study 4). Thus, high-honor consumers appear to be a major obstacle for firms facing a brand failure. The results also provide guidance for managers in overcoming the obstacle. First, for high-honor consumers, allowing them to suggest ways to punish the offending employee decreased their desire for vengeance (study 2). Second, for high-honor consumers, heartfelt apologies and monetary compensations were equally effective in stemming the negative effects of the brand failure (study 3). Importantly, we shed light on the process mechanism. That is, we find that vengeful behavior of high-honor consumers decline when they are given an opportunity to suggest ways punish the offender, because their desire to seek revenge is satiated. In contrast, low-honor consumers, who do not have the desire of exacting revenge, are unaffected by the opportunity to punish the wrongdoer. This shows that high-honor consumers have a strong desire to seek revenge, which dissipates when they are allowed to do so.

Conceptual Contributions We find that consumers may react very differently to the same brand failure depending upon the values that they endorse. In order to develop a complete understanding of repercussions of brand failures, examining firm

280

FRANK MAY ET AL.

actions alone is insufficient the consumers’ endorsement of honor values is a key factor. First, we contribute to the brand failure literature by showing that honor values can aggravate consumer vengeance in the face of a brand failure. To our knowledge, we are the first to introduce honor values to the brand failure and marketing literatures. Firms make huge investments in developing strong brand equity, which can be jeopardized by a single instance of brand failure (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000; Folkes, 1984; Sood & Keller, 2012). Much of the prior research has focused on conditions that “soften the blow” from a brand failure. Surprisingly, very little research has addressed the influence of values that consumers bring to a situation. Further, advancements in technology allow news about brand failures to spread quickly, and also enable customers to take revenge on brands with far more ease. Given the risks involved, identifying which factors can aggravate responses to brand failures is critical. We draw upon the honor literature to delineate conditions under which honor values can aggravate consumer vengeance. Further, our conceptual model tests a number of different moderators that allows for a holistic understanding of the conditions that aggravate response to a brand failure, as well as response strategies that firms may use to deflect the adverse effects. Second, we are the first to suggest that allowing consumers to play a larger role in the resolution of the brand failure can be effective. Giving highhonor consumers an opportunity to suggest ways to punish the offending employee decreased their desire for vengeance. Suggesting punishments for the offending employee satiated the high-honor consumers’ need for vengeance against the brand. This represents a novel approach to addressing consumer vengeance. Additionally, we suggest that honor values can influence the effectiveness of response strategies. Prior research shows that complaints are frequently launched soon after a brand failure and typically put customers in a heightened state of frustration. A heartfelt and sincere apology can easily diffuse this situation (Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998). We add to this line of research by showing that an apology is particularly effective for high-honor consumers and is as effective as monetary compensation. However, for low-honor consumers, monetary compensation appeared to work better and an apology was equivalent to doing nothing. Our findings make an important contribution to the revenge literature. Bechwati and Morrin (2003) have called for further research to understand the antecedents of vengeful behavior among consumers. By exploring honor values, we introduce an important construct that can predict

Honor Values and Brand Failures

281

consumer vengeance during a brand failure. Although prior research has explored antecedents such as the severity of the problem, outcome of the complaint (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003), and perceptions of fairness (Gregoire & Fisher, 2008), we are the first to show that the consumers’ endorsement of honor values can affect consumer vengeance. Finally, it is important to note that our findings are quite different from what other cultural frameworks would suggest (Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005). First, honor is unique and different from face/impression management. The face literature would imply that when dealing with a brand failure, consumers who endorse face values, who are more socially oriented, would be less likely to retaliate because of their desire for maintaining harmony with others, and because it is considered bad to cause another party to lose face (Leung & Cohen, 2011). Second, honor is also distinct from interdependence. Interdependence research would predict that when faced with a brand failure, interdependent consumers, who are more socially oriented, are less likely to retaliate because they attribute the failure to external causes and do not attribute the failure to the brand (Monga & John, 2008). Therefore, our predictions relating to honor, wherein highhonor consumers, who are internally and externally focused, respond more harshly to a brand failure, introduce a perspective that is distinct from that provided by face and interdependence.

Managerial Implications Prior research suggests that the costs of consumer vengeance are significant and tend to exceed the loss of a customer’s lifetime patronage (Gregoire & Fisher, 2008). Consumer vengeance that occurs within a firm’s boundaries (e.g., vindictive complaining) can place considerable burden on employees. Other vengeful acts that occur outside of a firm’s boundaries (e.g., spreading negative word of mouth) can quickly spread negative information to a wide network of consumers. Our findings offer several important implications for firms facing brand failures: first, high-honor consumers tend to respond more severely to brand failures than low-honor consumers. Although high-honor consumers may be difficult to target individually, we do know that consumers from certain ethnic groups (e.g., Latinos; Leung & Cohen, 2011) and geographic areas (e.g., Southern United States and Mediterranean region; Mosquera et al., 2002; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996) tend to endorse honor values strongly. For such consumers, firms should take special care to avoid brand failures. Training front-line employees,

282

FRANK MAY ET AL.

who tend to be a cause of brand failures, should be an important focus for the company. Given the intensity of consumer vengeance among high-honor consumers, one could speculate that, it might be wise for brands not to launch their products or services in high-honor regions, or among ethnic groups characterized by high honor. However, this guideline would be quite restrictive in nature. Given that high-honor values reside among segments of the U.S. population that are rising rapidly in size (e.g., Hispanics), or in countries with high GDP growth rates (e.g., Brazil and Turkey), avoiding these segments would imply avoiding attractive markets. To address this challenge, we find ways to stem the harsh response from high-honor consumers. One way is to give high-honor consumers an opportunity to suggest ways to punish the offending employee. Making such suggestions on websites or filling out forms might be a cost-effective way to stem vengeance against the firm. Although adopting this method may appear somewhat counterintuitive to firms, we find that making suggestions about how to punish the offender is sufficient to satiate high-honor consumers’ need to seek revenge against the firm. Importantly, high-honor consumers do not need to see the offending employee being punished. Thus, firm could seek such feedback from consumers about ways to punish, without having to demonstrate having carried out the punishment in front of customers. Another way to reduce revenge tendencies of high-honor consumers is to offer compensation or an apology. Although managers may be quick to hand out monetary compensation in order to satisfy irate customers, our study reveals that this course of action may not always be necessary. Indeed, it was shown that for high-honor consumers, a simple heartfelt apology is just as effective as monetary compensation in terms of reducing vengeance and increasing satisfaction. Presumably, the social nature of an apology grants esteem to high-honor consumers, leading to vengeance and satisfaction levels that are equal to those achieved with monetary compensation. However, this strategy is not amenable to situations dealing with low-honor consumers, as it was shown that for low-honor consumers, an apology was equal to doing nothing in terms of subsequent vengeance. Instead, monetary compensation worked better.

Future Research By introducing honor, this research opens the door to future research into honor values within the marketing domain. One could speculate that

Honor Values and Brand Failures

283

high-honor consumers respond differently to brand failures of prestige versus functional brands. Prestige brands (e.g., BMW) are more symbolic in nature and have more social capital, when compared to functional brands (e.g., Toyota; Monga & John, 2010). This suggests the possibility that highhonor consumers who tend to be more socially attuned would respond more severely when the brand failure is caused by a prestige brand than a functional brand. Examining this moderator may provide additional managerial insights on the role of honor in brand failures. Although it may appear that high-honor consumers, being prone to vengeful behavior, are the bane of managers’ existence, this may not always be the case. We have shown that high-honor consumers are quick to punish companies that wrong them, but research suggests that these same consumers may be just as quick to reward companies that treat them well. People from honor cultures strive to maintain an image of trustworthiness, such that they are known to keep their word and repay debts (Leung & Cohen, 2011). If this is true, then it is plausible that high-honor consumers will go out of their way to repay businesses (in the form of positive word of mouth, referrals, etc.) that treat them well, much in the manner that they go out of their way to punish businesses that have wronged them. This warrants further investigation. Another avenue for future research lies in the reactions of high-honor consumers to failures that involve others. For instance, if a brand fails the friend or relative of a high-honor consumer, will he/she act vengefully? Given that the honor scale frequently mentions family (Mosquera et al., 2002), one might hypothesize that high-honor individuals will also take action to protect the honor of close others. Another interesting avenue would be to examine the relationship between honor and a number of individual differences. For example, ego or pride (Wilcox, Kramer, & Sen, 2011) may be related to honor, as such constructs deal with both personal and societal judgment of worth. Also, given that honor deals with one’s standing in the eyes of others, it would be fruitful to examine the relationship between honor and power (Rucker, Galinsky, & Dubois, 2012). For instance, would those high in honor be likely to take vengeance against a high power individuals who slights him/ her? Additionally, honor and political affiliation may be related as many indicators of high-honor values, such as support of gun ownership rights, preference for strong national defense, and endorsement of capital punishment (Cohen, 1996), are consistent with the policies of the Republican party. Indeed, in a separate pretest, we found that Republicans indicated higher levels of honor values versus Democrats. Could honor values be

284

FRANK MAY ET AL.

mapped according to voting outcomes? These questions regarding possibly related individual differences can be answered by future researchers.

NOTE 1. In this paper, items pertaining to virility and sexual restraint were excluded since they are not relevant for our context (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994, 1997; Cohen et al., 1996) and are more relevant for Mediterranean conceptions of honor (Mosquera et al., 2002).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Ashwani Monga, Carlos Torelli, Terry Shimp, Vanitha Swaminathan, and seminar participants at Koc University for their constructive feedback. The authors are grateful for a grant from the Darla Moore School of Business Research grant program.

REFERENCES Aaker, D., & Keller, K. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54, 27 41. Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of brand commitment and self construal on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(March), 798 805. Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage. Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 440 453. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 187 206. Burrill, D. (1998). Modeling and interpreting interactions in multiple regression. Retrieved from http://minitab.com.au/uploadedFiles/Content/News/Published_Articles/interactions_ in_multiple_regression.pdf Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29 45. Chan, H., & Wan, L. (2008). Consumer responses to service failures: A resource preference model of cultural influences. Journal of International Marketing, 16(1), 72 97.

Honor Values and Brand Failures

285

Chan, H., Wan, L., & Sin, L. (2009). The contrasting effects of culture on consumer tolerance: Interpersonal face and impersonal fate. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(August), 292 304. Chartrand, T., Huber, J., Shiv, B., & Tanner, R. (2008). Nonconscious goals and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(August), 189 201. Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(August), 291 301. Cheng, S. Y. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self-brand connections on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 280 288. Cohen, D. (1996). Law, social policy, and violence: The impact of regional cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 961 978. Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 551 567. Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. (1997). Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The role of institutions in perpetuating norms about violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1188 1199. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R., Bowdle, B., & Schwartz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An experimental ethnography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945 960. Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(May), 215 226. Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(June), 5 8. Folkes, V. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(March), 398 409. Folkes, V., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and consumer reaction: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 534 539. Folkes, V., & Kotsos, B. (1986). Buyers’ and sellers’ explanations for product failure: Who done it? Journal of Marketing, 50(April), 74 80. Gastil, R. (1971). Homicide and a regional culture of violence. American Sociological Review, 36(3), 412 427. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Gregoire, Y., & Fisher, R. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 247 261. Gregoire, Y., Tripp, T., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and Avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(November), 18 32. Gu¨rhan-Canli, Z., & Maheswaran, D. (2000). Cultural variations in country of origin effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(August), 309 317. Ijzerman, H., van Dijk, W., & Gallucci, M. (2007). A bumpy train ride: A field experiment on insult, honor, and emotional reactions. Emotion, 7(4), 869 875. Janakiraman, N., Meyer, R. J., & Hoch, S. J. (2011). The psychology of decisions to abandon waits for service. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(December), 970 984.

286

FRANK MAY ET AL.

Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The ownership effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing, 63(January), 88 101. Lei, J., Dawar, N., & Gu¨rhan-Canli, Z. (2012). Base-rate information in consumer attributions of product-harm crises. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 336 348. Leung, A. K. Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507 526. Levav, J., & Zhu, R. (2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 600 610. Loken, B., & John, D. R. (1993). Diluting brand beliefs: When do brand extensions have a negative impact. Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 71 84. Monga, A., & John, D. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(October), 320 332. Monga, A., & John, D. R. (2010). What makes brands elastic? The influence of brand concept and styles of thinking on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 74(May), 80 92. Mosquera, P. M. R., Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Zaalberg, R. (2008). Attack, disapproval, or withdrawal? The role of honour in anger and shame responses to being insulted. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8), 1471 1498. Mosquera, P. M. R., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2002). The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition and Emotion, 16(1), 143 163. Nisbett, R., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pepitone, J. (2011). Netflix loses 800,000 subscribers. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/ 2011/10/24/technology/netflix_earnings/index.htm Pitt-Rivers, J. (1966). Honour and social status. In J. Peristiany (Ed.), Honor and Shame (pp. 19 78). London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Rao, A., Qu, L. & Ruekert, R. (1999). Signaling unobservable quality through a brand ally. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 258 268. Rucker, D., Galinsky, A., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 352 358. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580 591. Smith, A., Bolton, R., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(August), 356 372. Sood, S., & Keller, K. (2012). The effects of brand name structure on brand extension evaluation and parent brand dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(3), 373 382. Swaminathan, V., Page, K., & Gu¨rhan-Canli, Z. (2007). ‘My’ brand or ‘our’ brand: The effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), 248 259. Tax, S., Brown, S., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 60 76.

Honor Values and Brand Failures

287

Taylor, C. (2011). How social media are amplifying customer outrage. Retrieved from http:// articles.cnn.com/2011-07-22/tech/social.media.outrage.taylor_1_cottage-cheese-netflixblog-social-media?_s=PM:TECH. Accessed on December 13, 2011 Vandello, J., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 279 292. Vandello, J., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 997 1010. Vandello, J., Cohen, D., & Ransom, S. (2008). U.S. southern and northern differences in perceptions of norms about aggression: Mechanisms for the perpetuation of a culture of honor. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(2), 162 177. Wilcox, K., Kramer, T., & Sen, S. (2011). Indulgence or self-control: A dual process model of the effect of incidental pride on indulgent choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(1), 151 163. Zhang, Y., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Power distance belief and impulsive buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(October), 945 954.

288

FRANK MAY ET AL.

APPENDIX A Study 1: Brand Failure Stimuli You chose the French restaurant, “Chez Albert,” to celebrate your father’s birthday. It was a special occasion, since your father had just turned 55. You and your parents went to “Chez Albert” last Saturday night. Although you had a reservation, you had to wait 20 minutes in the lobby before your table was ready. The waiter approached the table and introduced the drink specials for the night. When you declined and ordered water instead, the waiter sighed and rolled his eyes at you. When you and your family ordered, you all were told that the restaurant was out of the first two entrees that you selected. The entrees were cold when they arrived and the vegetables didn’t look fresh. Moreover, when the entrees arrived, the waiter plopped the plates down on the table rather than gently setting them down. At that point, you complained first time to the waiter about the poor service. The waiter listened, but didn’t correct the situation. In addition, the waiter never stopped back to check on you and your parents during the meal. After you had finished eating, the waiter dropped off the bill (around $75) in a hurry. Before leaving the restaurant, you directly complained to Albert, the owner. Albert listened but refused to apologize or offer any compensation that night.

APPENDIX B Study 1: Priming Manipulation Low-Honor Prime You have booked a place in a month long educational enrichment experience. The campus is located right near the highway, very close to civilization. There are a number supervisory figures participating in the experience to ensure that order is kept, rules will be followed, and that no disruptions are caused. A bus will drop you off at the beginning of the experience and will be back to pick you up in a month. Basically, you will be living in a dorm with the other participants and the supervisory figures for the entire month.

Honor Values and Brand Failures

289

One day while you were walking toward your room, Rory, a person who has become known as a bully in the group, appeared out of nowhere. Rory shoved you quite violently, seemingly for no reason at all. You asked Rory, “Why did you do that? What is your problem?” Rory responded, “Because I felt like it. What of it?” while giving you another push in the shoulder. Rory was being extremely loud and obnoxious. Rory kept advancing, taunting you: “Yeah, I’m going to push you around, and you are going to take it, right? Because there is nothing you can do! And I’m going to keep on doing it! You know what? I kind of like your dorm … I might just take that too!” Rory pushed you yet again, this time while delivering a wad of spit directly in your eye. You finally turn your back to Rory and walk away. High-Honor Prime You have booked a place in a month long summer survival camping trip. The campsite is deep within the woods, very remote, and cut off from civilization. Furthermore, there are no supervisory figures coming along on the trip, only other people that have signed up for the camping experience. A bus will drop you off at the beginning of the experience and will be back to pick you up in a month. Basically, you will be alone with these other campers for the entire month, fending for yourself. One day while you were walking toward your tent, Rory, a person who has become known as a bully in the group, appeared out of nowhere. Rory shoved you quite violently, seemingly for no reason at all. You asked Rory, “Why did you do that? What is your problem?” Rory responded, “Because I felt like it. What of it?” while giving you another push in the shoulder. A crowd had started to gather, as Rory was being extremely loud and obnoxious. Quite a few of the members of the crowd were openly laughing at you. Rory kept advancing, taunting you: “Yeah, I’m going to push you around, and you are going to take it, right? Because there is nothing you can do! And I’m going to keep on doing it! You know what? I kind of like your tent … I might just take that too!” Rory pushed you yet again, this time while delivering a wad of spit directly in your eye.

290

FRANK MAY ET AL.

APPENDIX C Study 2: Stimuli No Punishment Condition Your computer has broken down. You take the machine to a company named Techfix for repair. Since the hard disk is damaged, it takes two days for Techfix to get the disk replaced. Two days later, you go back to Techfix to pick up the computer. You try to talk to the technician on duty; however, he ignores you at first, even though it was clear that he saw that you were there. When you are finally able to show him the receipt and ask him about your computer, he looks impatient and mumbles something under his breath. You ask the technician what exactly was wrong with your computer, but he is quite rude in answering your questions. He makes it quite evident that he feels if you don’t understand what was wrong with your computer then you must be a complete idiot. When he eventually returns your computer, he carelessly flings it down on the counter and takes your payment without saying a word. Punishment Condition Your computer has broken down. You take the machine to a company named Techfix for repair. Since the hard disk is damaged, it takes two days for Techfix to get the disk replaced. Two days later, you go back to Techfix to pick up the computer. You try to talk to the technician on duty; however, he ignores you at first, even though it was clear that he saw that you were there. When you are finally able to show him the receipt and ask him about your computer, he looks impatient and mumbles something under his breath. You ask the technician what exactly was wrong with your computer, but he is quite rude in answering your questions. He makes it quite evident that he feels if you don’t understand what was wrong with your computer then you must be a complete idiot. When he eventually returns your computer, he carelessly flings it down on the counter and takes your payment without saying a word. After paying for your repairs, you ask to speak with a manager. The manager comes to speak with you and listens as you explain the poor service that you just received. He listens sympathetically and says, “We want to make sure that you are satisfied and will return as a customer in the

Honor Values and Brand Failures

291

future. How do you think we should punish the technician? We will do our best to follow your recommendation.”

APPENDIX D Study 3: Brand Failure Stimuli Control Condition Your computer has broken down. You take the machine to a company named Techfix for repair. Since the hard disk is damaged, it takes two days for Techfix to get the disk replaced. Two days later, you go back to Techfix to pick up the computer. You try to talk to the technician on duty; however, he ignores you at first, even though it was clear that he saw that you were there. When you are finally able to show him the receipt and ask him about your computer, he looks impatient and mumbles something under his breath. You ask the technician what exactly was wrong with your computer, but he is quite rude in answering your questions. He makes it quite evident that he feels if you don’t understand what was wrong with your computer then you must be a complete idiot. When he eventually returns your computer, he carelessly flings it down on the counter and takes your payment without saying a word. Apology Condition You ask to see a manager to deal with this issue. The manager comes to you and says, “It is unacceptable that you received such poor service. Please accept my heartfelt apology.” Monetary Compensation Condition You ask to see a manager to deal with this issue. The manager comes to you and says, “It is unacceptable that you received such poor service. I am going to remove $25 from your service bill.”

This page intentionally left blank

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 1 RMR INAUGURAL ISSUE

EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra EDITORIAL: REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH

Naresh K. Malhotra A RE-APPRAISAL OF THE ROLE OF EMOTION IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES

Allison R. Johnson and David W. Stewart THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER: BEAUTY AS A CONCEPT IN EVERYDAY DISCOURSE AND THE COLLECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHIC ESSAY

Morris B. Holbrook CONSUMER INFORMATION ACQUISITION: A REVIEW AND AN EXTENSION

Lan Xia and Kent B. Monroe THE RESOURCE-ADVANTAGE THEORY OF COMPETITION: A REVIEW

Shelby D. Hunt and Robert M. Morgan TOWARD AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

Sundar G. Bharadwaj and Rajan Varadarajan

293

294

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

CONSUMERS’ EVALUATIVE REFERENCE SCALES AND SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY: A REVIEW AND EXPLORATORY STUDY

Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS

Naresh K. Malhotra, Betsy Charles Bartels, and Can Uslay

Previous Volume Contents

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 2 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: SOME REFLECTIONS

Naresh K. Malhotra CONSUMER ACTION: AUTOMATICITY, PURPOSIVENESS, AND SELF-REGULATION

Richard P. Bagozzi LOOKING THROUGH THE CRYSTAL BALL: AFFECTIVE FORECASTING AND MISFORECASTING IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Deborah J. MacInnis, Vanessa M. Patrick, and C. Whan Park CONSUMER USE OF THE INTERNET IN SEARCH FOR AUTOMOBILES: LITERATURE REVIEW, A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, AND AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

Brian T. Ratchford, Myung-Soo Lee, and Debabrata Talukdar CATEGORIZATION: A REVIEW AND AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EVALUATION FORMATION PROCESS

Gina L. Miller, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Tracey M. King INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DETERMINANTS OF CONSUMERS’ ADOPTION AND USAGE OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: A PROPOSITIONAL INVENTORY

Shun Yin Lam and A. Parasuraman THE METRICS IMPERATIVE: MAKING MARKETING MATTER

Donald R. Lehmann MULTI-LEVEL, HIERARCHICAL LINEAR MODELS AND MARKETING: THIS IS NOT YOUR ADVISOR’S OLS MODEL

James L. Oakley, Dawn Iacobucci, and Adam Duhachek

295

296

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 3 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: A LOOK AHEAD

Naresh K. Malhotra MANAGING CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS

Ruth N. Bolton and Crina Tarasi A CRITICAL REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH ON DIFFUSION OF NEW PRODUCTS

Deepa Chandrasekaran and Gerard J. Tellis ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CULTURAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY

Giana M. Eckhardt and Michael J. Houston CONSUMER RESPONSES TO PRICE AND ITS CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION CUES: A SYNTHESIS OF PAST RESEARCH, A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, AND AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Dhruv Grewal and Larry Compeau STORE BRANDS: FROM BACK TO THE FUTURE

Serdar Sayman and Jagmohan S. Raju LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND CONSUMER RESEARCH

Dwight R. Merunka and Robert A. Peterson YOU OUGHT TO BE IN PICTURES: ENVISIONING MARKETING RESEARCH

Russell W. Belk

Previous Volume Contents

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 4 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: TAKING STOCK

Naresh K. Malhotra FORMAL CHOICE MODELS OF INFORMAL CHOICES: WHAT CHOICE MODELING RESEARCH CAN (AND CAN’T) LEARN FROM BEHAVIORAL THEORY

Jordan J. Louviere and Robert J. Meyer HOW MUCH TO USE? AN ACTION-GOAL APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMPTION QUANTITY

Valerie S. Folkes and Shashi Matta INTEGRATING PURCHASE TIMING, CHOICE AND QUANTITY DECISIONS MODELS: A REVIEW OF MODEL SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

V. Kumar and Anita Man Luo BRAND EXTENSION RESEARCH: A CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Michael A. Merz, Dana L. Alden, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Kalpesh Kaushik Desai A REVIEW OF EYE-TRACKING RESEARCH IN MARKETING

Michel Wedel and Rik Pieters ROLE THEORY APPROACHES FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF MARKETING-ORIENTED BOUNDARY SPANNERS: COMPARATIVE REVIEW, CONFIGURAL EXTENSION AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION

Jagdip Singh and Argun Saatcioglu PRICE CONTRACT DESIGN TEMPLATES: GOVERNING PROCUREMENT AND MARKETING OF INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

George John

297

298

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 5 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: THE FIRST FIVE VOLUMES

Naresh K. Malhotra CONSUMER JUDGMENT FROM A DUAL-SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE: RECENT EVIDENCE AND EMERGING ISSUES

Samuel D. Bond, James R. Bettman, and Mary Frances Luce CAN YOU SEE THE CHASM? INNOVATION DIFFUSION ACCORDING TO ROGERS, BASS AND MOORE

Barak Libai, Vijay Mahajan, and Eitan Muller EXPLORING THE OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT BAZAAR

Balaji Rajagopalan and Barry L. Bayus A NEW SPATIAL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY FOR SIMULTANEOUS SEGMENTATION, TARGETING, AND POSITIONING (STP ANALYSIS) FOR MARKETING RESEARCH

Wayne S. DeSarbo, Simon J. Blanchard, and A. Selin Atalay METHODS FOR HANDLING MASSIVE NUMBER OF ATTRIBUTES IN CONJOINT ANALYSIS

Vithala R. Rao, Benjamin Kartono, and Meng Su A REVIEW AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LADDERING RESEARCH METHODS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR QUALITY METRICS

Thomas J. Reynold and Joan M. Phillips METRICS FOR THE NEW INTERNET MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS MIX

Randolph E. Bucklin, Oliver Rutz, and Michael Trusov

Previous Volume Contents

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 6 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: ACCUMULATING KNOWLEDGE

Naresh K. Malhotra A REVIEW OF PRIOR CLASSIFICATIONS OF PURCHASE BEHAVIOR AND A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TYPOLOGY

Hans Baumgartner MEASURING CUSTOMER LIFETIME VALUE: MODELS AND ANALYSIS

Siddharth S. Singh and Dipak C. Jain LEARNING MODELS

S. Sriram and Pradeep K. Chintagunta CUSTOMER CO-CREATION: A TYPOLOGY AND RESEARCH AGENDA

Matthew S. O’Hern and Aric Rindfleisch CHALLENGES IN MEASURING RETURN ON MARKETING INVESTMENT: COMBINING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES

Koen Pauwels and Dave Reibstein THE SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC OF MARKETING: A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

Stephen L. Vargo, Robert F. Lusch, Melissa Archpru Akaka, and Yi He MARKETING IN A WORLD WITH COSTS OF PRICE ADJUSTMENT

Shantanu Dutta, Mark E. Bergen, and Sourav Ray

299

300

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 7 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: ANALYZING ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE AND INFLUENCING FUTURE RESEARCH

Naresh K. Malhotra A BACKWARD GLANCE OF WHO AND WHAT MARKETING SCHOLARS HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING, 1977–2002

John B. Ford, Douglas West, Vincent P. Magnini, Michael S. LaTour, and Michael J. Polonsky DYNAMIC STRATEGIC GOAL-SETTING: THEORY AND INITIAL EVIDENCE

Mark B. Houston, S. Ratneshwar, Lisa Ricci, and Alan J. Malter INTERNET CHANNEL CONFLICT: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

Eric Anderson, Duncan Simester, and Florian Zettelmeyer REFERRAL EQUITY AND REFERRAL MANAGEMENT: THE SUPPLIER FIRM’S PERSPECTIVE

Mahima Hada, Rajdeep Grewal, and Gary L. Lilien A CRITICAL REVIEW OF QUESTION-BEHAVIOR EFFECT RESEARCH

Utpal M. Dholakia CONSUMER COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY AND THE DIMENSIONALITY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING CONFIGURATIONS

Naresh K. Malhotra, Arun K. Jain, Ashutosh Patil, Christian Pinson, and Lan Wu STRUCTURAL MODELING OF HETEROGENEOUS DATA WITH PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES

Edward E. Rigdon, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt

Previous Volume Contents

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 8 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra REFLECTIONS ON A SCHOLARLY CAREER: FROM INSIDE OUT AND BACK AGAIN

Richard P. Bagozzi LEGENDS IN MARKETING: A REVIEW OF SHELBY D. HUNT’S VOLUMES

Shelby D. Hunt and Shannon B. Rinaldo PHILIP KOTLER’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARKETING THEORY AND PRACTICE

Philip Kotler LOOKING THROUGH THE MARKETING LENS: MY JOURNEY SO FARy

V. Kumar PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON MY RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARKETING

Naresh K. Malhotra SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON PRICING RESEARCH

Kent B. Monroe A JOURNEY OF AN ACCIDENTAL MARKETING SCHOLAR

Balaji C. Krishnan and Jagdish N. Sheth YORAM ‘‘JERRY’’ WIND’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARKETING

Yoram ‘‘Jerry’’ Wind LESSONS LEARNED DURING A CAREER

Gerald Zaltman

301

302

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 9 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra THE NATURE AND UNDERSTANDING OF VALUE: A SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC PERSPECTIVE

Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch AN EXPLORATION OF NETWORKS IN VALUE COCREATION: A SERVICE-ECOSYSTEMS VIEW

Melissa Archpru Akaka, Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch DESIGNING BUSINESS MODELS FOR VALUE CO-CREATION

Kaj Storbacka, Pennie Frow, Suvi Nenonen and Adrian Payne SERVICE SYSTEMS AS A FOUNDATION FOR RESOURCE INTEGRATION AND VALUE CO-CREATION

Bo Edvardsson, Per Ska˚le´n and Ba˚rd Tronvoll THE ROLE OF THE KNOWLEDGEABLE CUSTOMER IN BUSINESS NETWORK LEARNING, VALUE CREATION, AND INNOVATION

Linda D. Peters A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING VALUE-CREATING SERVICE ECOSYSTEMS: AN APPLICATION TO THE RECORDED-MUSIC MARKET

Andrea Ordanini and A. Parasuraman AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK OF VALUE

Irene C. L. Ng and Laura A. Smith

Previous Volume Contents

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 10 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra INTRODUCTION: ANALYZING ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE AND INFLUENCING THE FUTURE ASSORTMENT VARIETY: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING?

Barbara E. Kahn, Evan Weingarten and Claudia Townsend CONSUMER EXPERIENCE AND EXPERIENTIAL MARKETING: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Bernd Schmitt and Lia Zarantonello CUSTOMER REACTIONS TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT: A REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TWO SERVICE INDUSTRIES

Nelson Oly Ndubisi, Naresh K. Malhotra and Gina L.Miller DESIGNING AND PRICING DIGITAL CONTENT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES: A RESEARCH REVIEW

P.K. Kannan ALL SIGNALS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL: MANAGERS’ CHOICE OF SIGNAL UNDER INFORMATION ASYMMETRY IN COMPETITIVE MARKETS

Akshay R. Rao, Amna Kirmani and Haipeng Chen NATION EQUITY: INTEGRATING THE MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN EFFECTS

Durairaj Maheswaran, Cathy Yi Chen and Junhong He HOW EMERGING MARKETS ARE RESHAPING THE INNOVATION ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL FIRMS

Venkatesh Shankar and Nicole Hanson

303

304

PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS

AN INTRODUCTION TO AUDIO AND VISUAL RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS IN MARKETING

Li Xiao, Hye-jin Kim and Min Ding MEASURING VALUE-IN-CONTEXT FROM A SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC’S PERSPECTIVE

Helge Lo¨bler and Marco Hahn

Previous Volume Contents

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 11 EDITOR: Naresh K. Malhotra MOBILE SHOPPER MARKETING: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF MOBILE TECHNOLOGY ON CONSUMER PATH TO PURCHASE

Alicia Baik, Rajkumar Venkatesan and Paul Farris TRACING THE EVOLUTION & PROJECTING THE FUTURE OF IN-STORE MARKETING

V. Kumar, Nita Umashankar and Insu Park SIX LESSONS FOR IN-STORE MARKETING FROM SIX YEARS OF MOBILE EYE-TRACKING RESEARCH

Kirk Hendrickson and Kusum L. Ailawadi THE SHOPPER-CENTRIC RETAILER: THREE CASE STUDIES ON DERIVING SHOPPER INSIGHTS FROM FREQUENT SHOPPER DATA

Hristina Dzhogleva Nikolova, J. Jeffrey Inman, Jim Maurer, Andrew Greiner and Gala Amoroso HOW DO MARKETING ACTIONS AND CUSTOMER MINDSET METRICS INFLUENCE THE CONSUMER’S PATH TO PURCHASE?

Shuba Srinivasan INSIGHTS FROM IN-STORE MARKETING EXPERIMENTS

Jens Nordfa¨lt, Dhruv Grewal, Anne L. Roggeveen and Krista M. Hill IDENTIFYING THE DRIVERS OF SHOPPER ATTENTION, ENGAGEMENT, AND PURCHASE

Raymond R. Burke and Alex Leykin SHOPPER MARKETING 2.0: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Venkatesh Shankar

305