Search results

This study aims to investigate the interplay between brand and consumer personalities in shaping brand hate and its consequences. More specifically, it investigates the relationship between fallacious character of the brand, brand betrayal feelings and brand hate, and identifies two response routes leading to consumer avoidance and revenge. Furthermore, the study explores the moderating impact of narcissism on the relationships between brand hate and its outcomes.

Data are collected from an online survey of a French representative consumer panel where participants were asked to cite a particular brand they hate, and then assess the different constructs tested in the model. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used for data analysis.

The study sheds light on the possible mediators and moderators of brand hate. Particularly, brand betrayal is hypothesized as a mediator between fallacious character of the brand and brand hate. Moreover, the study assesses the impact of narcissism on the relationship between brand hate and desire for avoidance and revenge. Findings show that active brand hate leads to a desire for revenge, whereas passive brand hate positively influences desire for avoidance. Finally, the current research suggests that consumer narcissism fuels desire for revenge on the brand.

To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to integrate brand personality (the fallacious character of the brand) and consumer personality (narcissism). The study describes the mechanism through which brand transgressions activate two response routes to brand hate associated with the desires for revenge and avoidance.

There is a rise in interest on the topic of consumer-brand relationships (CBRs) among practitioners and academics. Consumers are said to build relationships with brands that have a personality congruent with their own. The purpose of this paper is to investigate two types of brand personality traits, namely, responsible brands and active brands to predict prominent CBR constructs, including brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty.

This study was based on an electronic survey of 339 respondents. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data.

The results show that brand personality positively affects the three CBR constructs. Specifically, the focus is shifted to the two major personality dimensions, responsible and active, respectively. The results indicate that an active brand is a stronger predictor of brand awareness compared to a responsible brand. However, a responsible brand is a stronger predictor of brand trust as well as brand loyalty compared to an active brand. Surprisingly, the results display that active brands lower brand trust and brand loyalty.

This finding informs brand managers that projecting active brand personality leads to higher awareness. However, projecting more responsible brand leads to greater trust and loyalty. The study highlights that having one personality may not be sufficient to develop an enduring CBR, but a brand personality must “evolve” and progress as the relationship develops over time. Such dynamic brand personality may provide a more long-lasting brand strategy and a greater source of competitive advantage.

The present study contributes to the marketing literature in three different ways. First, this study adds to the body of knowledge on the relationship between brand personality and CBR constructs using the new measure of BPS. Second, this study assesses the individual level of the new BPS, particularly responsibility and activity, on the three CBR constructs, and in doing so, the study responds to previous studies’ calls to assess the individual capacity of the brand personality dimensions to get consumer preference or loyalty. Third, the study displays which ones of the two dimensions in the new BPS (i.e. responsible and active) may be better predictors to the three CBR constructs.

Considers one of the most contentious criticisms of marketers, namely that they develop frivolous products. Discusses the definitional issues involved in assessing the degree of frivolity which might be associated with a given product, and suggests how marketing research might be involved with the creation of this association.

This article is the first of two which examine the difficulties experienced by the unqualified researcher or student who may be called upon to act as consultant in conventional or action‐research project work. The first article addresses the problems of entry; the second looks at the production of a credible and acceptable report. The thesis of both papers is that conceptual frameworks currently offered as an aid to understanding the consultancy process have concentrated on psychological and processual aspects of consultancy at the expense of the cultural. A social anthropological perspective, it is argued, can offer richer interpretations in areas where current theory is infertile. This first article addresses some of the problems of the student consultant in gaining entry and establishing a contractual basis for his activities. It begins with an examination of the cultural clashes between social scientists and managers, using current published research as examples, emphasising the effect of each on the other and the potential risk or threat involved for each. The consequences of attempts to control this work in an imbalanced situation are raised by the examination of a part of a consultancy project completed by the author, presented as a case example. The subsequent discussion of the case uses the concept of the consultant as sorcerer, allied to the dimension of apprenticeship, to analyse the case as a form of initiation rite. The conclusions drawn suggest that the content of consultancy, and even the dimensions of individual processes, may well be subordinate to the importance of “public opinion” in sustaining it as an activity. The second article will further examine this suggestion through the case example of the production of a consultancy report.