eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing rvices to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
rearch platform to scholars worldwide.
Center for Responsible Business
分梨UC Berkeley
Peer Reviewed
Title:
When Good Brands Do Bad中国各大银行排名
录音专业Author:
Aaker, Jennifer , Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Fournier, Susan , Dartmouth College
Bral, S. Adam , Graduate School of Business, Stanford University Publication Date:01-01-2008
Series:
Working Paper Series
Publication Info:
Working Paper Series, Center for Responsible Business, UC Berkeley Permalink:
escholarship/uc/item/70z5s7bj
Abstract:
This article reports results from a longitudinal field experiment examining the evolution of consumer-brand relationships. Development patterns differed, whereby relationships with sincere brands deepened over time in line with friendship templates, and relationships with exciting brands evinced a trajectory characteristic of short-lived flings. The patterns held only when the relationship proceededwithout a transgression. Relationships with sincere brands suffered in the wake of transgressions, whereas relationships with exciting brands surprisingly showed signs of reinvigoration after such transgressions. Inferences concerning the brand’s partner quality mediated the results. Findings suggest a dynamic construal of brand personality, greater attention to interrupt events, and consideration of the relationship contracts formed at the hands of different brands.
1
᭧2004by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH,Inc.●Vol.31●June2004
All rights rerved.0093-5301/2004/3101-0001$10.00
2JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
tematically influence development trajectories and,hence, the depth of resulting relationship bonds.Two such factors, the personality of the relationship partner and the commis-sion of transgression acts,merit particular attention in light of their controllability through marketer action and the sig-nificance of their relationship effects.
有一种花Personality Effects on Relationships
Rearch has shown that relationships are influenced by the personalities of the partners involved(Robins,Caspi, and Moffitt2000).Additive and joint effects have been obrved for traits such as extroversion(Gifford1991),tra-ditionalism(Robins et al.2000),warmth(Hill1991),and flexibility(Shoda,Mischel,and Wright1993).Fletcher et al.(1999)specify three trait clusters of particular note: status,warmth,and vitality.The traits underlie peoples’conceptions of ideal partners in intimat
e relationships and thus exert particular influence on relationship strength po-tential.The effects of personality on the relationship are both direct and indirect,as partner personality systematically influences the behaviors displayed in a relationship and bi-as the character inferences that are derived from the ob-rvation of the behaviors over time(Auhagen and Hinde 1997).Indeed,it is suggested that middle-and later-stage development is centrally concerned with character infer-ences regarding the relationship partner,as the shape main-tenance process(Hinde1979;Holmes and Rempel1989). Partner Quality Inferences.One notable subclass of character inferences affecting relationship evolution concerns evaluations of partner capabilities and efforts in managing the relationship along implicit and explicit contract lines(Alt-man and Taylor1973).In a marketing context,such inferences include whether the partner is likely to behave in such a manner that promis are kept(Iacobucci,Ostrom,and Gray-son1995),relationship failures are avoided(Smith,Bolton, and Wagner1999),problems are resolved(Sirdeshmukh et al.2002),and long-term consumer interests are rved(Braun and Zaltman2000).General perceptions regarding the part-ner’s dependability and reliability(Boon and Holmes1999), trustworthiness(Holmes and Rempel1989),supportiveness (Moorman,Deshpande,and Zaltman1993),and accounta-bility(Altman and Taylor1973)also appear significant in gauging partner capabilities,intentions,and motives in meet-ing relationship obligations.In line with act-frequency the-ories of impression formation(Buss an
d Craik1983),the character inferences cohere into a generalized perception of the quality of the relationship partner through a dynamic pro-cess that considers a string of partner behaviors over time. Rearch has shown that partner quality inferences are ud to calibrate general beliefs about the relationship(Fletcher and Kininmonth1992),gauge the significance of and for-mulate respons to partner transgressions(Holmes and Rem-pel1989),and ascertain overall satisfaction and loyalty levels (Sirdeshmukh et al.2002),thereby influencing relationship strength and cour.
Sincere and Exciting Brand Personalities.Two brand personality templates merit attention in light of their promi-nence in the marketing landscape.Further,the two person-alities are fundamental in that they compo two of the three partner ideals in intimate personal relations(Fletcher et al. 1999)and capture the majority of variance in personality ratings for brands(Aaker1997;Caprara,Barbaranelli,and Guido2001),afinding that is robust across individuals,prod-uct categories,and cultural contexts(Aaker,Benet-Martı´nez, and Garolera2001).First are“sincere”personalities that dom-inate the world of classic brands such as Hallmark,Ford,and Coca-Cola(Smith2001).The sincere personality has been pursued by both smaller companies eking to establish them-lves as warmer and more caring and considerate than larger, unwelcoming ,Gateway Cow campaign)and by larger companies eking a more down-to-
earth face in con-sumer-brand ,MetLife’s u of Snoopy).Re-arch suggests that sincere brands will garner relationship advantages.Traits of nurturance,warmth,family-orientation, and traditionalism,which have been positively related to re-lationship strength(Buss1991;Robins et al.2000),are char-acteristic of sincere personalities(Aaker1997).Sincerity can also spark inferences of partner trustworthiness and depend-ability(Aaker1999),which temper feelings of vulnerability and support relationship growth(Moorman et al.1993).
A cond personality type that has received incread mar-keting attention is that of the“exciting”brand built around qualities of energy and youthfulness(Aaker1997).Exciting brands,including such exemplars as YAHOO!,Virgin,and MTV,attempt differentiation through unique and irreverent advertising,atypical brand logos,and hip language.Brands have pursued exciting personalities when chasing younger ,Mountain Dew’s“Do the Dew”cam-paign),repositioning for incread cultural , BMW’s“Driving Excitement”campaign,circa1993),and eking differentiation against incumbent market , Dr.Pepper vs.Pepsi and Coca-Cola).Branding critics charge that,although exciting brands are attractive and attention-getting and thus highly capable of generating interest and trial,they are en as somehow less legitimate long-term partners(Altschiller2000).Thus,although the exciting trait is hel
d as an ideal in intimate relations,this personality may harbor inherent disadvantages relative to the sincerity tem-plate in fostering perceptions of partner quality and encour-aging long-run relationship strength.
Acts of Transgression
A cond factor often singled out for its determinant ef-fects on relationship strength is the commission of a trans-gression,which refers to a violation of the implicit or explicit rules guiding relationship performance and evaluation (Metts1994).Some argue that how people cope with neg-ative threats to the relationship has greater impact on re-lationship strength than positive relationship features(Rus-bult et al.1991)and that the true status of a relationship is evident only under conditions of risk and peril that activate
WHEN GOOD BRANDS DO BAD 3
二级警员FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL
MODEL
the attachment system (Reis and Knee 1996).The signifi-cance of transgression acts derives at least in part from the high levels of salience and diagnosticity of negative events (Fiske 1980).Building on the literature above,transgres-sions provide opportunities for learning about the qualities of the relationship partner,which guides subquent devel-opment paths (Altman and Taylor 1973).Accordingly,al-though transgressions will vary in their verity and cau and differ in their ultimate negotiations,all are significant in their ability to affect relationship progress.In this n the transgression stands as the hallmark of the relationship,reprenting perhaps the most significant event in the re-lationship history.
The eming inevitability of transgressions in long-term relationships contributes to their significance as well.As in-terdependence increas and partners interact across more do-mains or with incread frequency,the likelihood of a trans-gression augments in kind (Grayson and Ambler 1999).Interestingly,as is true with personal relationships (Reis and Knee 1996),consumers’expectations regarding brand trans-gressions are antithetical to this relational reality.Smith et al.(1999),for example,suggest that customers do not expect failures in their rvice interactions and adopt a no-trans-gression scenario as their operative reference point.
Rearch is equivocal regarding the likely effects of the transgression interrupt event.The most com
monly held view is that transgressions are inherently damaging as they pre-cipitate a string of negative inferences that threaten the re-lationship core (Buys et al.2000).In esnce,the trans-gression reveals disconfirming evidence of the partner’s intentions to act according to the terms of the relationship contract and thus expos vulnerabilities,doubts,and un-certainties that alter and undermine partner quality percep-tions (Boon and Holmes 1999).Rearch has shown that,once the perceptions begin to erode,it can be difficult to slow relationship decline,despite recovery efforts that may appear successful in the short run (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002).
瑞香
Some rearchers are less fatalistic in their views and propo contingency theories that govern the destructive influences of transgression acts.Of particular note is the relationship context in which the transgression is committed,such that relationship-rving bias dilute the negative ef-fects of transgressions in strong unions and past positives cancel them in long-standing relations (Wiman 1986).Partner traits have also been offered as potential moderators of transgression effects,as with competitive personalities that exacerbate negative effects and cooperative personali-ties that assuage them (Cupach 2000).In marketing,rearch has focud on the moderating effects of the recovery effort,or interactions between the recovery and characteristics of the transgression (Bitner,Booms and Tetreault 1990;Smith et al.1999).For inspiration,this rearch draws on causal attribution theory,which highlights judgments of culpability and riousness of the transgression,and distributive justice theory,which considers the fairness and equity-balance of reparations and costs (Bolton and Lemon 1999;Tax et al.
1998).Findings in this rearch stream demonstrate how marketer-initiated recovery attempts can dilute what is re-garded as the inevitable negative fallout from failures,some-times driving the relationship to satisfaction levels beyond pre-event marks (Smith and Bolton 1998).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The literature reviewed above provides the basis for un-derstanding how the strength of consumer-brand relationships may be affected directly and indirectly by different brand personalities,particularly as they commit transgression acts (e fig.1).The propod model rests on the premi that consumers make inferences regarding a brand’s character bad on the obrvation of brand behaviors over time and that the inferences cohere into a generalized asssment of the brand in its role as a relationship partner (Blackston 1993;Fournier 1998).The partner quality inferences allow de-velopment process to occur,thereby governing reactions to interrupt events such as transgressions.Hypothes derived from the model are developed below,building first from an-ticipated effects of brand personality within the two trans-gression conditions to the mediating effects of partner quality predicted to govern results overall.
We hypothesize that stronger relationships will accrue for brands with sincere relative to exciting personalities.Spe-cifically,compared to the young and trendy characteristics of the exciting brand,the sincere brand should (a )harbor inherent advantages in fostering strong relationships and (b )encourage more positive perceptions of partner quality,which,in turn,deliver strength advantages.We suggest that the sincere personality advantage will hold only in rela-tionships that persist without the commission of a brand transgression:
H1:In conditions of no transgression,stronger rela-tionships will accrue for sincere brands relative to exciting brands.Two opposing predictions concerning the interactive ef-fects of brand personality and transgression acts are offered in light of previously cited rearch.One literature stream suggests that a transgression should disproportionately harm
4JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
relationships with sincere brands,where the disconfirming evidence of the transgression threatens existing partner qual-ity perceptions.The transgression may have a different meaning and thus conquence in relationships with exciting brands,where partner quality foundations may not have been established to the same degree.Put differently,a decline in relationship strength is expected when a transgression occurs (vs.does not occur)for sincere brands,whereas such a result should not hold for exciting brands.
H2a:Relationship strength will be weakened for sin-cere brands when a transgression is prent ver-
sus abnt;this result will not hold for exciting
brands.
A cond stream of rearch suggests that the partner quality foundations underlying strong relationships in fact allow the negative effects of a transgression to be overcome, thus helping to maintain relationship strength levels.This implies an inherent advantage for the sincere brand com-mitting a transgression.In other words,a decline in rela-tionship strength should result when a transgression occurs (vs.does not occur)at the hands of the exciting brand, whereas such a result should not hold in the ca of sincere brands.
H2b:Relationship strength will be weakened for ex-citing brands when a transgression is prent ver-
sus abnt;this result will not hold for sincere
brands.
The above hypothes are predicated on the premi that sincere and exciting personalities harbor differential abilities to garner the partner quality foundations that,in turn,affect relationship strength levels,thus governing transgression ef-fects.Specifically,an overriding mediation effect is pre-dicted:
H3:The interactive effect of brand personality and transgressions on relationship strength will be me-
我们的节日diated by perceptions of partner quality.天心取米
THE STUDY
A longitudinalfield experiment involving a2(brand per-sonality)#2(transgression)#3(time)mixed-factorial de-sign was conducted in spring of2000.Participants were re-cruited under the gui of a prelaunch beta test for a new onlinefilm processing and digitizing company named Captura Photography Services.The beta test cover story helped en-hance external validity and justify the high level of interaction and monitoring the study required.The choice of the online photographic rvice was relevant in light of technology in-novation of the time,and it allowed a tting for multiple consumer contacts required of this relational study context. To recruit participants,100invitations were nt from the Captura e-mail address to students,administrators,and broader community members who had volunteered for par-ticipation in rearch sponsored by a West Coast business school.The invitation announced the upcoming brand launch and inquired about beta test participation.Invitees were informed that they would interact with the Captura brand via e-mail and Web site visits for a period of2mo., during which time they would be asked to provide ongoing opinions and reactions.For compensation,participants were paid$20,received free gifts,and were entered into a cash prize drawing.
The69participants who agreed to take part in the study were nt a follow-up e-mail directing them at random to one of two Captura Web sites(described below)for com-pletion of a background questionnaire on photography hab-its,demographics,and online behaviors.Forty-eight partic-ipants completed this questionnaire(mean age p21.09, range18–50,65%female)and followed the study to its completion.The participant sample was photography in-volved(90%camera ownership,averagefilm purcha7.72 rolls per year,high lf-reported interest in photography). However,participants also indicated low levels of familiarity with eight online photographic rvice brands launched in CY2000(aggregate,where1p un-
m p1.57,SD p1.22
familiar,7p familiar).Profiles of invitees andfinal partic-ipants were compared to examine the possibility of respon bias:mean age,gender,and category involvement did not significantly differ.
Study participants interfaced with the brand one to three times each week for a total of12interactions over a2-mo. period.Participants were nt notification e-mails asking them to return to the Captura Web site for the relationship exchanges.Table1details the quence of12interactions making up the staged relationship development process.Al-though not explicitly operationalized as such,the inte
rac-tions were designed with general relationship development goals in mind.Some provided knowledge toward incread intimacy,for example,whereas others encouraged deepened affect toward the brand or more habitual behavioral interactions.
Three augmentations to basic study procedures merit highlighting.First,on interactions4,9,and11(days22, 47,and54,respectively),participants not only visited the Web site for new content but also were asked to complete questionnaires including partner quality and relationship strength measures,as well as other brand diagnostics. The are referred to as time1,time2,and time3data throughout the article.Second,after interaction6,partic-ipants were asked to mail their disposable cameras(which were earlier provided as a gift)to Captura via prepaid FedEx.Cameras were procesd and digitized at a local studio.Each participant’s photos were then organized into cured,personalized,online“NetAlbums”designed in a style consistent with the personality condition(efig.2), which participants were invited to view in a subquent interaction.Third,the transgression manipulation occurred on day45at interaction8;the apology and recovery oc-curred on day48at interaction10.
