Overview of the Findings

It is often said that some brands like the VW Beetle, the Apple Mac, Harley Davidson, or even the omnipresent Coca-Cola have an appeal that goes far beyond what can be explained by the mere fulfillment of a functional need. Some marketing researchers have suggested that this is because the consumer-brand interaction crosses the threshold of a mere commercial transaction. In fact, it has been suggested that people sometimes form relationships with brands in much the same way in which they form relationships with each other in a social context (Fournier 1998). University of Toronto professor Pankaj Aggarwal, in a recent paper published in the Journal of Consumer Research, highlights the implications for brand managers of such an intimate consumer-brand relationship, and explores the effects of different types of relationships on consumers’ satisfaction levels.

Relationships have been studied in previous research done in social psychology. Clark and Mills (1993) have done research on inter-personal relationships, and have distinguished between exchange relationships and communal relationships. Exchange relationships are like business relationships – where the focus of the interaction is quid pro quo, or on what one gets back for giving some benefit to the relationship partner. In contrast, communal relationships are like intimate friendships – where the focus is taking care of the relationship partner, and how best one’s actions can satisfy the partner’s needs. In his research, Aggarwal examines the effect of relationship type (communal versus exchange) on consumers’ satisfaction with a brand. In particular, this research illustrates how brands, that try to create less commercial relationships and more friendship-like relationships are better off in some ways, but worse off in other ways.

The basic idea behind this research is that each relationship type has its own accepted norm or the ‘right’ way to behave. For example, if you needed to catch a flight and a friend offered to drop you to the airport, you would not offer to pay your friend for helping you. On the contrary, if you were taking a cab to the airport, you fully expect to pay, and in fact, would find it extremely odd if the cabdriver did not take any money. Thus, what is acceptable or even expected in a friendship relationship may be entirely different from what is expected in a business relationship. Applying this to a consumer-brand context, Aggarwal finds that if the actions of the brand are not in keeping with what is expected in the particular relationship, it is likely to lead to lower satisfaction. Conversely, if the actions of the brand conform to the expectations of the relationship, then consumers are likely to be satisfied with the brand’s actions.

Three different studies were conducted examining three specific norms of relationships. The norms were selected such that what is right for a communal relationship is wrong for an exchange relationship. For example, in study 1, a fee charged by a bank for an additional service was deemed acceptable in an exchange relationship since this relationship is based on quid pro quo. However, the same action elicited strong negative response from consumers in a communal relationship with the brand, since charging an extra fee for helping the partner violates the underlying principles of care and concern. The second study used the context of a health club, and examined consumers’ response when the brand gave a gift to the consumer for filling out a survey that required 1 hour of his/her time. The gift was either similar (1 hour of free class) or dissimilar ($15 discount) to the original benefit given by the consumer. Results showed that consumers preferred a matched benefit in an exchange relationship since that is in keeping with the quid pro quo nature of the relationship. Conversely, in a communal relationship, consumers prefer to get back non-comparable benefits, since that suggests a concern for their unique needs rather than merely returning a favor. Finally, in the third study Aggarwal finds that the timing of a tit-for-tat request influenced consumers’ brand evaluations (a coffee shop made fresh coffee for the student and in return requested their posters be displayed on campus). Immediate return of the favor is in keeping with the give-and-take nature of an exchange relationship. However, in a communal relationship, the consumers prefer that there be sufficient time delay before the return favor is requested since otherwise the it seems to be based not on a genuine need of the partner, but merely a form of repayment.

Significance of the Research

The relationship metaphor provides some insights on why different consumers may respond differently to the same action taken by a brand. Further, this research shows that when brands behave like socialized members of a culture then they are evaluated by the rules that govern the society, and have to act in accordance to these rules. Brands, thus, have to go beyond providing mere utilitarian benefits to what is perceived as the right thing to do. The relationship metaphor thus helps us make specific predictions about consumer behavior that would not be possible using existing theories of brand personality, brand loyalty or brand imagery.

The results of the three experiments have some important implications for managers. As highlighted by study 1, establishing a communal relationship with consumers has some potential cost implications since it limits the ability of such brands to charge incrementally for extra services, and an insistence on doing so may even risk weakening the entire relationship. Study 2 highlights that money is not always the best way to reward customers. Although monetary incentives work well sometimes, there are times when other incentives might be better (and cheaper too)! Finally, study 3 demonstrates that even when the final action is exactly the same, very subtle differences in the actual delivery of the action can make all that critical difference in consumer evaluations. In sum, this research offers a theoretical model for understanding why some consumers who apparently digress from the utilitarian price-based model of consumer behavior may not necessarily be behaving “irrationally”.

References Cited

Clark, Margaret S. and Judson Mills (1993), “The Difference Between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What It Is and Is Not,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (December), 684-691.

Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-373.

Original Article

Aggarwal, Pankaj (2004), "The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 87-101.