Not all brand-consumer relationships are created equal: study

Jul 10, 2012

Not all brand–consumer relationships are created equal.

Marketers who realize this will be in a better position to retain customers and improve the perceptions of consumers who are unhappy with a 's service or product, says a new paper from the University of Toronto.

Consumers form connections with brands in ways that mirror social relationships. How consumers evaluate a brand depends heavily on whether the brand adheres to—or violates—the implicit agreement.

Pankaj Aggarwal, a marketing professor at the Rotman School of Management and the University of Toronto Scarborough, and Richard P. Larrick of Duke University, recently tested brand evaluation after an unfair transaction. The results depended heavily on whether the consumer was in an exchange relationship with the brand i.e., a relationship based primarily on economic factors and the balance of inputs and outcomes (as in real-world brands such as Wal-Mart that draw consumers with value and savings), or in a communal relationship based on caring, trust and partnership (State Farm, for example, sells itself as a "Good Neighbor.")

In the first study, Aggarwal and Larrick set up a situation of low distributive fairness such that the consumer didn't get what they paid for and wasn't remunerated for a mistake made by the brand. When customers were treated with respect and dignity (high interactional fairness), brand evaluations differed between those who were primed to be in communal versus exchange relationships.

The benefit of respectful treatment on improving brand evaluation was found only in communal relationships—it reassured consumers about the caring nature of their association with the brand. In this case, concern from the brand acted as a form of compensation in itself. This effect wasn't found in an exchange relationship, where, if the consumer didn't think that they got their proverbial money's worth, good treatment didn't move them to reconsider their negative evaluation of the brand.

But the plot thickens. In a second study, the researchers showed an interesting reversal of this pattern. Respectful treatment (interactional fairness) means more to those in an exchange relationship than those in a communal relationship when there has been a fair deal in terms of input and output (high distributional fairness). Since the brand has already met the expectations of those in an exchange relationship—the consumer got what they paid for—good and respectful treatment goes above and beyond. For those in communal relationships, who were already expecting to be treated positively, the same treatment doesn't have as much of an effect.

"In a nutshell, the type of relationship that consumers form with a brand influences what aspect of fairness they attend to and that in turn effects how they assess the brand when facing either fair or unfair outcomes," explains Aggarwal.

These findings are significant to businesses that are managing issues of perceived unfairness. "Adverse outcomes happen sometimes. People are treated badly or a product fails," says Aggarwal. "Marketers must understand the type of relationship that they have with the consumer so they can figure out how to make good that unfair outcome." The "right" response to correct a brand's transgression depends on the relationship being promoted. For example, a sincere apology letter may work in a communal relationship, whereas a refund or discount would be advisable in an exchange relationship.

The study, "When consumers care about being treated fairly: The interaction of relationship norms and fairness norms" will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

Explore further: Physicists create tool to foresee language destruction impact and thus prevent it

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A 'brand' new world: Attachment runs thicker than money

Nov 04, 2010

Can you forge an emotional bond with a brand so strong that, if forced to buy a competitor's product, you suffer separation anxiety? According to a new study from the USC Marshall School of Business, the answer is yes. In ...

Recommended for you

Affirmative action elicits bias in pro-equality Caucasians

Jul 25, 2014

New research from Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business indicates that bias towards the effects of affirmative action exists in not only people opposed to it, but also in those who strongly endorse equality.

Election surprises tend to erode trust in government

Jul 24, 2014

When asked who is going to win an election, people tend to predict their own candidate will come out on top. When that doesn't happen, according to a new study from the University of Georgia, these "surprised losers" often ...

Awarded a Pell Grant? Better double-check

Jul 23, 2014

(AP)—Potentially tens of thousands of students awarded a Pell Grant or other need-based federal aid for the coming school year could find it taken away because of a mistake in filling out the form.

User comments : 0