While I was reading the materials, I had a chance to understand various factors attributing to brand power.
So here's the question.
If consumers feel strongly attached to their love brands insomuch that they even resist to negative brand information, then what possible elements can discredit brand relationship that has once been set up?
From reading materials, I see several factors that can weaken brand relationships, but my question above is about risk factors that might compromise brand relationship which has already been established.
I'm interested in Jan Slater's study on coca-cola brand collectors, and personally I'm really into coca-cola and those collections mentioned in that essay.
Here's my question.
I wander if it is possible that there is a portion among those collectors that don't really drink coca-cola regularly but just collect those bottles and ancillary product. If this is necessarily the case, can we still define those people as brand-loyal consumers? I mean a necessary feature of brand loyalty is "purchasing a certain brand repeatedly", isn't it?
Also, how to tell whether a collector really loves that brand but not just to collect and to trade for profit? Cause I found that collecting bottles could be a good investment project.
Here's a simple question... How come Pepsi does not have the same type of brand following as Coke does? Maybe they do and we didn't read about it, or maybe they don't and thus I'm wondering why not?
I think the article about Hallmark & Coca Cola collectors is really interesting. It doesn't compare the two in terms of effectiveness, but I think we can speculate which is the most successful.
On the one hand, the Hallmark collectors' club is run by the company itself, and people associated with the club can purchase special items, some off of a specially designed catalog.
On the other hand, the Coca Cola club is run by fans themselves; the company has little involvement, and doesn't even inventory what could become a collector's item. Therefore, fans do the searching ("hunting") and inventorying themselves and become authorities in brand history/knowledge.
Given these details, which brand do you think is most effective in engaging consumers?
I know target audiences differ, obviously, but to me Coke is by far the best. Coke allows maximum brand interaction and a co-creation of its history, which is something so engaging and fun it's likely to attract in the long-run.
Here's my question: According to Watzlawick's theory, it is not what you say that builds relationships, but how you say it. Or to say that it is not the rational message that builds brand relationships, but the emotional creativity. However, in real relationships, people often start to be engaged in one relationship because of emotion, which can only last for a while. Later most people tend to rethink about the relationship using rationality, and may have some deep thoughts. Thus my question is, is it the same for brand relationship, that emotion only helps to build up brand love but it is rationality that helps maintain it? How do emotion and rationality work in long term basis?
Many articles about brand suggest that using emotional contents and providing affective brand experience can be more effective to build stronger brand relationships and brand loyalty. However, in my opinion, I think the message and brand experience can be differently applied by situation or consumers’ involvement. For example, in case of high-involvement product, referring to Elaboration Likelihood Model, providing emotional message would be unpersuasive for consumers not only to build brand attachment but also to lead them to purchase the products. If the articles about brand are reasonable, does an old model, ELM should be modified?
In Collecting Brand Loyalty, Prof. Slater suggests that under the circumstances of consumer infidelity, enterprises started to broaden their brands and products into several different collectible merchandise and this will heightens brand loyalty while extends the brand message exposure.
However, I was wondering whether there is any possibility that such extending brands may suffer from losing consumer loyalty because some of them may feel that those extended products are not on the same level of or as good as the companies’ origin product. Furthermore, those “not so excellent” extended products might even cause adverse effect towards their major products and even the entire brands. Take Calvin Klein for example, its underwear and perfume are perfect choice for me, because they are CK’s knock-out product. But when I saw CK started to manufacture and sale bowls and vases, I definitely wouldn’t buy them because they are not professional in these merchandises, at least not as professional as its underwear. So where is the fine line between the collectible merchandise extending and maintaining their core product’s unbeatable reputation?
In the article about brand relationship and emotion, the authors found that if advertising wants to build strong brand relationships, it needs to be emotionally creative content that audience can relate to and connect with.
Does it mean that when creating ads we could ignore the important sales points such as product features and promotions? From my personal experience, incorporating too much this kind of information probably would ruin the “tone” of the ad. However, if the ad emphasizes too much about emotion, if consumers are too immersed into the emotional aspect of the ad, will the key info be forgotten and thus affect effectiveness of the ad?
Another question: I’m wondering if emotion works better for strengthening brand relationships for established brands than for start-up brands. For established brands, just a logo or a slogan would make people recognize and remember the brand, but the case is different for start-up brands: they need to let people know what they are manufacturing first, i.e. the factual content, and then appeal to customers with emotional content. Otherwise it’s highly possible that people are impressed with the ads but don’t know what they’re advertising for.
I find Belk's work extremely interesting, but I think it may be closer to reality to say that people do not extend their Selves to all their properties, but only some of them that people think could represent their origins, tastes or uniqueness. Some people (like me) buy something very cheap (like a clearance) but they don't actually like it that much. In this case people won't extend their Selves to such items.
In Collecting Brand Loyalty, what the passage mentions is about how important the collecting behavior is. Coca-Cola and Hallmark are examples to support this idea. Here is my question: With time going on, it's hard to say whether the amount of crazy fans such as the collectors who collect every single item or information that related to Coca-Cola. I wonder that how does Coca-Cola company change more people into their enthusiastic collectors like those mentioned in the passage? It is easy to let current customers buy their new products such as promoting side-line range of products, but I think it is not easy to make them fall in love with their brand forever.
It’s easy to accept the idea that “Extending the brand, using the brand name on new products to enter new product categories is a key ingredient in maximizing the value of the brand in terms of profit, as well as brand loyalty.” And a number of companies are really doing this, i.e. Pepsi’s spectacles frame (actually I have a pair of Pepsi’s glasses for my own). However, if a brand has entered a new product category intendedly, would it cause a sense of unprofessional in manufacturing the new category products? For example, a McDonald's sweater?
Of course, there will never be an issue of “professions” about the collectible. But after all, from my perspective, the discussion upon collectible is more or less unique--- you have to admit that the collectors are inherent collectors. They subconsciously have this urge until they realized and began to act.
In "The Effect of Brand Experience on Brand Relationship Quality" Lee and Soo explain the factors that contribute to brand relationship quality and list brand experience, brand trust, and brand commitment. My question is can the brand experience of the consumer with other competing brands positively or negatively affect the brand relationship quality with brand being observed?
For example: Can a consumer's brand experience with Pepsi either positively or negatively affect the brand relationship quality of Coca-Cola and the consumer?
My question regarding these readings is to what extent does Brand Love hold true?
For example, when Coca-Cola replaced one of their products it was largely rejected even though the test groups claimed it was a 'winner'. When this happens i wonder: why didn't the brand loyalists support Coca-Cola? Are they more loyal to the taste of the product rather than the identity of the product?
I am so interested in the article: Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. I think it is so enlightening. According to the “Brand as Relationship Partner” theory presented in the article, one way to legitimize the brand-as-partner is to highlight ways in which brands are animated, humanized, or somehow personalized. Theory of animism provide insight into the specific ways in which the vitality of the brand can be realized in the relationship. Which human characters are most important to the brand animation? How planners know which characters contribute most to the brand building? How to choose the most suitable animistic characters? Different brands have different target consumers. Different target consumers have different personal needs. Those needs and characters are not so stable, changing during different periods. Does it mean that a brand’s animistic characters are supposed to be changed with the variation of consumers’ needs? As we know, the stability and consistency of a brand guarantee its uniqueness and reputation. How to balance a brand’s stability and its variation of human qualities?
Belk's article that addresses possessions and sense of self resonated with me. I know a lot of people who are defined by the things that they own. What this article reminded me most of is when someone loses or forgets their cell phone. In today's world people need to be connected at all times and when they aren't they feel completely lost.
My question is, is brand something that makes people attached to an item or do they connect with something because of its function instead? Does it matter if you lose your cell phone more if it's an iPhone or does it effect people who own a phone that is made by Nokia the same? If the function is important does brand matter?
After reading these articles, I have an initial understanding of the "relationship" between brands and consumers.
One of my question is that how to define a brand relationship has been built if not by the buying behavior? I have several concerns, for example, some ads aim at building or strengthening the brand image, those ads may not increase sales, and may not has an impact in the short term, clearly we can do consumer researches, but what standard should we use when interpreting datas from these researches?
Also, I want to know how researchers and scholars eliminate or utilize consumers' implicit attitude during the consumer researching process.
Article:my brand or our brand:the effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-contrual on brand evaluation. according to the article ,self-construal moderate self-concept connection and the brand country of origin connection.but when consumer face negative information about brand,are there no other factors influennce consumers'brand attitudes? like their group's(friends) attitude,and the typle of negative information about typical brand?For example if the negative information relate to some bad effects on consumers health,like poise or something,will the self-construal occupy the salient place which can determine consumers' brand attitude? also ,I am little confused ,how to define the independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal,people live in the society which make them associated with so many people,how to find standard factors to define these two concepts? when consumer evaluate a brand , self connection is not the only important factor.i just think the views of others(ex.want to get envy from others or something)are also important?Can they just ignore such influenced factors?
From the article Collecting the Real Thing, it’s really interesting to know that large amount of people collect Coca-cola signs, print advertisements, trays and bookmarks etc. But I have two question.
Firstly, as the author mention in article, Allen collect those items as an investment, he buys and sells Coca-cola collectibles as his full-time job. I think it’s hard to define his brand loyalty for Coca-cola. And can “collectors” like him be defined as the real fans?
Also, there is no doubt about it-Coca-Cola collectors love Coca-Cola and drink only Coca-Cola or Diet Coke. There may be an interpersonal communication, I mean those collectors may bring other consumers consumption desire. But actually, consumption action can be driven by many other elements. So what I concern about is whether those collectors can help to promote products.
In Belk's article about possessions and the extended self, it indicated that the most powerful fact of consumer behavor is we are what we have. I am quite interested in this topic and I would like to know how often people concerns about the idea "we are what we have" when they purchase. Does it happens consciously or unconsciously? And does this influence you a lot while buying things? Let's share our own experience.
Which has more impact on consumers in your region, self-concept connection or brand country-of-origin connection, and why? Do you think the consumer-brand relationship in your culture will change in a certain period of time? If yes, what factors may result in this change?
When the relationship between brand and consumer, particularly the brand loyalty, is destroyed or diminished by some incidents, how and can it be rebuilt? Since, as the first article indicates that brand loyalty is a kind of extended-self and the loose of which is difficult to restore.
I have a question about the collectible brand. In Dr. Slater's paper, she mentioned that one of the similarity of those collectible brands is being the leader of its product category.
I am wondering is this the premise of a company to seek upgrade as a collectible brand? What if, in a reverse case, a non-product-leader company launch/market collectibles to win more market share so as to put itself to be the leader of its product category?
Regarding Dr. Slater paper about Coca-Cola Brand Collectors, my first comment would be to trace a parallel with our Qualitative class – qualitative methods have been proven to be extremely rich and efficient in capturing consumers’ voice and deep thinking (which the quantitative method is very limited). This is one more paper that shows us how much we can understand about consumers through qualitative research.
We also know that qualitative research can be and should be used with quantitative methods, so my question - I wonder if there have been studies that tried to identify common motivators and psychological characteristics among these collectors? Having a clear understanding about what leads most people to collect could help us to stimulate these situations and thus, enhance strategies to build brand relations. Identifying the psychological traits could also help in a more accurate market segmentation.
When I was reading "the effect of brand experience on brand relationship quality", I thought about the importance of behavioral brand experience and brand trust in marketing campaign. As Dr. Slater said today, behavioral brand experience does not necessarily mean brand preference,but I think what actually contributes to the revenue of a company is the purchase behavior. For example, I do have affective brand experience and brand trust to Prosche. I LOVE that brand. But I don't have enough money to buy a Porsche car,at least now. I don't make any contribution to the company. However, I think I did contribute a lot to Subway, only because I can find Subway everywhere on campus. Actually, I don't like its sandwich, but I chose it just because it is cheap and convenient. So When a company launch marketing campaign, what goal should it be? How do companies like Porsche treat consumers who don't have the purchase ability like me?
While I was reading the materials, I had a chance to understand various factors attributing to brand power.
ReplyDeleteSo here's the question.
If consumers feel strongly attached to their love brands insomuch that they even resist to negative brand information, then what possible elements can discredit brand relationship that has once been set up?
From reading materials, I see several factors that can weaken brand relationships, but my question above is about risk factors that might compromise brand relationship which has already been established.
I'm interested in Jan Slater's study on coca-cola brand collectors, and personally I'm really into coca-cola and those collections mentioned in that essay.
ReplyDeleteHere's my question.
I wander if it is possible that there is a portion among those collectors that don't really drink coca-cola regularly but just collect those bottles and ancillary product. If this is necessarily the case, can we still define those people as brand-loyal consumers? I mean a necessary feature of brand loyalty is "purchasing a certain brand repeatedly", isn't it?
Also, how to tell whether a collector really loves that brand but not just to collect and to trade for profit? Cause I found that collecting bottles could be a good investment project.
Thanks.
Here's a simple question... How come Pepsi does not have the same type of brand following as Coke does? Maybe they do and we didn't read about it, or maybe they don't and thus I'm wondering why not?
ReplyDeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteI think the article about Hallmark & Coca Cola collectors is really interesting. It doesn't compare the two in terms of effectiveness, but I think we can speculate which is the most successful.
On the one hand, the Hallmark collectors' club is run by the company itself, and people associated with the club can purchase special items, some off of a specially designed catalog.
On the other hand, the Coca Cola club is run by fans themselves; the company has little involvement, and doesn't even inventory what could become a collector's item. Therefore, fans do the searching ("hunting") and inventorying themselves and become authorities in brand history/knowledge.
Given these details, which brand do you think is most effective in engaging consumers?
I know target audiences differ, obviously, but to me Coke is by far the best. Coke allows maximum brand interaction and a co-creation of its history, which is something so engaging and fun it's likely to attract in the long-run.
Thoughts?
Here's my question:
ReplyDeleteAccording to Watzlawick's theory, it is not what you say that builds relationships, but how you say it. Or to say that it is not the rational message that builds brand relationships, but the emotional creativity.
However, in real relationships, people often start to be engaged in one relationship because of emotion, which can only last for a while. Later most people tend to rethink about the relationship using rationality, and may have some deep thoughts.
Thus my question is, is it the same for brand relationship, that emotion only helps to build up brand love but it is rationality that helps maintain it? How do emotion and rationality work in long term basis?
Many articles about brand suggest that using emotional contents and providing affective brand experience can be more effective to build stronger brand relationships and brand loyalty. However, in my opinion, I think the message and brand experience can be differently applied by situation or consumers’ involvement. For example, in case of high-involvement product, referring to Elaboration Likelihood Model, providing emotional message would be unpersuasive for consumers not only to build brand attachment but also to lead them to purchase the products. If the articles about brand are reasonable, does an old model, ELM should be modified?
ReplyDeleteIn Collecting Brand Loyalty, Prof. Slater suggests that under the circumstances of consumer infidelity, enterprises started to broaden their brands and products into several different collectible merchandise and this will heightens brand loyalty while extends the brand message exposure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I was wondering whether there is any possibility that such extending brands may suffer from losing consumer loyalty because some of them may feel that those extended products are not on the same level of or as good as the companies’ origin product. Furthermore, those “not so excellent” extended products might even cause adverse effect towards their major products and even the entire brands. Take Calvin Klein for example, its underwear and perfume are perfect choice for me, because they are CK’s knock-out product. But when I saw CK started to manufacture and sale bowls and vases, I definitely wouldn’t buy them because they are not professional in these merchandises, at least not as professional as its underwear. So where is the fine line between the collectible merchandise extending and maintaining their core product’s unbeatable reputation?
Thanks.
In the article about brand relationship and emotion, the authors found that if advertising wants to build strong brand relationships, it needs to be emotionally creative content that audience can relate to and connect with.
ReplyDeleteDoes it mean that when creating ads we could ignore the important sales points such as product features and promotions? From my personal experience, incorporating too much this kind of information probably would ruin the “tone” of the ad. However, if the ad emphasizes too much about emotion, if consumers are too immersed into the emotional aspect of the ad, will the key info be forgotten and thus affect effectiveness of the ad?
Another question: I’m wondering if emotion works better for strengthening brand relationships for established brands than for start-up brands. For established brands, just a logo or a slogan would make people recognize and remember the brand, but the case is different for start-up brands: they need to let people know what they are manufacturing first, i.e. the factual content, and then appeal to customers with emotional content. Otherwise it’s highly possible that people are impressed with the ads but don’t know what they’re advertising for.
I find Belk's work extremely interesting, but I think it may be closer to reality to say that people do not extend their Selves to all their properties, but only some of them that people think could represent their origins, tastes or uniqueness. Some people (like me) buy something very cheap (like a clearance) but they don't actually like it that much. In this case people won't extend their Selves to such items.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Collecting Brand Loyalty, what the passage mentions is about how important the collecting behavior is. Coca-Cola and Hallmark are examples to support this idea.
ReplyDeleteHere is my question:
With time going on, it's hard to say whether the amount of crazy fans such as the collectors who collect every single item or information that related to Coca-Cola. I wonder that how does Coca-Cola company change more people into their enthusiastic collectors like those mentioned in the passage? It is easy to let current customers buy their new products such as promoting side-line range of products, but I think it is not easy to make them fall in love with their brand forever.
It’s easy to accept the idea that “Extending the brand, using the brand name on new products to enter new product categories is a key ingredient in maximizing the value of the brand in terms of profit, as well as brand loyalty.” And a number of companies are really doing this, i.e. Pepsi’s spectacles frame (actually I have a pair of Pepsi’s glasses for my own). However, if a brand has entered a new product category intendedly, would it cause a sense of unprofessional in manufacturing the new category products? For example, a McDonald's sweater?
ReplyDeleteOf course, there will never be an issue of “professions” about the collectible. But after all, from my perspective, the discussion upon collectible is more or less unique--- you have to admit that the collectors are inherent collectors. They subconsciously have this urge until they realized and began to act.
In "The Effect of Brand Experience on Brand Relationship Quality" Lee and Soo explain the factors that contribute to brand relationship quality and list brand experience, brand trust, and brand commitment. My question is can the brand experience of the consumer with other competing brands positively or negatively affect the brand relationship quality with brand being observed?
ReplyDeleteFor example: Can a consumer's brand experience with Pepsi either positively or negatively affect the brand relationship quality of Coca-Cola and the consumer?
My question regarding these readings is to what extent does Brand Love hold true?
ReplyDeleteFor example, when Coca-Cola replaced one of their products it was largely rejected even though the test groups claimed it was a 'winner'. When this happens i wonder: why didn't the brand loyalists support Coca-Cola? Are they more loyal to the taste of the product rather than the identity of the product?
I am so interested in the article: Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. I think it is so enlightening.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the “Brand as Relationship Partner” theory presented in the article, one way to legitimize the brand-as-partner is to highlight ways in which brands are animated, humanized, or somehow personalized. Theory of animism provide insight into the specific ways in which the vitality of the brand can be realized in the relationship.
Which human characters are most important to the brand animation? How planners know which characters contribute most to the brand building? How to choose the most suitable animistic characters? Different brands have different target consumers. Different target consumers have different personal needs. Those needs and characters are not so stable, changing during different periods. Does it mean that a brand’s animistic characters are supposed to be changed with the variation of consumers’ needs? As we know, the stability and consistency of a brand guarantee its uniqueness and reputation. How to balance a brand’s stability and its variation of human qualities?
Belk's article that addresses possessions and sense of self resonated with me. I know a lot of people who are defined by the things that they own. What this article reminded me most of is when someone loses or forgets their cell phone. In today's world people need to be connected at all times and when they aren't they feel completely lost.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, is brand something that makes people attached to an item or do they connect with something because of its function instead? Does it matter if you lose your cell phone more if it's an iPhone or does it effect people who own a phone that is made by Nokia the same? If the function is important does brand matter?
After reading these articles, I have an initial understanding of the "relationship" between brands and consumers.
ReplyDeleteOne of my question is that how to define a brand relationship has been built if not by the buying behavior? I have several concerns, for example, some ads aim at building or strengthening the brand image, those ads may not increase sales, and may not has an impact in the short term, clearly we can do consumer researches, but what standard should we use when interpreting datas from these researches?
Also, I want to know how researchers and scholars eliminate or utilize consumers' implicit attitude during the consumer researching process.
Article:my brand or our brand:the effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-contrual on brand evaluation.
ReplyDeleteaccording to the article ,self-construal moderate self-concept connection and the brand country of origin connection.but when consumer face negative information about brand,are there no other factors influennce consumers'brand attitudes? like their group's(friends) attitude,and the typle of negative information about typical brand?For example if the negative information relate to some bad effects on consumers health,like poise or something,will the self-construal occupy the salient place which can determine consumers' brand attitude?
also ,I am little confused ,how to define the independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal,people live in the society which make them associated with so many people,how to find standard factors to define these two concepts?
when consumer evaluate a brand , self connection is not the only important factor.i just think the views of others(ex.want to get envy from others or something)are also important?Can they just ignore such influenced factors?
From the article Collecting the Real Thing, it’s really interesting to know that large amount of people collect Coca-cola signs, print advertisements, trays and bookmarks etc. But I have two question.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, as the author mention in article, Allen collect those items as an investment, he buys and sells Coca-cola collectibles as his full-time job. I think it’s hard to define his brand loyalty for Coca-cola. And can “collectors” like him be defined as the real fans?
Also, there is no doubt about it-Coca-Cola collectors love Coca-Cola and drink only Coca-Cola or Diet Coke. There may be an interpersonal communication, I mean those collectors may bring other consumers consumption desire. But actually, consumption action can be driven by many other elements. So what I concern about is whether those collectors can help to promote products.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Belk's article about possessions and the extended self, it indicated that the most powerful fact of consumer behavor is we are what we have. I am quite interested in this topic and I would like to know how often people concerns about the idea "we are what we have" when they purchase. Does it happens consciously or unconsciously? And does this influence you a lot while buying things? Let's share our own experience.
ReplyDeleteQuestion from Wendy:
ReplyDeleteWhich has more impact on consumers in your region, self-concept connection or brand country-of-origin connection, and why? Do you think the consumer-brand relationship in your culture will change in a certain period of time? If yes, what factors may result in this change?
my question is:
ReplyDeleteWhen the relationship between brand and consumer, particularly the brand loyalty, is destroyed or diminished by some incidents, how and can it be rebuilt? Since, as the first article indicates that brand loyalty is a kind of extended-self and the loose of which is difficult to restore.
I read the Belk paper: Possessions and Extended Self:
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting to think of our products as an extension of our selves; I have never thought in this frame of mind.
Does anyone realize how many of our low-involvement products are an extension of ourselves?
I have a question about the collectible brand. In Dr. Slater's paper, she mentioned that one of the similarity of those collectible brands is being the leader of its product category.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering is this the premise of a company to seek upgrade as a collectible brand? What if, in a reverse case, a non-product-leader company launch/market collectibles to win more market share so as to put itself to be the leader of its product category?
Regarding Dr. Slater paper about Coca-Cola Brand Collectors, my first comment would be to trace a parallel with our Qualitative class – qualitative methods have been proven to be extremely rich and efficient in capturing consumers’ voice and deep thinking (which the quantitative method is very limited). This is one more paper that shows us how much we can understand about consumers through qualitative research.
ReplyDeleteWe also know that qualitative research can be and should be used with quantitative methods, so my question - I wonder if there have been studies that tried to identify common motivators and psychological characteristics among these collectors? Having a clear understanding about what leads most people to collect could help us to stimulate these situations and thus, enhance strategies to build brand relations. Identifying the psychological traits could also help in a more accurate market segmentation.
When I was reading "the effect of brand experience on brand relationship quality", I thought about the importance of behavioral brand experience and brand trust in marketing campaign. As Dr. Slater said today, behavioral brand experience does not necessarily mean brand preference,but I think what actually contributes to the revenue of a company is the purchase behavior. For example, I do have affective brand experience and brand trust to Prosche. I LOVE that brand. But I don't have enough money to buy a Porsche car,at least now. I don't make any contribution to the company. However, I think I did contribute a lot to Subway, only because I can find Subway everywhere on campus. Actually, I don't like its sandwich, but I chose it just because it is cheap and convenient. So When a company launch marketing campaign, what goal should it be? How do companies like Porsche treat consumers who don't have the purchase ability like me?
ReplyDeleteThanks!