Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–353.
Introduction
This article provides a framework for better understanding the relationships consumers form with
the brands they know and use. The author argues that: (1) brands can and do serve as viable
relationship partners; (2) consumer-brand relationship are valid at the level of lived experience.
Loyalty: long-term, committed, and affect-laden partnership. Four core conditions for this study:
1. Relationships involve reciprocal exchange between active and interdependent relationship
partners. For a relationship to exist, interdependence between partners must be evident:
partners must collectively affect, define, and redefine the relationship. Brand as partner can
be seen as ways in which brands are animated, humanized or personalized. Consumers
assign personality qualities to brands. Due to: a person that someone associates with the
product; a character that belongs to the brand; the everyday execution of marketing mix
decisions constitutes a set of behaviors enacted on behalf of the brand. But the brand is just
a collection of perceptions held in the mind of the consumer, not of its own.
2. Relationships are purposive, involving at their core the provision of meanings to the persons
who engage them. Relationships add and structure meanings in a person’s life. Meaningful
relationships can change self-concept through mechanisms of self-worth and self-esteem.
Sources of meaning: psychological (life themes, life projects, current concerns), sociocultural
(age, life cycle, gender, family/social network, culture) and relational (individual).
3. Relationships are multiplex phenomena: they range across several dimensions and take many
forms, providing a range of possible benefits for their participants. Could be psychological
identity functions, stimulation/security/nurturance, obtainment of goals. And dimensions
could be kin/non-kin, formal/informal, equal/unequal/friendly/hostile.
4. Relationship are process phenomena: they evolve and change over a series of interactions
and in response to the fluctuations in the contextual environment. Temporality distinguishes
the relationship from the isolated transaction. Relationships are about exchanges, repeating
and fluctuations. Five-phased model: initiation, growth, maintenance, deterioration and
dissolution.
Methodology
Life-history case studies with three women:
• Jean, 59, barmaid, married, three children (grown-up).
• Karen, 39, working, divorced, two kids.
• Vicki, 23, graduate student.
12-15 hours of interview each, divided over four/five interviews. Gender: research suggests that
women exhibit more and stronger interpersonal relationships and brand involvements. To get two
types of information: (1) a first-person description of the informant’s bran usage history; (2)
contextual details concerning the informant’s life world. Participants were encouraged to tell the
whole story. There were 112 brand stories.
First reading of transcript and identification of recurrent behavioral and psychological tendencies.
Identity issues and brands stories were collected.
Second, across-person analysis, to discover patterns.
, First analysis: idiographic analysis
Jean: brand portfolio: a small number of close relationships. She will always try something which is
recommended by friends. Her most powerful brand attachments are connected to her core identity
of Italian woman and her homemaker role she takes seriously. She beliefs in tradition and heritage:
long existing brands. Her portfolio is composed of strong, committed partnerships that deliver
meanings squarely devoted to the resolution of her existential life themes. A sense of belonging and
stability.
→ Traditional
Karen: of the three women, Karen expresses the lowest levels of emotional attachment to brands in
general and the fewest total brand commitments overall. Most of her brand behaviour are
understood within the context of her day-to-day life. Since divorced, she looks for discounts, etc. She
more ‘avoid’ brands than ‘is loyal’ to others. And her loyalty are more habits. A few strong loyalties
to provide a needed sense of stability in rituals (like beauty products). Her relationships are
independent. She has a few strong relationships, that make her feel good about herself. She also
strongly states who she is not.
→ Transitional
Vicki: she was the most involved in brands in general and the most emotionally loyal to specific
brands in particular. She links brand to the concept of the self she is actively considering and
maintaining, she wants to tell different things with different products. She is the ‘marketers dream’.
She is not per se loyal to one brand, but to the process of loyalty itself. She is strongly motivated by
the powers of a brand image in a postmodern society. She is a kaleidoscope of images, gained from
brands.
→ Postmodern
Brand relationships are valid at the level of consumers’ lived experiences. People are involved in
relationships with a collectivity of brands so as to benefit from the meaning they add intro their lives.
Second analysis: cross-case analysis
Seven prominent dimensions were identified as emergent categories in a text-based analysis of the
data: voluntary vs. imposed / positive vs. negative / intense vs. superficial, enduring vs. short-term /
public vs. private / formal (task-related) vs. informal (personal) / symmetric vs. asymmetric.
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–353.
Introduction
This article provides a framework for better understanding the relationships consumers form with
the brands they know and use. The author argues that: (1) brands can and do serve as viable
relationship partners; (2) consumer-brand relationship are valid at the level of lived experience.
Loyalty: long-term, committed, and affect-laden partnership. Four core conditions for this study:
1. Relationships involve reciprocal exchange between active and interdependent relationship
partners. For a relationship to exist, interdependence between partners must be evident:
partners must collectively affect, define, and redefine the relationship. Brand as partner can
be seen as ways in which brands are animated, humanized or personalized. Consumers
assign personality qualities to brands. Due to: a person that someone associates with the
product; a character that belongs to the brand; the everyday execution of marketing mix
decisions constitutes a set of behaviors enacted on behalf of the brand. But the brand is just
a collection of perceptions held in the mind of the consumer, not of its own.
2. Relationships are purposive, involving at their core the provision of meanings to the persons
who engage them. Relationships add and structure meanings in a person’s life. Meaningful
relationships can change self-concept through mechanisms of self-worth and self-esteem.
Sources of meaning: psychological (life themes, life projects, current concerns), sociocultural
(age, life cycle, gender, family/social network, culture) and relational (individual).
3. Relationships are multiplex phenomena: they range across several dimensions and take many
forms, providing a range of possible benefits for their participants. Could be psychological
identity functions, stimulation/security/nurturance, obtainment of goals. And dimensions
could be kin/non-kin, formal/informal, equal/unequal/friendly/hostile.
4. Relationship are process phenomena: they evolve and change over a series of interactions
and in response to the fluctuations in the contextual environment. Temporality distinguishes
the relationship from the isolated transaction. Relationships are about exchanges, repeating
and fluctuations. Five-phased model: initiation, growth, maintenance, deterioration and
dissolution.
Methodology
Life-history case studies with three women:
• Jean, 59, barmaid, married, three children (grown-up).
• Karen, 39, working, divorced, two kids.
• Vicki, 23, graduate student.
12-15 hours of interview each, divided over four/five interviews. Gender: research suggests that
women exhibit more and stronger interpersonal relationships and brand involvements. To get two
types of information: (1) a first-person description of the informant’s bran usage history; (2)
contextual details concerning the informant’s life world. Participants were encouraged to tell the
whole story. There were 112 brand stories.
First reading of transcript and identification of recurrent behavioral and psychological tendencies.
Identity issues and brands stories were collected.
Second, across-person analysis, to discover patterns.
, First analysis: idiographic analysis
Jean: brand portfolio: a small number of close relationships. She will always try something which is
recommended by friends. Her most powerful brand attachments are connected to her core identity
of Italian woman and her homemaker role she takes seriously. She beliefs in tradition and heritage:
long existing brands. Her portfolio is composed of strong, committed partnerships that deliver
meanings squarely devoted to the resolution of her existential life themes. A sense of belonging and
stability.
→ Traditional
Karen: of the three women, Karen expresses the lowest levels of emotional attachment to brands in
general and the fewest total brand commitments overall. Most of her brand behaviour are
understood within the context of her day-to-day life. Since divorced, she looks for discounts, etc. She
more ‘avoid’ brands than ‘is loyal’ to others. And her loyalty are more habits. A few strong loyalties
to provide a needed sense of stability in rituals (like beauty products). Her relationships are
independent. She has a few strong relationships, that make her feel good about herself. She also
strongly states who she is not.
→ Transitional
Vicki: she was the most involved in brands in general and the most emotionally loyal to specific
brands in particular. She links brand to the concept of the self she is actively considering and
maintaining, she wants to tell different things with different products. She is the ‘marketers dream’.
She is not per se loyal to one brand, but to the process of loyalty itself. She is strongly motivated by
the powers of a brand image in a postmodern society. She is a kaleidoscope of images, gained from
brands.
→ Postmodern
Brand relationships are valid at the level of consumers’ lived experiences. People are involved in
relationships with a collectivity of brands so as to benefit from the meaning they add intro their lives.
Second analysis: cross-case analysis
Seven prominent dimensions were identified as emergent categories in a text-based analysis of the
data: voluntary vs. imposed / positive vs. negative / intense vs. superficial, enduring vs. short-term /
public vs. private / formal (task-related) vs. informal (personal) / symmetric vs. asymmetric.
